It's absurd and happens way too often. It's ALWAYS faster to run through the base. The only time it's ok is to avoid the tag, but that's rarely the reason why we do it...
Does Cohen teach players to slide into first?
- Thread starter QuaoarsKing
- Start date
- Status
It's absurd and happens way too often. It's ALWAYS faster to run through the base. The only time it's ok is to avoid the tag, but that's rarely the reason why we do it...
It's absurd and happens way too often. It's ALWAYS faster to run through the base. The only time it's ok is to avoid the tag, but that's rarely the reason why we do it...
ESPN's sports science guys did a study on this, and they determined that running through is faster. See http://www.guysgirl.com/b...rst-into-first-base.html
In any event, it is my understanding that Cohen teaches them to slide if necessary to avoid a tag. For example, if the first baseman is being pulled up the line towards home plate by a throw, they might slide to avoid a potential tag.
In any event, it is my understanding that Cohen teaches them to slide if necessary to avoid a tag. For example, if the first baseman is being pulled up the line towards home plate by a throw, they might slide to avoid a potential tag.
than slide is at the exact point you lunge. So basically, to make a dive faster than running through the bag, you have to time your steps and lunge and extend your hand out to hit the bag at the same exact moment your feet leave the ground from the dive.<div>
</div><div>Once you dive, you lose all the momentum that you have and it's faster to keep running. Watch the sport science... it shows you exactly what I'm talking about.</div><div>
</div><div>It's faster and safer to run through... only time you should dive is when you're avoiding a tag.</div>
</div><div>Once you dive, you lose all the momentum that you have and it's faster to keep running. Watch the sport science... it shows you exactly what I'm talking about.</div><div>
</div><div>It's faster and safer to run through... only time you should dive is when you're avoiding a tag.</div>
The dive is faster then the run. Where you slow down is when you hit the ground. If you jump just at the right distant and touch the base when you hit ground you will be faster. Hell if running through was faster why do out fieldes dive to catch fly balls?
You cease to create force in the direction of motion, meaning you are instantly slowing down. Hitting the ground just slows you down even more.
Even if someone could execute it perfectly, it's a bad idea, because the risk of injury is VERY high. Only in situations where a tag needs to be avoided should the dive be employed.
Even if someone could execute it perfectly, it's a bad idea, because the risk of injury is VERY high. Only in situations where a tag needs to be avoided should the dive be employed.
Google "faster to run through the base or dive" or anything similar to that and find all kinds of links on it.<div>
</div><div>Your analogy is also wrong, because outfielders aren't merely trying to reach the vertical area above the ground where the ball hits it -- they actually have to catch the ball as it falls. That later they are to the spot, the closer to the ground the ball is, so if they dive, they can get there slightly later since their glove will be on the ground.</div>
</div><div>Your analogy is also wrong, because outfielders aren't merely trying to reach the vertical area above the ground where the ball hits it -- they actually have to catch the ball as it falls. That later they are to the spot, the closer to the ground the ball is, so if they dive, they can get there slightly later since their glove will be on the ground.</div>
The answer is no because it's slower and the risk of injury goes way up, which is the same reason why a runner should never dive/ slide into first unless it's to avoid a tag.
if you run through my expected impact point down range you will be slightly beyond the vertical point of aim than if you slide(d)....
Their experiments are stupid and not accurate, although the show is interesting. Diving can be faster if done the right way. If you are going all-out to first and your upper body gets out in front of your feet, it is faster to dive at the bag. But only if you jump out and down to the bag. If you do a head first slide or jump up in the air too much, you will slow down. It has to be done perfectly to be faster, and brownlee and parks did it the right way to where it was faster. Many times it is slower though because of how the player does it.
If you're trying to get to a ground ball, just at the edge of your range, before it gets by you, do you dive for it or run thru it?
You dive for it, because that gets you there faster.
You are not taking into accout that diving means you push off the ground with greater force than just a running step, and if done right you are using your height to basicallyshorten the distance to the base. It's a free7 feet.
Air resistance is less with a headfirst slide, by the way.
Not that any coach should let his players do it. It has to be done right to be faster, and does increase the risk of injury. It's not worth it.
You dive for it, because that gets you there faster.
You are not taking into accout that diving means you push off the ground with greater force than just a running step, and if done right you are using your height to basicallyshorten the distance to the base. It's a free7 feet.
Air resistance is less with a headfirst slide, by the way.
Not that any coach should let his players do it. It has to be done right to be faster, and does increase the risk of injury. It's not worth it.
Between this from you:
</p>
</p>
...and this from Big D:
I'm just shaking my head. First of all, you don't field ground balls or fly balls with your feet. Secondly, intercepting a projectile with your glove and running to a stationary point are two COMPLETELY different things.
so 17'ing ridiculously complicated.
You dive for a ground ball/fly ballbecause it's the best way to get your glove in position tocatch a ground ball. If you had a glove on your foot, your best bet would be to stay upright and run through the ball.
I would make a great tee-ball coach.
Seriously folks. Just stop arguing it. You run through the bag unless you're avoidinga tag. End of conversation.
You dive for a ground ball/fly ballbecause it's the best way to get your glove in position tocatch a ground ball. If you had a glove on your foot, your best bet would be to stay upright and run through the ball.
I would make a great tee-ball coach.
Seriously folks. Just stop arguing it. You run through the bag unless you're avoidinga tag. End of conversation.
if you dive right, you get there faster. but it's difficult to do right, and greatly increases the risk of injury, so it shouldn't be done.
what is so hard for people to accept that?
what is so hard for people to accept that?
Diving into first may make sense if you've got extraordinarily long arms and you can time the dive such that your fingertips reach the bag just as your body reaches the ground. You're probably going to lose speed trying to get your stride just right, but it would not surprise me if in a small yet significant number of cases (maybe 1-5%) you get a slight advantage by diving. However, I would guess that on average diving will be significantly slower and would require a runner to learn another baserunning skill (not diving, rather diving at the exact right time).
that diving is NOT faster?<div>
</div><div>You and a couple others basing your opinion off how you feel, what "seems" right to you. We are basing our opinions off of a large number of scientific studies on the topic. I challenge you to find ONE scientific study that backs up your false preconceived notions, because I know you won't be able to.</div>
</div><div>You and a couple others basing your opinion off how you feel, what "seems" right to you. We are basing our opinions off of a large number of scientific studies on the topic. I challenge you to find ONE scientific study that backs up your false preconceived notions, because I know you won't be able to.</div>
It has been proven time and time again that running through is faster. That is why you rarely see people diving for first
i see the gain from diving (distance from the feet to the hands) and no losses.
what i see others basing their opinion on is complete crap logic, like "why don't sprinters dive?" and "air resistance" (which is lower for a dive) and "you stop driving your legs" and "you loseyour momentum" (wrong!).
"We are basing our opinions off of a large number of scientific studies on the topic."
Oh yeah, then name them. I can't find ANY. And don't quote ESPN sportsscience. there are some studies on slides into 2nd, but not slides into 1B.
the closest i've found is this:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12855927
if your logic were correct, why would a head-first slide be any faster than a feet first slide, even at 2B?
what's ironic is that you've latched onto an insignificant amount of scientific data (mostly junk science, ie ESPN),but since it matched your preconcieved notions you have declared it proof because it 'seems right', then attacked me for what you yourself are guilty of!
think of it this way: what if a guy was 90' tall. would it be faster for him to run thru the bag or just fall over and touch it? that may sound ridiculous, but 8' is still more than one step!
what i see others basing their opinion on is complete crap logic, like "why don't sprinters dive?" and "air resistance" (which is lower for a dive) and "you stop driving your legs" and "you loseyour momentum" (wrong!).
"We are basing our opinions off of a large number of scientific studies on the topic."
Oh yeah, then name them. I can't find ANY. And don't quote ESPN sportsscience. there are some studies on slides into 2nd, but not slides into 1B.
the closest i've found is this:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12855927
if your logic were correct, why would a head-first slide be any faster than a feet first slide, even at 2B?
what's ironic is that you've latched onto an insignificant amount of scientific data (mostly junk science, ie ESPN),but since it matched your preconcieved notions you have declared it proof because it 'seems right', then attacked me for what you yourself are guilty of!
think of it this way: what if a guy was 90' tall. would it be faster for him to run thru the bag or just fall over and touch it? that may sound ridiculous, but 8' is still more than one step!
they clearly proved that running through the bag is faster than diving...
This is beyond ridiculous. If it was faster, I can assure that more people would do it than about 3 college kids. The 3 we've had do it lately are by no means "ahead of the curve" in this ****...
So you say were basing opinion on complete crap logic... and the you say
Oh, I must've missed the 90' tall man thatplayed baseball.
This is beyond ridiculous. If it was faster, I can assure that more people would do it than about 3 college kids. The 3 we've had do it lately are by no means "ahead of the curve" in this ****...
neither one is proof. it's tv, not science.
"Oh, I must've missed the 90' tall man thatplayed baseball."
Does the same principle not apply to someone 6' tall (~8' from feet to hands)? It's not my fault you didn't see it with a normal person, so i had to exaggerate to get the point across.
"This is beyond ridiculous. If it was faster, I can assure that more people would do it than about 3 college kids. The 3 we've had do it lately are by no means "ahead of the curve" in this ****... "
If it wasn't for the injury risk, all players that could do it right, would. Because when you do it right, it HAS to be faster.
"Oh, I must've missed the 90' tall man thatplayed baseball."
Does the same principle not apply to someone 6' tall (~8' from feet to hands)? It's not my fault you didn't see it with a normal person, so i had to exaggerate to get the point across.
"This is beyond ridiculous. If it was faster, I can assure that more people would do it than about 3 college kids. The 3 we've had do it lately are by no means "ahead of the curve" in this ****... "
If it wasn't for the injury risk, all players that could do it right, would. Because when you do it right, it HAS to be faster.
I have no idea if lunging (a mini-dive without risk of injury, in my opinion) gets you across the finish line faster, but I suppose the sprinter thinks that it does. Point being - sprinters do change their form at the end of a race in an effort to cross the finish line faster if than their opponent.
We're going to need to know how long the stride length of the 90' tall player is and how fast he runs. Otherwise you can't make an accurate decision. <div>
</div><div>Seriously? What a terrible example.</div>
</div><div>Seriously? What a terrible example.</div>
since you're probably just trolling us anyway, but here's a starter for you: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=running+through+first+base+or+diving<div>
</div><div>Any of these links give adequate explanations. Of course some people just refuse to be convinced by anything. The types who believe 9/11 was an inside job, etc.</div>
</div><div>Any of these links give adequate explanations. Of course some people just refuse to be convinced by anything. The types who believe 9/11 was an inside job, etc.</div>
You think i hadn't tried google? There's nothing on there that even counts as scientific data, let alone proof.
and nothing short of teams of researchers at Cal Tech and MIT along with Steven Hawking and the ghost of Richard Feynman co-authoring a paper with Rickey Henderson and Lou Brock with footage filmed by a crew from Guinness will convince them otherwise. And then, deep down they still probably wouldn't trust those nerds.
...there's no gap between that and Yahoo Answersor the network who considers Joe Morgan the most qualified authority on baseball matters.
I can't wait for Tim McCarver to be cited next.
I can't wait for Tim McCarver to be cited next.
that no Google result backs up your theory? If you were right, don't you think you'd find a shred of evidence with a simple Internet search?<div><div>
</div><div>Or are you, Brownlee, and Parks the only 3 people in the world smart enough to have figured it out?</div></div>
</div><div>Or are you, Brownlee, and Parks the only 3 people in the world smart enough to have figured it out?</div></div>
better than this guy?
"Mathematically, you might think there's an advantage, but leaving your
feet is actually a detriment because you're no longer pulsing (pumping
your legs) and you start to decelerate," he says. "When you're running,
your get your feet out in front of the center of gravity, so you're
getting maybe three or four steps of an advantage." - Dave Peters, Ph.D. Professor, Mechanical Engineering, Washington University.
Peters says the only advantage of any slide into first base is to avoid
the first baseman's tag when he has to come off the base to spear an
errant throw.
"Mathematically, you might think there's an advantage, but leaving your
feet is actually a detriment because you're no longer pulsing (pumping
your legs) and you start to decelerate," he says. "When you're running,
your get your feet out in front of the center of gravity, so you're
getting maybe three or four steps of an advantage." - Dave Peters, Ph.D. Professor, Mechanical Engineering, Washington University.
Peters says the only advantage of any slide into first base is to avoid
the first baseman's tag when he has to come off the base to spear an
errant throw.
I read that, and he studied slides into 2B. Obviously, a proper slide into 1B is an entirely different slide than a proper headfirst slide into 2B.
From the links to him i've seen, i don't even know if he knows that. After all, with a proper slide into 1B, you shouldn't decelerate at all, you should touch the bag before or just as your body hits the ground, then decelerate as you slide well past the bag.
From the links to him i've seen, i don't even know if he knows that. After all, with a proper slide into 1B, you shouldn't decelerate at all, you should touch the bag before or just as your body hits the ground, then decelerate as you slide well past the bag.
That is not a boomboom approved source of information on the basis that he disagrees with it.</p>
Plenty of Major Leaguers believe it, as well as baseball experts.
There's no real studies of it, either way.
Hell, i wouldn't pay for a study of it. EIther way, it still shouldn't be done because of the injury risk, period.
Remember, you're the one that tood the view that it's ALWAYS slower, and that it was always slower was proven fact. The burden of proof is on you, not me.
There's no real studies of it, either way.
Hell, i wouldn't pay for a study of it. EIther way, it still shouldn't be done because of the injury risk, period.
Remember, you're the one that tood the view that it's ALWAYS slower, and that it was always slower was proven fact. The burden of proof is on you, not me.
That could overcome the lost momentum when you are in the air because your last move was the strongest and would propel you to the base faster than you would have reached it had you continued running.
It's probably not likely but I would bet that some humans could dive those 5 to 10 feet faster than they could while running. Not because some law of physics requires it, but because they were built that way or their technique allows for it. Running/leaping towards first base or simply running through it can't be explained by a simple constant - human mechanics aren't constant.
Still, running through the base is always going to be your best bet. Assuming if diving could get you there faster, it would only get you there faster by tenths, if not, hundredths of a second. Those gains aren't worth the risk of failing to pull off a perfect dive or injuring yourself.
It's probably not likely but I would bet that some humans could dive those 5 to 10 feet faster than they could while running. Not because some law of physics requires it, but because they were built that way or their technique allows for it. Running/leaping towards first base or simply running through it can't be explained by a simple constant - human mechanics aren't constant.
Still, running through the base is always going to be your best bet. Assuming if diving could get you there faster, it would only get you there faster by tenths, if not, hundredths of a second. Those gains aren't worth the risk of failing to pull off a perfect dive or injuring yourself.
- Status