Was there a MIT study done on this? I can’t find it, but thought I heard it alluded to in a recent broadcast. Can anyone point me to this, or a similar link answering this question?
I have no link, but common sense will tell you it’s faster to run through first base. When you slide you have to break your stride and lower your body. Sliding is done only to evade a tag or to prevent over-running a base, which is not a factor at lst.
Let’s make it clear that I’m talking about a head first slide (I should have said “dive”). And I mean absolutely no offense, but I’m looking for a scientific study. By watching Alomar of the Mets, it does indeed appear to me he may get there faster by diving. I have no doubt this could be due to an optical illusion, but it seems he saves one step to the bag by diving, and has the additional plus of the length of his arm to reach safely.
Try doing a search on this board. I know this was discussed at some length a while back. (For the record, I think the study found running faster than sliding)
This it?
The only thing from that site, don’t ask, is the following: “Watching the playoffs, we’ve noticed a lot of players sliding/diving into first base thinking that they can save that crucial `fraction of a second.'When will they realize, as any track runner can attest, that it’s faster to run straight through the base than it is to slide?”, but no proof is offered. That, by the way, is the only web reference I could find. I tried a board search; I’ll try again.
Well, if sliding or diving was an effective means of shaving a few tenths of a second, Olympic 100m sprinters would have discovered it by now. Instead, they do what a base runner should do: keep your legs pumping as fast as you can and fight not to decelerate.
I don’t know much about baseball but I think I know my physics and I agree with this. When you are sliding, you are losing speed (decelerating). Which means you are travelling slower than when you were running, and it takes more time to reach the base. What more proof do you need? If you need to reach the base and stop there, then you want to keep running as far as possible and find the fastest way to decelerate. Sliding is a good choice here.
It’s like sking. If you leave the ground, thus losing your locomotion, you slow down.
Not sure about this.
If you were a body-length from a base, and were able to absolutely stop your feet, your center of gravity would be carried forward those six feet at almost undiminished speed.
When you run to a base, your center of gravity will be almost over the base when you touch it. If you fall on a base your center of gravity will be three feet short. If you fall and reach out your arm, your center of gravity will be almost five feet short of the base.
So the question is: can you fall five feet faster than you can run it?
Sorry the question is:
Can you fall forward about 8 feet faster than you can run 8 feet?
(I think the reason runners wouldn’t do this is partly that they would get torn up, given their clothes, and the track. Think of how many runners puff out their chests at the tape.)
I’m inclined to agree with partly_warmer on this (meaning that I do not find it obvious that diving is slower).
The target is an object on the ground, not a plane in space. The runner isn’t trying to get his center of gravity to the base - he’s trying to get any part of his body to the base. In my experience playing soccer, a rolling ball can sometimes be intercepted with a foot-first lunge/slide that I wouldn’t have been able to reach in time by running. By grossly rotating one’s body (i.e., gettin’ horizontal), specific parts can be extended farther in specific directions beyond the C[sub]G[/sub] than is possible while continuing to run.
I think there are competing factors here, and it’s not immediately clear which one wins out.
I do have to admit, though, that empirical evidence certainly leans towards running being faster: it’s tough for me to believe that professional baseball players would all gravitate towards the wrong answer to this question after all these years. Unless there’s some other disadvantage to sliding…
A couple more ideas: when you fall forward Pete Rose style, the downward accelleration of your hands is faster than gravity due too forces from your body. I’ve seen the word “fall” so just wanted to make sure it wasn’t confused with diving which is really more what it’s like.
A runner may not have reached peak accelleration just before reaching the base, so stopping leg movement might cause them to get there much slower.
If the runner has already reached full speed, I think it is fair to assume that the air resistance in the dive would be neglible compared to the rotational advantage from diving. OTOH the movement to lateral extension probably breaks your stride and slows you down somewhat. Plus one would have to be careful not to put leg force into going upward instead of forward. This would increase the length of your trajectory.
Isn’t the reason runners slide into base is not necessarily because it’s faster, but because it takes a fraction of a second longer for the fielder to reach down to tag him? If he ran upright into the base, it’d be a lot easier for the fielder to tag him; you can just turn and tag his torso. There’s no bending over and no need to aim for the runner’s hand or foot.
True, but that’s not the main advantage, Audrey. Most ‘baseball theory’ experts agree that sliding lets you decelerate more rapidly than stopping on your feet (thus letting you run at full speed for more of the basepath), and that this is the primary advantage of sliding. Presenting a poor target for a tag is secondary. (Notice that runners slide into base even on a force play …)
And remember, we’re dealing with first base here. There really is no reason for a fielder to attempt a put out of a batter-runner (note cool rulebook terminology!) by applying a tag. By definition, any put out of a batter-runner at first base can be a force out…no tag required.
Ah. Okay. Thanks, guys. And y’know, I didn’t see the “first” base part at all. Serves me right for posting at 4-5am.
There’s another reason running through first is better than sliding that has nothing to do with beating out the throw. If there’s an errant throw and/or the first baseman drops the throw, there’s a possibility of taking an extra base. If you slide, you have to pick yourself up and then start running again. If you run through, you just change directions without slowing down. It could very easily make a difference. Of course, it won’t matter if the ball goes into the stands or into the dugout, but in other situations it very well could.
Is “decelerate” a word? I had a science teacher go ballistic over that, saying there is no such word since “accelerate” technically means “to change velocity”, not necessarily to speed up.
Decelerate is in Merriam-Webster’s as “to slow”. Your sci teacher needs to take some linguistics classes to mellow him out regarding the flexibility of meaning in language.
SCSimmons, maybe my thinking cap isn’t on, but what difference does coming to a stop quickly make to someone who’s prostrated themselves so completely they can’t get up for a couple seconds? If I was going to run for second, I sure wouldn’t want to start lying down.
Thanks to brad_d for affirming my general feeling on this subject.
Now I’m realizing (having played soccer, but not baseball) that wouldn’t just “fall” into first base, I’d kick off and launch myself. It’s called a slide, but is it sometimes instead a leap? If so, the leap wins.