Video wird geladen...
Video konnte nicht geladen werden
How should undersized pitchers approach training for velocity?🤔 We've coached hundreds of pitchers under 5'11" throwing 92+ mph, and we ran the numbers on what makes them different from their less vertically challenged counterparts. Mass? Momentum? Rotational velocities? Sequencing? Impulse? Ground force? A 45-minute deep dive that... show more
25,393 Aufrufe • vor 25 Tagen •via X (Twitter)
3 Kommentare
Ron Barnhartvor 25 Tagen
Going to make sure that my son watches this video after his season is over. He's 5'10" and has been up to 99.2 in-game and avg over 95 this summer at the Double-A level.
Shanefrommlvor 25 Tagen
Did you ever think it is just genetics / athletic ability. Guidry, Pedro, etc All three upper 90’s on Trackman .
Old School Cannonsvor 25 Tagen
Practice throwing the ball as hard as you can to a target. Make the choice to commit to throwing fastballs as hard as you can in games and be willing to live with the results.
![SVM by hand ✍️ ~ 19 steps walkthrough below (Linear vs RBF) Support Vector Machines reigned supreme in machine learning before the deep learning revolution. An SVM predicts with dot products, the same matrix multiplication every model uses. What it does not do is train by backpropagation: it is fitted by convex optimization, so there is no matrix-multiplication backward pass for a GPU to accelerate. I drew and calculated two SVMs by hand: a linear one (top) and an RBF one (bottom), classifying the same two test vectors. Goal: turn six training vectors and their learned coefficients into a prediction, and see what changing the kernel actually changes. = 1. Given = Six training vectors, their labels, and the coefficients and bias already learned. A coefficient of zero means that vector is not a support vector: too far from the boundary to matter. = 2. Linear kernel, test vector 1 = Let us take the dot product of the test vector with every training vector. The dot product stands in for cosine similarity, and the column of results is the first column of the kernel matrix K. = 3. Linear kernel, test vector 2 = We do the same for the second, and K is complete. = 4. Signed weights = Let us multiply each coefficient by its label. The second training vector drops out here, because its coefficient is 0. = 5. Weighted combination = We multiply the signed weights through K and add the bias b. The result is a signed distance to the decision boundary: 17 and 5. = 6. Classify = Let us take the sign. Both are positive. = 7 to 11. RBF kernel, test vector 1 = Now the same picture with a different kernel, in five moves: square the differences, sum them, take the square root for the L2 distance, multiply by minus gamma, and raise e to that power. The negation is what turns a distance into a similarity, and gamma controls how far a single training vector's influence reaches. = 12 to 16. RBF kernel, test vector 2 = We repeat all five. The numbers change, the moves do not. = 17 to 19. Decision boundary, again = Signed weights, weighted combination, sign. Identical arithmetic to steps 4 through 6, on a K that was built a completely different way. The outputs: Linear K, first column = [13, 25, 12, 15, 19, 27] Linear decision values = 17 and 5, both positive RBF decision values = -2 and 1, so negative and positive The takeaway: the kernel is the only thing that changed, and it changed the answer. The linear SVM calls both test vectors positive; the RBF one splits them. Everything after the kernel matrix, the signed weights and the weighted combination and the sign, is the same page of arithmetic twice. 💾 Save this post!](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2080658072842703031/ext_tw_video_thumb/2080658053083394048/pu/img/Lrl4Xyr6GSkbbbrN.jpg)
