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

[inari]

Well, there goes my thunder.

[wvcbxl]

Let the discussion begin!

 

Sorry for getting here late.

I'm going to respond to the first post before reading the rest of the thread.

 

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but that test you ran on ten random guys could at best be qualified as anecdotal background for the point you're trying to make.

To be considered as anywhere near serious, you need a bigger data set and preferably independent verification to exclude other possible vaiables.

 

Now i'm gonna read the rest of this.

[Derwood]

As NSBB's resident gay, I'm going to get all uppity about DeuceBaseman's homophobic slur.

 

::gets uppity::

 

Seriously though, it's time for a banishment to cubs.com.

 

I believe you are one of two at NSBB.

 

nice, Raisin. way to "out" Roast.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I keed, I keed

[Banedon]

Try running 100 meters. Then run 100 meters, but bend forward for even just a couple of steps during. I'll bet you get a slower time.

 

Sprinters lean forward all the time right at the finish line. Why do they do that if it doesn't help them hit the tape slightly sooner?

 

There are a couple of legitimate arguments against sliding into first IMO. (I haven't read the whole thread, so maybe this has already been covered.

 

1)Injury. I think it's far more likely to get hurt sliding into first than other bases as the ideal way to slide into first is actually to slide through first. Which leads me to...

 

2)Sliding through the bag. This is extremely tough to do without going outside the baseline. Just sliding into first by definition is going to slow you down, as you would have the goal of stopping on the bag, which is not necessary at first.

 

That said, if you're 6 feet tall, when you slide, that means that's 6 feet less that your feet have to travel en route to the bag. It's essentially shaving off distance.

 

I do believe that it's faster to slide in, but I'm not sure the negatives outweight the positives. I also wonder if sliding into first would be more beneficial to a slow guy than to a fast guy. A slow guy likely has an awkward stride anyway, and may be less "slowed down" is his preparation for the slide.

[Yanksfan1523]

That said, if you're 6 feet tall, when you slide, that means that's 6 feet less that your feet have to travel en route to the bag. It's essentially shaving off distance.

 

 

The base is 90 feet from home, no matter how tall you are your feet have to travel the SAME 90 feet. (Most) Batters stand as far back in the box as they can, allowing them longer to react to the pitch. If you want to be closer to the base, have them stand closer to the front of the box. This might allow them to be a step closer.

 

Whether or not you believe this study, Duece should be teaching his kids to get out of the box quicker and working on their technique of transitioning from hitting to running. This is where the real time COULD be saved for these kids.

[BigbadB]

I've always believed that diving (not sliding) to the bag is faster than sprinting to the bag. But, the dive would have to be performed perfectly, which is a difficult task in and of itself, and ignores the injury concerns with performing it the exact way it would have to be done.

 

Mark Loretta missed a significant portion of a recent season because he dove to first and broke a finger. Don't remember whether he was safe or not. :D

 

I think the other problem that arises with this debate is the fact that you have to make a decision during your sprint on whether to dive or slide. What prompted the decision? Did you look over at the SS and see he was about to throw? If so, you have probably slowed down the sprint process by looking at the SS rather than focusing on getting down the line as quickly as possible.

 

That slight moment of non-focus could have been the difference between being safe at first by just sprinting.

 

If I'm the manager, I'd rather you be out by a hundredth of a second sprinting to the bag rather than spend 2 or more weeks on the DL. Because the difference of being out or safe at first base is not worth the difference between the starting player and the bench player that will play in your place for several weeks.

[TheGrinch]

Try running 100 meters. Then run 100 meters, but bend forward for even just a couple of steps during. I'll bet you get a slower time.

 

Sprinters lean forward all the time right at the finish line. Why do they do that if it doesn't help them hit the tape slightly sooner?

 

There are a couple of legitimate arguments against sliding into first IMO. (I haven't read the whole thread, so maybe this has already been covered.

 

1)Injury. I think it's far more likely to get hurt sliding into first than other bases as the ideal way to slide into first is actually to slide through first. Which leads me to...

 

2)Sliding through the bag. This is extremely tough to do without going outside the baseline. Just sliding into first by definition is going to slow you down, as you would have the goal of stopping on the bag, which is not necessary at first.

 

That said, if you're 6 feet tall, when you slide, that means that's 6 feet less that your feet have to travel en route to the bag. It's essentially shaving off distance.

 

I do believe that it's faster to slide in, but I'm not sure the negatives outweight the positives. I also wonder if sliding into first would be more beneficial to a slow guy than to a fast guy. A slow guy likely has an awkward stride anyway, and may be less "slowed down" is his preparation for the slide.

Agreed on all points except one. If you are 6 feet tall, since you can't make your center of mass suddenly move faster, the rotation of your body would only really subtract about half of your total length from the distance your center of mass would have to travel. This is because as you lay out for the dive, your center of mass is around your belly button, not your feet. (I guess your center of mass is always there anyways)

 

I also want to address the concept of deceleration. It has been mentioned the most as the reason for why diving won't work. Where is this huge deceleration you are mentioning coming from? It isn't coming from the ground as I dive into the bag, since I will have already touched the bag if I dove correctly. Where is it coming from? An object in motion stays in motion unless acted upon. That's conservation of momentum. And if the mass stays the same, that's the same thing as conservation of velocity. You don't lose velocity magically when you stop running. In fact, if there was no air resistance and no ground, you could work up to a given speed, dive, and continue at that speed forever. Any deceleration will be caused by air resistance, and that is really, really insignificant for the duration of the dive.

[Guest]

Well, there goes my thunder.

 

You're the only one who posts from Iowa!! That's some thunder.

[OleMissCub]

I still just can't believe that this is even a question. Sliding into first is just BAD on so many levels that any fractional time saved isn't worth it.

[CoolHandLuke]

I still just can't believe that this is even a question. Sliding into first is just BAD on so many levels that any fractional time saved isn't worth it.

 

 

TheGrinch is opposed to sliding/diving into first for the same reasons you are, I believe.

[TheGrinch]

I still just can't believe that this is even a question. Sliding into first is just BAD on so many levels that any fractional time saved isn't worth it.

No one left standing is claiming this, so I can't believe it either. I'm just saying its faster...not more practical or something that should be instituted in little league camps.

[OleMissCub]

I still just can't believe that this is even a question. Sliding into first is just BAD on so many levels that any fractional time saved isn't worth it.

No one left standing is claiming this, so I can't believe it either. I'm just saying its faster...not more practical or something that should be instituted in little league camps.

 

I wasn't responding to your posts at all. It was just a general thought.

[DenverCubs]

I think diving at every base should be mandatory. Toughen up the game. Also, add a gun circle.

I'd rather have a gun in the outfield, than under a mattress where a child could get to it.

[TheGrinch]

I think diving at every base should be mandatory. Toughen up the game. Also, add a gun circle.

I'd rather have a gun in the outfield, than under a mattress where a child could get to it.

http://www.uprightcitizens.org/11/images/gun.jpg

[FergieJ31]

I still just can't believe that this is even a question.

 

The topic isn't that bad -- I've seen far less interesting topics and stale jokes routinely posted here. NSBB has a lot of intelligent posters and should pride itself on questioning conventional baseball wisdom.

 

Just a few thoughts .... first, I don't think anyone in the "sliding is faster" camp is suggesting that sliding into first is always advisable. Stop with the injury rebuttals - that's obvious to all. The relevant question is, if it really is marginally faster to slide then one might want to do so in extremely crucial situations. And if this is the case, coaches might want to help prepare / condition their players to do so in such situations.

 

Second, I wish the pseudo-physics explanations would stop. Newton is spinning in his grave ... spinning I tell you. (Well, ok, he would be spinning if angular momentum were not conserved.) Conservation of momentum does not apply here because of wind resistance and some ground resistance (when the runner is not airborne). That WikiAnswers page makes some pretty specious arguments in this regard. If you attached an accelerometer to a runner, you would see it momentarily spike negative then positive with every stride once the runner is at full speed. The fastest runners know how to pull/push off the ground quickly to minimize the negative/maximize the positive, but both spikes are there on every step, so momentum is certainly NOT conserved.

 

Also, the arguments "Why do fielders dive for the ball" or "why do sprinters stick their chest out" are non sequiturs. Diving for a ball has nothing to do with reaching for the bag with one's foot.

 

So does sliding get you to the base any faster? In my opinion there are two opposing factors which make the answer "Maybe":

 

1. Unless you are a world-class sprinter, bending forward to prepare for a slide WILL break your stride slightly. It will slow you down. You can easily try this yourself: run at full steam and pay attention to how your upper body plays a role in maintaining your speed. Now lean forward to prepare for a slide; your balance will be slightly thrown off for a stride or two. World-class sprinters have trained hard to eliminate this on the very last stride to gain a few fractions of a second. I think feet-first slides would be even worse.

 

2. One argument that hasn't been given much weight (although I think it has been mentioned) is that a head-first dive will momentarily decrease wind resistance, because the body is slightly more streamlined through the air. So if you take a fearless head-first, Pete Rose-style slide, and time it such that your hand hits the bag without much frictional sliding, you'll probably counteract the disadvantage above (1.) and you might reach the bag slightly quicker. However, umps usually listen for the foot while watching the ball on bang-bang plays, so you run a higher risk of the ump botching the call on a very close play (they're not likely to hear your hand).

 

All in all, it's too close to call - not a strategy I would advocate even in a crucial game situation.

[CuseCubFan69]

I don't like the head first slide because of the high percent of injuries I've seen with players doing it instead of running through the bag. Now, if the runner gets a read on the first baseman and sees the throw is off line he may try to avoid the tag by doing a head first slide but again, it's a risky move but at the same right might avoid a collision with the first baseman which often leads to disaster. I also have to say that I've seen a good amount of runners try to get that extra stride + to reach the bag and have them turn/break an ankle when they stay up as well but the percentage is dwindled by the hurt players sliding into first.

[XZero771679666304]

Try running 100 meters. Then run 100 meters, but bend forward for even just a couple of steps during. I'll bet you get a slower time.

 

Sprinters lean forward all the time right at the finish line. Why do they do that if it doesn't help them hit the tape slightly sooner?

 

 

 

There is a difference between leaning forward into the tape and practically bending over to dive, which is why I said that if the base were at chest-waist level instead of ground level, things would be different. If you dove in a manner that didn't terribly disturb the running motion (the trajectory a runner would take if he/she turned their finish line lean into a dive), you would end up airborne and falling on the bag rather than pushing into it, which would again cost time.

 

But again, the injury issue makes this whole discussion kind of superfluous. Either way, I am done with it.

[TheGrinch]

Second, I wish the pseudo-physics explanations would stop. Newton is spinning in his grave ... spinning I tell you. (Well, ok, he would be spinning if angular momentum were not conserved.) Conservation of momentum does not apply here because of wind resistance and some ground resistance (when the runner is not airborne). That WikiAnswers page makes some pretty specious arguments in this regard. If you attached an accelerometer to a runner, you would see it momentarily spike negative then positive with every stride once the runner is at full speed. The fastest runners know how to pull/push off the ground quickly to minimize the negative/maximize the positive, but both spikes are there on every step, so momentum is certainly NOT conserved.

Good post. But that is exactly my point about diving. You aren't taking those steps, so instead of your velocity dropping and increasing with a step, it stays the same. Ground resistance = 0 while in the air. And the air resistance I already covered...I don't think it is much, but that is the only thing causing a deceleration of the runner during the dive. By the time the runner approaches the base, he would have already reached a kind of terminal velocity (aside from the spikes you mentioned). The act of taking steps only serves to keep the runner upright and combat wind resistance. Diving won't slow you down much at all, IMO. I really would like to see an in depth study of this. Would be fun.

[OleMissCub]

I don't like the head first slide because of the high percent of injuries I've seen with players doing it instead of running through the bag. Now, if the runner gets a read on the first baseman and sees the throw is off line he may try to avoid the tag by doing a head first slide but again, it's a risky move but at the same right might avoid a collision with the first baseman which often leads to disaster.

 

Exactly. That's an occasion where it is acceptable to slide to first: avoiding the tag.

[Abe Frohman]

I understand the notion that a trial was done, but I have a hard time believing that sliding feet first will get you to first base quicker than running it out. One of those things I would have to see to believe.

 

At any rate, baseball has been going on for a long time, and if sliding into first base were a practical way to get there faster, I am sure that someone would have figured it out by now. I am not even a fan of sliding into first. I think it is stupid and the player that does it is asking for injury.

[David]

I understand the notion that a trial was done, but I have a hard time believing that sliding feet first will get you to first base quicker than running it out. One of those things I would have to see to believe.

 

At any rate, baseball has been going on for a long time, and if sliding into first base were a practical way to get there faster, I am sure that someone would have figured it out by now. I am not even a fan of sliding into first. I think it is stupid and the player that does it is asking for injury.

 

 

While I agree that it seems completely unlikely and counterintuitive that sliding would be faster, I don't think this is ever a good form of reasoning. Look at how many things most "baseball people" have wrong to this day despite how long the game has been around.

[Derwood]

Second, I wish the pseudo-physics explanations would stop. Newton is spinning in his grave ... spinning I tell you. (Well, ok, he would be spinning if angular momentum were not conserved.) Conservation of momentum does not apply here because of wind resistance and some ground resistance (when the runner is not airborne). That WikiAnswers page makes some pretty specious arguments in this regard. If you attached an accelerometer to a runner, you would see it momentarily spike negative then positive with every stride once the runner is at full speed. The fastest runners know how to pull/push off the ground quickly to minimize the negative/maximize the positive, but both spikes are there on every step, so momentum is certainly NOT conserved.

Good post. But that is exactly my point about diving. You aren't taking those steps, so instead of your velocity dropping and increasing with a step, it stays the same. Ground resistance = 0 while in the air. And the air resistance I already covered...I don't think it is much, but that is the only thing causing a deceleration of the runner during the dive. By the time the runner approaches the base, he would have already reached a kind of terminal velocity (aside from the spikes you mentioned). The act of taking steps only serves to keep the runner upright and combat wind resistance. Diving won't slow you down much at all, IMO. I really would like to see an in depth study of this. Would be fun.

 

the moment your legs stop running and you're airborn, you are slowing down. oh, and gravity

[TheGrinch]

Second, I wish the pseudo-physics explanations would stop. Newton is spinning in his grave ... spinning I tell you. (Well, ok, he would be spinning if angular momentum were not conserved.) Conservation of momentum does not apply here because of wind resistance and some ground resistance (when the runner is not airborne). That WikiAnswers page makes some pretty specious arguments in this regard. If you attached an accelerometer to a runner, you would see it momentarily spike negative then positive with every stride once the runner is at full speed. The fastest runners know how to pull/push off the ground quickly to minimize the negative/maximize the positive, but both spikes are there on every step, so momentum is certainly NOT conserved.

Good post. But that is exactly my point about diving. You aren't taking those steps, so instead of your velocity dropping and increasing with a step, it stays the same. Ground resistance = 0 while in the air. And the air resistance I already covered...I don't think it is much, but that is the only thing causing a deceleration of the runner during the dive. By the time the runner approaches the base, he would have already reached a kind of terminal velocity (aside from the spikes you mentioned). The act of taking steps only serves to keep the runner upright and combat wind resistance. Diving won't slow you down much at all, IMO. I really would like to see an in depth study of this. Would be fun.

 

the moment your legs stop running and you're airborn, you are slowing down. oh, and gravity

I did just say that, did I not? (See air resistance) What...gravity exists? No way!!!

 

(Gravity does nothing but help the dive. Gravity won't slow you down because it is only accelerating you downward, not preventing you from moving forward. Instead of having to use any effort to move down to get to the bag, you can just leap forward and let gravity do the work.)

[Yanksfan1523]

I also want to address the concept of deceleration. It has been mentioned the most as the reason for why diving won't work. Where is this huge deceleration you are mentioning coming from? It isn't coming from the ground as I dive into the bag, since I will have already touched the bag if I dove correctly. Where is it coming from? An object in motion stays in motion unless acted upon. That's conservation of momentum. And if the mass stays the same, that's the same thing as conservation of velocity. You don't lose velocity magically when you stop running. In fact, if there was no air resistance and no ground, you could work up to a given speed, dive, and continue at that speed forever. Any deceleration will be caused by air resistance, and that is really, really insignificant for the duration of the dive.

 

How about Gravity? When you dive you are not traveling parallel to the ground.

 

Edit: didn't see above post. I still disagree. Gravity does slow you down. If if didn't then why don't Javelins travel forever, using your theory a person should throw a javelin on a line and it would travel forever. Bullets also would travel forever.

Edited February 20, 2008 by Yanksfan1523

[DenverCubs]

I also want to address the concept of deceleration. It has been mentioned the most as the reason for why diving won't work. Where is this huge deceleration you are mentioning coming from? It isn't coming from the ground as I dive into the bag, since I will have already touched the bag if I dove correctly. Where is it coming from? An object in motion stays in motion unless acted upon. That's conservation of momentum. And if the mass stays the same, that's the same thing as conservation of velocity. You don't lose velocity magically when you stop running. In fact, if there was no air resistance and no ground, you could work up to a given speed, dive, and continue at that speed forever. Any deceleration will be caused by air resistance, and that is really, really insignificant for the duration of the dive.

 

How about Gravity? When you dive you are not traveling parallel to the ground.

Gravity doesn't affect your forward momentum. How will it stop you from reaching the bag...by pulling you down towards it?