DenverCubs

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? Gravity pulls you towards the earth, not an object. Wouldn't you also increase this gravitational pull by being parallel to the ground thereby having more body area affected? no

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? the overall point is that the second you stop pumping your legs, you're slowing down. also, it's not like you would just fly through the air at a constant speed if there were no gravity to pull you down, so all this "you don't slow down when you dive" stuff is nonsense You do slow down...but not much. Especially since you're only in the air for a split second. I think we can stop the argument if everyone agrees that diving might get you there faster, but you would never do it regularly since you could get hurt and would have to time it perfectly.

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?

There you go...we have a lead off hitter now... Also, that line-up isn't scaring me much. Is something wrong with me?

It's amazing how green the ivy is already. Did they spray paint it or something?

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.

This is horrible. First off, I earlier explained that friction (at least from the ground) is not in play here. You are diving to touch the bag immediately, not to slide into it. Second...the bold part. A science teacher's head might explode if a student told him this with no explanation. No, you just explained why when you stop running you don't necessarily decelerate. F=ma. There is air-resistance...but that effects you when you are running, too. In fact, continuing to run will INCREASE the frictional forces working against you as you are still connecting with the ground. I'll conceed the point that not taking those last two steps will decrease your speed as you cross the bag. I am not arguing that and never will. But the advantage of being able to reach out and touch the bag as your center of mass is significantly behind the bag offsets that slight loss of speed. If you imagine Wilt Chamberlain diving toward the bag instead of running over it, can you imagine the advantage of having your center of mass behind the bag and still being there? The only difference there is scale. [bragging]Claiming that science says it's impossible with a Geophysicist probably isn't your best bet, btw. [/bragging] Friction is not at play? You are either joking or you've never seen someone slide into first base in a cloud of dust. The center of mass has nothing to do with sliding or running, velocity does. Sliding cannot be faster than running through a base for the following reasons: 1. a person has to stop running to slide thereby slowing down 2. when a person slides more surface area is in contact with the ground thereby slowing down The only reason that people slide into second base, third, and home is: 1. To avoid a tag. 2. so they don't lose contact with the base when tagged. We can have a debate about lunging vs sliding if you want, but there is no debate about running vs sliding. Q: Why don't sprinters or speed skaters slide to the finish line? A: Because sliding slows them down. This is pretty ridiculous. 1)I'm not sliding before I reach the bag, just after. After I've already touched it. Yes, you could easily get hurt "DIVING" at the bag. Thats not the point. 2)I understand the reasons for sliding into 2nd/3rd etc. That's a different situation. 3)The sprinters thing has already been covered. If to win a race you only had to cross the finish line with the tip of your finger, sprinters would be diving for the line with their hands stretched out in front of them. Since that doesn't win a race, they don't. One more time, to get to the bag fastest, with any part of your body, you should probably dive head first, arms outstretched at the bag. You should time it so that the first thing your body (hand) comes in contact with (other than air) is the bag. No one will do this since you will get hurt. What a dumb argument.

That is not what we are arguing and we have both already stated so. Right...sliding is stupid because you will get hurt way more often, not because it gets you to the bag slower.

Who said that? If I did, I was trying to type to fast.

This is horrible. First off, I earlier explained that friction (at least from the ground) is not in play here. You are diving to touch the bag immediately, not to slide into it. Second...the bold part. A science teacher's head might explode if a student told him this with no explanation. No, you just explained why when you stop running you don't necessarily decelerate. F=ma. There is air-resistance...but that effects you when you are running, too. In fact, continuing to run will INCREASE the frictional forces working against you as you are still connecting with the ground. I'll conceed the point that not taking those last two steps will decrease your speed as you cross the bag. I am not arguing that and never will. But the advantage of being able to reach out and touch the bag as your center of mass is significantly behind the bag offsets that slight loss of speed. if you slide, foot first, into the bag trying to time it so you don't actually slide on the ground, i guarantee that your foot will no longer be attached to your ankle about 0.03 seconds later Great, while you test that, I'll dive in head first, since that will be faster anyways.

No. Since you are ignoring my earlier explanation entirely, and the link that followed it up, I'll post it again. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_sliding_into_a_base_make_you_reach_base_faster Read it this time. And yes, the Mythbusters episode "busted" a "myth" that didn't actually exist in the first place. Total waste of time. One thing I would argue is that the umpire is not typically in a very good position to judge whether a runner sliding into 1B is safe or not. I think part of the difficulty of sliding into 1B is that your hand might not be easily visible to the umpire when it comes into contact with the base. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I'd imagine it might make a difference in terms of deciding whether to run or slide. I've been told by umpires that they look at the feet and listen for the ball. Anyway, there is no possible way sliding can be faster than running through a base. It defies the known laws of physics. Which law of physics does the concept of center of mass and conservation of momentum does sliding into first being faster break? F =ma An object with a certain velocity maintains that velocity unless a force acts on it to cause an acceleration, or in this case a deceleration. Any time a person stops running they are decelerating. Also probably some other ones that I forgot a long time ago about velocity and friction. It's definitely a lot more complicated than F = ma. No, it is definitely not. Something cannot go faster by slowing down. Not to mention the fact that a foot is a lot closer to the ground than a hand. It's not about how fast you are going when you get to he bag, it's how can you get a single piece of your body to a point as fast as possible. Also, yes, it is a lot more complicated.

No. Since you are ignoring my earlier explanation entirely, and the link that followed it up, I'll post it again. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_sliding_into_a_base_make_you_reach_base_faster Read it this time. And yes, the Mythbusters episode "busted" a "myth" that didn't actually exist in the first place. Total waste of time. One thing I would argue is that the umpire is not typically in a very good position to judge whether a runner sliding into 1B is safe or not. I think part of the difficulty of sliding into 1B is that your hand might not be easily visible to the umpire when it comes into contact with the base. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I'd imagine it might make a difference in terms of deciding whether to run or slide. I've been told by umpires that they look at the feet and listen for the ball. Anyway, there is no possible way sliding can be faster than running through a base. It defies the known laws of physics. Which law of physics does the concept of center of mass and conservation of momentum does sliding into first being faster break? F =ma An object with a certain velocity maintains that velocity unless a force acts on it to cause an acceleration, or in this case a deceleration. Any time a person stops running they are decelerating. Also probably some other ones that I forgot a long time ago about velocity and friction. It's definitely a lot more complicated than F = ma.

I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but isn't that the same concept as trying to get your hand/body in the vicinity of the base faster? Not really. While you can touch first with your foot, you cannot catch a ball with your foot. But by your reasoning diving for the ball at the end could not be faster than just running to it on a full sprint at all times. the base is a stationary object, the ball is a moving object. this isn't rocket science What does the object moving have to do with anything? If the base was moving, then diving would be faster? Man, this isn't brain surgery. usually when a player has to dive for a ball it's because the ball is on a trajectory that is moving it away from the player. Again...so if the base was moving down the right field line, then you should dive? A perfectly timed dive can get your hand to first base as fast or faster than running though the base can get your foot there (which is usually right underneath your center of gravity). If you hit the bag in the perfect stride so that your leg was totally stretched out at the exact time you reached the bag...it might be a little faster.

I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but isn't that the same concept as trying to get your hand/body in the vicinity of the base faster? Not really. While you can touch first with your foot, you cannot catch a ball with your foot. But by your reasoning diving for the ball at the end could not be faster than just running to it on a full sprint at all times. the base is a stationary object, the ball is a moving object. this isn't rocket science What does the object moving have to do with anything? If the base was moving, then diving would be faster? Man, this isn't brain surgery.

Why the hell haven't they already given it to him??!!!

Ohhh, yes. A classic retort against an intelligent person. As we all know, if you are smart, you have no friends (especially no girl friends) and you hate "cool" people who have fun. Great post.

Yeti with a trident and net vs. an Orangutan with a ball and chain. Maybe if you cut the Yeti's left Achilles tendon it would be fair. I hope these aren't the immature jokes banedon was talking about.

How about a chimp with like steel fists vs. a 5 point buck with laser eyes.

Brian Roberts

According to Keith Law (FWIW): 1. Mets 2. Cubs 3. Snakes 4. Phillies 5. Dodgers

ok http://sixthman.lohudblogs.com/files/2006/12/ashamed.jpg

Mickey Morandini...still the ugliest man in baseball. Somehow. http://www.thermocaster.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/morandini.jpg

That's one of the most bad ass things anyone has ever done in baseball... Here's a funny vid for anyone who didn't get to it from the awesome HR post. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFbmrFCle8k&feature=related What a bad ass.

k