4.6 Article

Machine Learning Approach for Pitch Type Classification Based on Pelvis and Trunk Kinematics Captured with Wearable Sensors

期刊

SENSORS
卷 23, 期 23, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/s23239373

关键词

baseball; pitching; wearables; classification; pitch types

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The integration of wearable devices and sports routines has transformed the traditional approach to athletes' training and performance monitoring. This study presents a machine learning approach based on wearable sensors to classify pitch types using pelvis and trunk kinematic data.
The large stream of data from wearable devices integrated with sports routines has changed the traditional approach to athletes' training and performance monitoring. However, one of the challenges of data-driven training is to provide actionable insights tailored to individual training optimization. In baseball, the pitching mechanics and pitch type play an essential role in pitchers' performance and injury risk management. The optimal manipulation of kinematic and temporal parameters within the kinetic chain can improve the pitcher's chances of success and discourage the batter's anticipation of a particular pitch type. Therefore, the aim of this study was to provide a machine learning approach to pitch type classification based on pelvis and trunk peak angular velocity and their separation time recorded using wearable sensors (PITCHPERFECT). The Naive Bayes algorithm showed the best performance in the binary classification task and so did Random Forest in the multiclass classification task. The accuracy of Fastball classification was 71%, whilst the accuracy of the classification of three different pitch types was 61.3%. The outcomes of this study demonstrated the potential for the utilization of wearables in baseball pitching. The automatic detection of pitch types based on pelvis and trunk kinematics may provide actionable insight into pitching performance during training for pitchers of various levels of play.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据