How Does ESPN’s Magic Baseball Ball Tracking Work?

That tracker was crap. Half time the calculations were obviously off, from the ball being hit "250 feet" when it's landing just a little farther into center filed than second base, and other times the ball landing over the wall at the 375 sign while ESPN calls it as 400 feet. Then the ball tracker is zig-zagging all over inaccurately. This was just so completely unnecessary and is on the same level as Fox's hockey puck tracker of years ago.

verecky

@rapt00r: i said the same thing man... atleast the glowpuck worked, and looked better

JarvmanBronx960

It's close enough, but if the wind was any faster it would be useless.

jakster4u

@junyo: Midway made an arcade game where you could do that virtually, but I forget the name of it.

This...looks eerily familiar.

@NurseDave: Or "Try putting that pine tar on your bat NOW George Brett!"

I thought they put a chip in the ball like what the NHL used to do for the all star games back in the late 90s. Glow Puck

@relawson: Blue Puck and you would hear crowds chant, "Blue puck sucks! Blue puck sucks!" And then hockey went on strike and no one cared enough to want it to return so it is forever lost to us...
At least I didn't care enough to see if they ever came back.

@siamgx:

(oh i @#$5ing hate the comment system! i can never post a damn thing easily!)

I was going to bring up the same thing, I think the puck may have had something inside of it, though.

It works off of suck power. It sucks so much it has the power to ruin the homerun derby. Thanks ESPN, not a first time for you to suck though is it?

PotteryBarnClearanceSale

It sucked Worst technology ever like someone drawing it... the glowpuck from hockey was better

JarvmanBronx960

@North Star: And the computing power and camera system they use for it are fricken amazing if you've ever checked out how they do it.

Nauthiz

@bosskev: So I'm guessing no girls are going to comment anymore? Thats why I'm here, for the ladies.

xredgambit

@North Star: Speaking of things generated by computers, I assume your comment was as well. That's the only explanation I can think of.

HonusWScruggs

@se7a7n7:

you my son win the make-a-monkey (this monkey)smile award today.

good day to you sir!

@junyo: I'll vote for that. Bunt THAT you big sissies!

NurseDave

The Home Run derby sucks, but at least it is still more entertaining than the Slam Dunk contest. I'm pretty sure a "bunt off" would be more exciting than any aspect of basketball.

While watching the Home Run Derby, I found myself wondering which was more annoying: the ESPN ball tracker or FOX's glowing hockey puck?

I watched the home run derby, and the tracking that occurred was HORRIBLE. The marker would be to the left or right constantly, or just plain stop following about half the distance it traveled. Ack.

@se7a7n7: The first down lines aren't painted. They are computer generated.

North Star

...or you could have a 1-2 minute tape delay and have 5 people drawing the line. Whoever got it the most accurate is aired.

redkamel

didn't they do that to hockey?

The only way I can see ESPN making baseball exciting is to digitally insert famished lions onto the turf.

paulnptld

This first time I saw this video, I was really hoping that the ball was actually leaving bright green trail that you could see if you were at the stadium...

When I watch Football on TV, I'm still amazed at how quickly they are able to paint the first down marker lines.

Let's just be clear here.

This is necessary to make the home run derby exciting.

Which is necessary to make all star weekend exciting.

This is similar to pointing out that setting a tennis ball on fire is necessary to make throwing it at the garage exciting which is necessary to make your wife's family reunion weekend exciting.

Baseball, overall, is perfectly fine as it is thank you very much. (To extend the metaphor: the part that just involves you and your wife the rest of the year, absent all those other people standing around with nothing of any import to do.)

@Metkis: Yes indeedy, sets of two would be the preferred configuration.

Baseball doesn't excite you? and I bet you like soccer where there has still yet to be a single thing exciting to happen in the history of the sport!! I kid.

But really, I watched this live and I thought it went horribly. Most of the time it looked like a shaky hand with parkinson's disease was drawing the line on a teleprompter. Couldn't they have just implanted some sort of chip into the balls and tracked them that way? It would have been spot on.

crsrc

This year's derby wasn't as fun as last year. Watching Josh Hamilton hit ball after ball was amazing.

North Star

@bosskev: Can it be plural?

@bosskev: Can it be plural?

What is with Jesus and his attraction to balls?

uRbAnlP

Would have been simpler (and cooler) to soak the balls in gasoline and use flaming bats. That might even make baseball worth watching.

junyo

Don't forget that they have to also calculate the position of the camera and the effect of the zoom to accurately overlay the image. That's a whole different process that is also technologically awesome.

neat

RandySurfingSince87

And yes, I hereby declare today Gizmodo's Official Ball Celebration Day.

@junyo: George Carlin had a great idea to speed up baseball. If the picher hits the batter with the pitch, the batter's out.

@North Star: *Facepalm*

@LumpyLouis: Exactly what I was thinking. I didn't really like it, but then again I never really had a problem following the puck. My friends, who never really "got" hockey thought it was cool.

that is shamelessly awesome

SonaliHamlegs

@junyo: i never liked baseball, but you sir, invented a new sport there. Lets call it Flameball

Uhm...How different is this from the "Glowing Puck" that FOX used to have a few years back during Stanley Cup playoffs? Isn't it the same tech? And if it isn't the exact same tech, isn't it the same principle? Not new, sorry guys...

Sprzout