Re: Roberts: OH mini update (p.183); Happy 200!! (p.200)

[OleMissCub]

I disagree. I think sliding is safer than running through the bag. I have never got injured from sliding into a bag, especially feet first. But I have gotten injured running through the bag quite a few times and have seen others as well because they land on the bag awkwardly with the side of their ankles, or they hit the side of the bag or step on the 1B foot. If you know how to slide you shouldnt get hurt.

 

....where to begin....

 

First, you see more people get hurt running through first because it is something that happens tons of times in a single game. Seeing someone sliding into first is something that occurs very rarely.

 

Second, sliding into first is very different from sliding into other bases. I don't know if this is going to make any sense, but when you are running to first, you are sprinting, and the decision to slide into first is done very quickly without forethought. There is also more room to slide with other bases.

 

Third, sliding into first is dangerous for the runner and for the fielder. When a play is about to occur at other bases, the fielders are prepared for the impact and their bodies are more loose. First basemen aren't expecting a player to slide into them and therefore their body is more locked up than other fielders.

[DeuceBaseman]

a half second is a hell of a difference and i'd imagine if this was true every big leaguer would be sliding into first...just my opinion though, i'm not a scientist.

 

Sorry i was off, I just looked back at the results. Running through was 4.425 secs, Sliding head first was 4.325 secs, and sliding feet first was 4.2 secs. So it was about .2-.3 secs faster from sliding feet to running.

 

I'm guessing you hand-timed this?

 

Yes, with a normal stop watch. There's def room for error. But I thought that sliding was faster before hand and I wasnt surprised with the results. I think the hand timing by me shouldnt be much of an error.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Yes, with a normal stop watch. There's def room for error. But I thought that sliding was faster before hand and I wasnt surprised with the results. I think the hand timing by me shouldnt be much of an error.

 

Maybe if you're measuring 1600 meter times, but when you're talking about fraction of second differences like sliding into first v. running through, your experiment doesn't have much value.

[DeuceBaseman]

Yes, with a normal stop watch. There's def room for error. But I thought that sliding was faster before hand and I wasnt surprised with the results. I think the hand timing by me shouldnt be much of an error.

 

Maybe if you're measuring 1600 meter times, but when you're talking about fraction of second differences like sliding into first v. running through, your experiment doesn't have much value.

 

I think it does when you have 50 total trials and only 2 times out of those 50 it came up in a different order than feet first, head first, run through. How could I consistently have timer errors where sliding is faster?

[Outshined_One]

Yes, with a normal stop watch. There's def room for error. But I thought that sliding was faster before hand and I wasnt surprised with the results. I think the hand timing by me shouldnt be much of an error.

 

If we were talking about times and deviations in terms of full seconds, I'd be inclined to agree with you on this matter.

 

However, when you start getting into fractions of a second, it's very difficult to get accurate readings across the spectrum. The deviations when you hand time someone comes from two sources: when you start the watch and when you stop the watch. You have to be able to start it at the exact moment the person starts running and stop it the moment they hit the bag. If you start the watch too soon or stop it too late, you could have an extraordinarily different results in terms of the fractions of a second.

 

It takes some people longer than a tenth of a second to blink, you know?

[David]

On the one hand, at least Deuce is showing he is capable of going against the grain with regard to conventional wisdom.

[OleMissCub]

Yes, with a normal stop watch. There's def room for error. But I thought that sliding was faster before hand and I wasnt surprised with the results. I think the hand timing by me shouldnt be much of an error.

 

Maybe if you're measuring 1600 meter times, but when you're talking about fraction of second differences like sliding into first v. running through, your experiment doesn't have much value.

 

I think it does when you have 50 total trials and only 2 times out of those 50 it came up in a different order than feet first, head first, run through. How could I consistently have timer errors where sliding is faster?

 

When did you do this trial and who did you convince to slide into first for you dozens of times?

[DeuceBaseman]

Yes, with a normal stop watch. There's def room for error. But I thought that sliding was faster before hand and I wasnt surprised with the results. I think the hand timing by me shouldnt be much of an error.

 

Maybe if you're measuring 1600 meter times, but when you're talking about fraction of second differences like sliding into first v. running through, your experiment doesn't have much value.

 

I think it does when you have 50 total trials and only 2 times out of those 50 it came up in a different order than feet first, head first, run through. How could I consistently have timer errors where sliding is faster?

 

When did you do this trial and who did you convince to slide into first for you dozens of times?

 

I did this last spring, and I had 10 people each run to first 15 times.

[OleMissCub]

I did this last spring, and I had 10 people each run to first 15 times.

 

And you required them all to slide into first? What was this for?

[imb]

I did this last spring, and I had 10 people each run to first 15 times.

 

And you required them all to slide into first? What was this for?

 

how hard is it to read the first post in the thread?

[TheGrinch]

Ok, the old Roberts thread got unlocked so I can end my boycott (even if it is effectively neutered now and that is very lame). I wish I never defended Deuce about the sliding into first being faster, because we are talking about different things. I will start out saying that I'm not talking about technically sliding into first base and stopping there. I am talking about diving and landing on first with your hand and sliding on past the bag. For a quick recap of the science of why this would be faster than running past it check out this link.

 

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_sliding_into_a_base_make_you_reach_base_faster

 

The concept of reaching out to touch something sooner shouldn't be a mystery to anyone, but some previous debaters pretended it was. I concede that not taking those last two steps as you dive will slow you down a little bit, but not significantly enough to make up for the fact that extending your arm will allow you to reach the bag sooner.

 

If anyone mentions the "why don't sprinters dive past the finish line if it's so fast" again, my head might explode (again). You are missing the point. First off, the rules for the end of a race say that the torso is what counts. Also, you don't have to touch an object on the ground, just pass by a line. If it weren't for those two rules, I'm positive you would see any sprint of significance ending with a slide, arms extended. Not coincidentally, you always see sprinters leaning/lunging their torsos forward to end every race, the sprinting equivalent to diving.

 

As for the practicality of it since the injury risk obviously increases, I wouldn't think diving will become an everyday occurrence even if it were proven a touch faster...but lets say its a one game playoff for the wildcard, tied game, two outs, 8th inning, man on third...would you dive if you knew it was faster? I think I would.

Edited February 20, 2008 by TheGrinch

[TheGrinch]

On the one hand, at least Deuce is showing he is capable of going against the grain with regard to conventional wisdom.

In the old thread I made a comment about how strange it was that he did that...and then got pounced on for it. Some things never change I guess.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

"Diving to the base" might be a touch faster, but like you said the odds of you not killing yourself make it not worth the hassle. Plus, there's the "deceiving" of the umpire when you do that which might negate the slight advantage anyway.

[Electron Blue]

a half second is a hell of a difference and i'd imagine if this was true every big leaguer would be sliding into first...just my opinion though, i'm not a scientist.

 

Sorry i was off, I just looked back at the results. Running through was 4.425 secs, Sliding head first was 4.325 secs, and sliding feet first was 4.2 secs. So it was about .2-.3 secs faster from sliding feet to running.

 

I'm guessing you hand-timed this?

 

Yes, with a normal stop watch. There's def room for error. But I thought that sliding was faster before hand and I wasnt surprised with the results. I think the hand timing by me shouldnt be much of an error.

 

So you had an opinion about the outcome before it happened and you were the one measuring the results. That's bad science. You may have had a control (good), but without objective measurement or some sort of "blind" test, your results are very skewed. And when the popular opinion is so well supported, the burden of proof is very heavy and entirely on you. I do appreciate the attempt to testing the strategy, though, I really do.

[TheGrinch]

"Diving to the base" might be a touch faster, but like you said the odds of you not killing yourself make it not worth the hassle. Plus, there's the "deceiving" of the umpire when you do that which might negate the slight advantage anyway.

Agreed 100% I wonder if the ump's perception of the event would hinder or enhance you chances of being called safe regardless of weather it is faster or not. I wouldn't take it for granted that it would hurt your chances. I like this response a lot better than "Science says this is impossible...F=ma" ...that actually happened.

[DeuceBaseman]

So you had an opinion about the outcome before it happened and you were the one measuring the results. That's bad science. You may have had a control (good), but without objective measurement or some sort of "blind" test, your results are very skewed. And when the popular opinion is so well supported, the burden of proof is very heavy and entirely on you. I do appreciate the attempt to testing the strategy, though, I really do.

 

It's called a hypothesis. Before each scientific experiment you should have a hypothesis on what you think the results will show. That is what I did, and my hypothesis was correct. It was not based on bias at all.

[seanimal]

nor was it based in science. There is nothing to draw from your data. Nothing.

[CoolHandLuke]

I am not saying you're wrong, but to my mind, the process of changing your body position in order to touch the base with your hand would not increase the the amount of time it takes to touch the base enough to counteract the loss of forward propulsion due to losing the ability to drive with your legs. You could be right, but I am not willing to go against my gut feeling (I know, very scientific, eh?) without either controlled experimentation or at least the physics of the situation broken down piece by piece (with diagrams!).

 

You can say that reaching out will obviously touch the bag quicker, but I am not going to believe that unless I have better reasoning that because you tell me so.

 

(also, what is the validity of the link you give? It doesn't strike me that it comes from someone who knows what they are talking about all that much)

[DeuceBaseman]

nor was it based in science. There is nothing to draw from your data. Nothing.

 

How is there nothing to draw from my data? It shows that it's faster to slide into first. Each person got to 1st faster by sliding, over numerous trials! And feet first was faster than head first. The reason I came up with this idea is cuz I was watching baseball games on tv and whenever they showed replays of guys running to first, you can see how big that last step always is. I thought to myself that if they just slid I think they would get there quicker. But I said "no way, i was told not to slide into 1st, and I'm sure that the ground will slow you down." Those I believe are true but I think that there are also cons to running through the bag. So I tested it, and I was right.

[Outshined_One]

Hypothetically speaking, if sliding would get you to the bag faster than running, at what point should you begin your slide?

 

With sprinters, you're just talking about getting a part of your body over an imaginary line. With 1B, you're talking about getting part of your body to touch a specific object on the ground that you must reach and with which you must make contact. I'd have to imagine there's some ideal point in the course of running that would be the time someone should slide instead of run, but if that point is a limited area, I'd imagine it would be hard for someone going into a dead sprint to know exactly when they should attempt a slide into the base.

 

Moreover, in the times I have seen guys slide into first base, umpires have not been forgiving. It could be as I mentioned before, where they lack a good spot from which to view the base and therefore cannot make a good call. On the other hand, sliding into first base is usually done in situations where there is a likely close play at the bag. I wouldn't be surprised if numerous umpires had a slight bias against people sliding into first under those circumstances and would be more likely to call someone out.

[Electron Blue]

So you had an opinion about the outcome before it happened and you were the one measuring the results. That's bad science. You may have had a control (good), but without objective measurement or some sort of "blind" test, your results are very skewed. And when the popular opinion is so well supported, the burden of proof is very heavy and entirely on you. I do appreciate the attempt to testing the strategy, though, I really do.

 

It's called a hypothesis. Before each scientific experiment you should have a hypothesis on what you think the results will show. That is what I did, and my hypothesis was correct. It was not based on bias at all.

 

"Experimenter's bias is the phenomenon in experimental science by which the outcome of an experiment tends to be biased towards a result expected by the human experimenter. The inability of a human being to remain completely objective is the ultimate source of this bias" (wiki link) - There's the term I was going for.

 

Sure, a hypothesis is what you say it is. But when you have the hypothesis and the means of measurement are subject to being affected by bias . . . you can't be the one measuring.

Edited February 20, 2008 by Electron Blue

[Mizzou]

Wait... is this seriously a topic? People think that sliding into first will get you there quicker than sprinting? What the?

 

It will. I'm assuming you disagree because your little league baseball coach told you to "never slide into 1st".

No, I'm disagreeing because it's absurd. How does sliding (which slows you down) get you somewhere faster than running at your fullest speed?

[DeuceBaseman]

Hypothetically speaking, if sliding would get you to the bag faster than running, at what point should you begin your slide?

 

With sprinters, you're just talking about getting a part of your body over an imaginary line. With 1B, you're talking about getting part of your body to touch a specific object on the ground that you must reach and with which you must make contact. I'd have to imagine there's some ideal point in the course of running that would be the time someone should slide instead of run, but if that point is a limited area, I'd imagine it would be hard for someone going into a dead sprint to know exactly when they should attempt a slide into the base.

 

Moreover, in the times I have seen guys slide into first base, umpires have not been forgiving. It could be as I mentioned before, where they lack a good spot from which to view the base and therefore cannot make a good call. On the other hand, sliding into first base is usually done in situations where there is a likely close play at the bag. I wouldn't be surprised if numerous umpires had a slight bias against people sliding into first under those circumstances and would be more likely to call someone out.

 

I agree with you. Umps are more likely to call a guy out sliding. In my baseball league this summer, I beat out an infield hit by sliding to first, and the ump said in a really surprised voice "safe?" He couldnt believe that I beat it out. Thats why im gonna give the ump a heads up that my players might slide into 1st so look for that.

[Electron Blue]

Wait... is this seriously a topic? People think that sliding into first will get you there quicker than sprinting? What the?

 

It will. I'm assuming you disagree because your little league baseball coach told you to "never slide into 1st".

No, I'm disagreeing because it's absurd. How does sliding (which slows you down) get you somewhere faster than running at your fullest speed?

 

Pretty much my opinion. Sliding is friction. Friction is reducing forward momentum. There are other factors, granted. But it's hard to get my head past this very basic truism.

[OleMissCub]

This argument is completely absurd.