TheGrinch

The problem with it(sorry if this has been addressed) is that in order for it to be faster you have to time your dive perfectly such that you land at just the right point. It's possible to time that dive perfectly, but most of the time you would either break stride to time the dive, or you'd dive too late and get to the bag later than if you ran through. But isn't it just as likely that you would have to break stride to step on base anyways? Yes, but I believe that's already built into the study that I'm familiar with because it's based on a comparison of a standard time running through the base, not the ideal time which is necessary of the dive. The dive has to be ideal whereas the run-through is already timed in non-ideal trials. Why is that? ...and what study are we talking about?

The problem with it(sorry if this has been addressed) is that in order for it to be faster you have to time your dive perfectly such that you land at just the right point. It's possible to time that dive perfectly, but most of the time you would either break stride to time the dive, or you'd dive too late and get to the bag later than if you ran through. But isn't it just as likely that you would have to break stride to step on base anyways?

.....which is what, 90% of sliding? I think 90% of sliding is getting to the bag as fast as possible without going past the bag. Using the ground to decelerate is pretty effective for that. You can approach really fast and stop on a dime by sliding correctly. As far as evasive maneuvers from sliding...I would think that the fact that fielders know a slide is coming helps them. Swiping low is bound to tag them (unless we are talking hook slides and the like). Running into a base might really be more effective for avoiding a tag, but makes getting there and stopping take longer. ...or am I way off?

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. Question for Deuce: in your "study," did the head-first and foot-first slide involve sliding into the base and ending there, or starting the slide right at the bag and sliding over it? I claim that sliding (I'd rather use the term diving) would be a little faster...but not if you are starting your slide way before the bag and ending on it like a conventional slide into second or third. In that case, I doubt that the advantage of being able to reach out and touch the bag would offset the loss in speed by being at a near stand-still as you approach the bag. A perfect dive into first would make friction with the ground not an issue, since you would have touched the bag as friction started effecting your speed. The only loss of speed would be from not taking those last few optimal sprinting steps and diving instead.

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.

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.

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.

I'm not going to post in this thread anymore because I'm scared.

I'm boycotting this thread

It got my vote.

Reading comprehension not a strong suit, huh? I'd post a longer response, but since I already answered this in the post you replied to, I won't. The simple concept of sticking your hand out to reach something seems over your head, so I won't bother arguing anymore. Doing this test by hand with a stop watch from a biased observer is almost totally worthless.

I'd agree that is a heck of a difference and I would doubt it really is that large of a difference...but then again, the fact that people in baseball aren't doing something is far from good evidence of anything. Some baseball management might not know what OPS+ is, or if they do, they disregard it. (BTW, love the sig. Whenever I'm hanging out with the wife and we are bored, I do Eric's part of the "reception room sketch" and it brightens our day) EDIT: What Mul said, even the corrected times from the experiment seem too large.

DOUBLE POST

That is not what we are arguing and we have both already stated so.

He's claiming that taking a long goofy lunge at the end instead of running optimally through it might be faster, and that might be true. With all this said about who would get there fastest...I still think it's stupid in most cases as chances for injury go through the roof.

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]

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. Running to the ball full speed will get you to the point where the ball will be faster, you just wont be in a position to catch it. Ok, I'm going to use a hypothetical here. Take an imaginary journey with me. There is a ball suspended in mid-air JUST above the ground. You need to touch this ball as soon as possible. You start running at it full speed. You are almost there...when you are near arm's reach, do you dive at it, or run through it and stomp on it? Still not convinced? Ok, let's change the rules of an Olympic sprint. In this race, any part of your body counts, not just your torso. You are almost at the finish line. Do you just run through it...or do you just put your hand out? Let's change the rules one more time, but any part of you must touch the GROUND as you pass the finish line. If the concept of just putting your arm out allowing you to reach a point faster is beyond someone, then I don't feel like arguing the point with that person anymore.

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.

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?

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. Sorry for continuing the baserunning discussion, but I don't buy what that website is selling. They don't seem to take into account that once you start to rotate into the dive/slide position you lose the ability to continue using your legs to propel yourself forward at the same rate. Also the part about fielders diving for balls doesn't make any sense. They don't dive to get to the ball faster, they dive to get their glove into the vicinity of the ball faster. But that's the point. You don't need to get your whole body to the ball, just one part, so you stick out your glove. And for the half second you are in the air not running you are losing speed, sure. But because you are able to just stick out a part of your body and not have to move your center of mass/gravity all the way to where the ball will be, you can reach the ball faster. The EXACT same argument can be made for sliding into first. The only difference is the base is on the ground and you aren't wearing a glove.

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.

That would maybe make sense 180 to 160 pages ago.

I don't get this ... why does everybody keep just posting his name, and other people quoting it? How did this start? I think early on last year, a lot of people were misspelling his name. So they'd write out his full name/correct it and quote it over and over. At least, I think that's how it started. IIRC it was in the minor league forums when Soto was absolutely annihilating AAA ball and management were too soap dropping stupid to call him up, so after like his 4th or 5th multi hit game in a row, i think sethuel or someone else just quoted his name emphatically, and i guess everyone else picked on that from there. But like all other NSBB inside jokes, their origins matter little as they are all accredited to the strange randomness of this great site ;). And even with the explanation, it's still not funny. There is not a single joke I can think of that when explained to death increases in its humor. If you don't feel the GEOVANY SOTO, you just never will. But let it continue for the joy it brings to us that appreciate it.

In an old thread on this subject I dug up numerous links that support the idea that sliding into first slows you down, but I am not going to dig them up again. To me, it's common sense. Running through the first base bag will be faster than sliding, every time. The only time one should slide into first is if the first baseman has come off the bag, and is trying to apply a tag. A person may feel sliding is faster, but it simply isn't. And yeah, it's more dangerous as well. I guess the stipulation would have to be made that the purpose of the slide is not to slide before you hit the base and stop on it, but to time your dive just right so that you touch the base just as you hit the ground, so the whole "friction of the ground" thing isn't the point. The loss of speed you would have would be from not running optimally for a few steps, but that difference wouldn't be enough to offset not having to travel as far to touch the base. ...and the injury thing kinda makes the point moot, anyways.

EXACTLY!!!!!