Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

Don't Play Out - Too Risky Constantly see them same rhetoric for teams that "Build from the Back" & use their GK + CBs to Progress the Ball: - Too Risky - Get it away - Put in the Oppositions Half then play Nobody ever pulls up how many...

44,740 просмотров • 11 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

OK, I have a definitive word on the CJ Abrams play from today's Pittsburgh Pirates at Washington Nationals game after talking with Elias Sports Bureau on this. This play will stay as a sacrifice fly. The originial ruling of NOT a sacrifice fly was for the exact same reason that I thought, which is that the infielder is not running into the outfield, which is year's past would have been correct As it was explained to me, in past years, an infielder had to be running almost in a straight line towards the outfield wall to be considered "running in the outfield". Here, since he is running, and he ends up further away from home (157 feet) than when he started (145 feet), this is going to count as a sacrifice fly. That definition is changing, in part from this play to help bring greater consistency, and to take some of the guesswork out of it (the argument that he is running into the outfield as opposed to more parallel). Now, folks all the time ask "why doesn't MLB publish the OS Manual" and I always say because it is a living document that can have the wording change, and the wording for this play will be modified to something like "more towards the outfield wall than towards home plate" to eliminate any confusion. The big key to this play is that he was running on a full sprint. Also, and this is helpful for me, but for all fly ball outs that score a run, Elias Saba reviews to ensure consistency. So, yes, it's a sacrifice fly, and now that I have that info from Elias themselves, that sort of settles this one. Sounds like the guidelines for this definition will be changing, either this season, or certainly for next season.

MLB Scoring Changes

49,141 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

⚾️ Why shouldn’t we use feet to measure intensity? Have you seen somebody throw 90 MPH from 90’? Have you seen somebody throw 65 MPH from 90’? Yes and Yes! Ok, Bad metric for our goals ⚾️ Why shouldn’t we use Perceived % intensity? We have all seen Little Johnny throw his 50% bullpen at 80 MPH. No, he does not Sit 160 MPH in games last we checked. Too subjective of a metric With all the technology and advancements in the game, there is no way we should be measuring build up throwing intensities with “Feet Thrown” or a “Subjective %” We need to be able to quantify the single most important component of a Rehab or Build Up throwing Progression: INTENSITY HERES WHY: ⚾️ For any throwing progression, the goal is to introduce a slightly higher stress to the arm, then let their body adapt to the new stress, making it their new baseline. Then, make another small increase in the stresses and repeating this process until they have returned to their normal Freqs, Intensities, and Volumes ⚾️ Too big of a Spike which could occur from both errors in being too aggressive or too conservative then having to ramp up to return to a game can be a cause a failed Return to Play Here’s a simple fix: Use A Radar Gun ✅ Instant Feedback for Athletes to stay in a Goal Velo Range ✅ Very digestible metric for Athletes to comprehend and understand ✅ Avoids the flaws at both ends of either overstressing or understressing the arm

Armored Heat

10,261 просмотров • 10 месяцев назад