Slashdot Mirror
Rounding the Bases Faster, With Math
An anonymous reader writes "The fastest route around the bases, mathematicians show, is one that perhaps no major-league ball player has ever run: It swings out a full 18.5 feet from the baseline, nearly forming a full circle. 'I would definitely experiment with it,' says former American Major League Baseball outfielder Doug Glanville, who last played with the Philadelphia Phillies. 'There's no question in my mind that runners could be more efficient.'"
Well, yeah, always obvious in hindsight, but I'm just waiting for someone to say, "If that really worked, everybody would be doing it already."
The difference between spam and poop is that you don't have to dig through septic tanks looking for real food. -- Me
If that really worked, everybody would be doing it already.
1st page of the proof:
Consider a spherical runner in a frictionless vacuum.
So there's a single, precise path for this?
It doesn't vary even slightly based on one's mass, the length of one's legs, or anything?
If that really worked, everybody would be doing it already.
And indeed, baseball players typically do this: They run straight along the baseline at the beginning and then, if they think they’ve hit a double or more, they bow out to make a “banana curve. ... Carozza noticed that even when the ball heads straight for a pocket between fielders, making a double almost certain, runners almost never curve out right away.
The researcher seems to expect ball players to gamble with every such run, betting their play on what the researcher thinks is "almost certain". That means that, while trying to hit the ball, the player must know the tactics and maximum speeds of all the opponent fielders. I don't think that's going to happen.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Huh? You're trying to get to who?
If the majority of hits are singles, does this still apply? It only mentions hitting a double in that you can round the base faster. It would look pretty funny if the batter used this for a single and it took them much longer.
Carl Sagan quotes get you an automatic +5 on all posts.
The main reason why they've calculated a circular path is because of the delays that sharp turns introduce. As far as I can tell, this path makes sense if and only if you're trying to run from home to home. If you're going for a single, or a double, or a triple, you'd have different ideal path.
So even in theory, this doesn't really pan out: nobody in MLB makes it to home-plate on an outfield hit. You could probably come up with more effective routes for doubles and triples, but on the other hand, it's probably hard to tell if you've hit a triple right as you start running. If you make a hit that would be a triple, but follow a route like it's a single and then change your mind as the ball gets played, you'll probably still end up with a single or a double. If you start running for a triple on a base hit that's only really going to get you a single, it could slow you down enough to get you out. I'm more in the hedge-your-bets camp, and I'm betting that, on that basis, this isn't an effective way to go.
I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
No one cares about how fast you can round _all_ of the bases. There are only two times when it is applicable -- a home run or an in-field home run. The first makes the speed unimportant. The second really doesn't happen frequently.
The player will hit the ball, and then attempt to get to first base. If conditions look good, they will try for second base. At this point, third base will only be attempted in rare cases, mainly when an error has been made by the fielding team. The double/triple attempts are more based on information that isn't known when the player first hits the ball. As such, the action will be to take the fastest path from the current base to the next base.
So that swooping path can't be slower than the straight path or the player risks giving up a lot of singles and allowing double-plays. These are often determined by fractions when the fielding team is efficient.
Players don't run in a big circle because there is no reasonable expectation they can round all four bases. They're lucky to get one.
You get a hit, you run straight for 1st. If after arriving you can keep going, you curve over to second. Unless you belted it out of the park (and are therefore in little hurry) it's unlikely you can get further than that, but anybody going on to 3rd will make another wide curve.
In general, if a runner thinks he can clear two bases, he'll make a wide curve. Otherwise it's just a beeline for the next base.
Does this not seem like a round-about answer to anyone else? *hides under a desk*
Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
naturally!
http://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
Where are the constraints?
You can be called out if you stray too far from the base line.
I thought that too, but wikipedia and other online sources say that this only applies when a defensive player is attempting to make a play on the runner. At that point the runner must proceed on the most direct path to the base, without deviating by more than 3ft, otherwise the runner is called out.
Online references aside, this makes a lot of sense thinking of the baseball that I've played and watched on tv.
I thought a 'home run' was something else entirely. Involving a girl. A naked girl. I didn't know running in a circle was part of the process. Or running at all, for that matter.
I would have been called out for running a line like that.
I checked the official MLB rules, and your understanding is correct.
All I'm hearing out of you is "watching tall lanky guys", "bouncing balls", "putting it in a guy's hole", "playing with a guy's stick", and "left hand tugging a guy". It makes me think that you might be a user of Apple products.
Only once a defensive player is attempting to make a play on you.
You can be called out if you stray too far from the base line.
I cannot find anything in the rules saying that. Only thing I can find at all related is rule 7.08 (a) (1), which only applies if they move away from the base line to avoid being tagged.
AFAICT, they can run where ever they like as long as they don't interfere with the fielders.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
Runners can be called out for running outside the basepath, which is 3 feet to either side of the baseline. It usually only comes up on plays where the runner is trying to avoid a tag, but that's also usually the only time anyone ever goes very far from the baseline. It's quite likely a runner would get called out well before they got 18.5 feet away from the baseline.
No, that rule explicitly only applies when they're trying to avoid a tag. it's rule 7.08 (a) (1).
http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/official_info/official_rules/runner_7.jsp
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
Which they are liable to do and you could probably be called out before you scuttle back to the baseline.
none of the researchers or verifiers actually got off their ass and ran bases to test
Huh? You're trying to get to who?
I don't know!
'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
Exactly. He takes visual queues from the opposition players and coaches. Do I keep going, or do I stop. The decision for all four bases can't be made as soon as he contacts the ball. He hits it, he runs for 1st. Is it safe to go for second? Continue on, but that decision is made at or near 1st base.
The only time a decision like that can be made is if he hits a home run, over the wall. Then speed isn't of the essence, he could walk it if he so desired.
Optimal speed lines are used in race car driving though. Generally you come into the turn on the outside, go towards the apex, and drift out to the outside again. Obvious exceptions apply. Is there another car in the way? What is the next turn after this one? Driving on a street-type course, there was a set of four turns in a snake pattern. Instead of taking each turn properly, I lined up with the center of the overall pattern. It left a little bumping as I nudged the curbs (slight angles, not hard curbs like a neighborhood street would have). Instead of doing 60mph through there, I could do over 90. Anyone behind me, even if they were in an equally powered car, would be far behind me by the time I left that part of the course.
Lots of planning goes into automobile racing, since I'm not waiting to see if the ball I hit is coming in from the outfield. My only concerns were the maximum speed I could take turns with no choices (like above), and other cars on the track. I can't do 90 through that pattern if there's a car doing 60 through it ahead of me, weaving through the whole thing "properly". With that in mind, I would try to be the first car of a group through it, just so I didn't have to slow down. In professional racing, all the drivers would have already known the best way through, so part of that would be eliminated, unless it was a car about to be lapped. In those cases, he'd be flagged over to allow the faster cars through, but you don't always get that luxury on street-track type courses.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
LOL troll.
Nah, you have a good point. Baseball was the only sport to require an organist to fill in the boring parts.
Modern baseball games are even worse. Even live, only a fifth of the game is actual baseball. The rest is filler provided by the jumbotrons and sound systems. The only redeeming qualities of going to meatspace MLB games are getting really drunk and laughing inside about how our kids don't fully understand the meaning of the popular song Hey-oh that's being played every 5 seconds over the PA.
Huh? You're trying to get to who?
What?
Calculus of Variations! Seriously, it's a fascinating subject. See Brachistochrone. It also ties in closely with optimal control and such subjects. There are some fascinating, counterintuitive results. A professor described a researcher who had used this to calculate the optimal (in some sense) ascent trajectory for a jet aircraft after takeoff. For the specific case, it wasn't even a monotonic climb!
Is that rule a limitation on distance from the baseline or on distance from a line from the point you're at when the play is attempted to the base? That makes a bit of a difference.
I don't know is on second.
Stand Back! I'm going to try SCIENCE! ...
so if you're standing within about 14 feet of the baseline, I might run you down. Seriously. Stand back!
Well, they sorta did... I believe it was last week's episode where Lisa used calculations to get her players to play the game. I normally don't watch the Simpsons but it was 10/10/10 and I wanted to see if they would do something special for that day, which they did.
This whole scenario assumes the ball is still in the outfield, so no one can attempt to tag you out.
The most rabid believers in American Exceptionalism are the exact same people whose policies are destroying it.
Did you even look at the FA? If look at the picture displaying how they should run it shows them curving through all 4 bases.
"To prevent this day from getting any worse, I'll just read ERROR as GOOD THING" 1GJU8xLuDKDxEs4KLf8fAGyptoDsqvEsBT
"At first you might think that a very slow, awkward runner should just walk directly from base to base, except that he'd likely fall down trying to make the sharp turn at first.."
I would like to point something out.
Making a 90 degree turn is physically impossible without coming to a complete stop. If a person immediately applies a force orthogonal to their current velocity, it would not result in a 90 degree turn in the path (but it would probably cause them to fall down). The only way to make a 90 degree turn is to come to a complete stop, then turn, then accelerate in the new direction. There would be no reason for the runner to fall down under these circumstances.
Because our muscles exert a finite amount of force, and force is the time rate of change of momentum, and momentum is mass times velocity, the time required to come to a stop must be proportional to the velocity of the runner.
This confirms the obvious fact that for a walker, the time that it takes to go from walking speed to a full stop is a fraction of a second, and hence there is no measurable time wasted in making a 90 degree turn, and no reason to walk anything other than the shortest path if you are walking.
We know that the optimal path for a faster runner involves some overshooting, and this proves that there is a continuum of optimal paths that is dependent on velocity. It is also clear from Newton's first law, as I showed above, that running faster befits reducing curvature of the path. This applies to any velocity. Thus, in the limit as velocity goes to infinity, curvature becomes ever increasingly important, and hence in the limit the optimal path must be a circle.
You want to go around a giant U-turn so the fastest way is to come from the side in a big U instead of a V however there's a debate whether or not players can stray a farther than a certain distance from the bases. At least that's my interpretation of all this mumbo jumbo.
And just to be clear, the base line isn't the dirt path between the bases with the line painted on it forming the diamond shape. The base line in this rule is a line from the runners current position to the base when the defensive players are attempting to tag the runner out with the ball.
You could always try the scientific approach. Try it while you are not actually in a game! You think a coach wouldn't run a drill with the whole team making them try it out with a stopwatch if he thought it could help him win a game? If it woks everyone will do it.
A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
That rule is mostly to stop a player from running into the outfield trying to avoid a tag.
A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
If that really worked, everybody would be doing it already.
Tell that to Dick Fosbury.
The researcher seems to expect ball players to gamble with every such run, betting their play on what the researcher thinks is "almost certain".
If you've hit in the gap it's clear you're going to get a double. Everyone knows that.
That means that, while trying to hit the ball, the player must know the tactics and maximum speeds of all the opponent fielders. I don't think that's going to happen.
If only they had scouts and game film, and played like 162 games.
In all seriousness, you've never watched a sporting event at any level have you?
with meth.
No, Who is on first, What is on second. I Don't Know is on third. FFS what do they TEACH you kids these days?
Now get off my lawn!
It is thus obvious that this rule should be repealed, and, furthermore, "Take Me Out to the Ball Game" should be replaced in all occurrences with "Yakety Sax".
You get a hit, you run straight for 1st. If after arriving you can keep going, you curve over to second. Unless you belted it out of the park (and are therefore in little hurry) it's unlikely you can get further than that, but anybody going on to 3rd will make another wide curve.
Actually, you know roughly how far you're going to get around the bases depending on where the ball goes. If it goes over the CF's head, it's probably a triple. If it reaches the wall otherwise, it's probably a double. If not, a single. At least, that's the case in the major leagues. YMMV.
I often wondered why, if a runner is on say, 3rd and the batsman hits a long fly ball (but not a homer), why does the runner wait at 3rd to tag up, instead of backing up a few paces so that he can hit 3rd base at full tilt just as the fielder catches the ball. This would easily give him 2 or 3 if not more strides jump and he should be safe at home more frequently. In a game of fractions of a second, this would be a clear advantage.
Once I was a four stone apology. Now I am two separate gorillas.
Exactly. He takes visual queues from the opposition players and coaches. Do I keep going, or do I stop. The decision for all four bases can't be made as soon as he contacts the ball. He hits it, he runs for 1st. Is it safe to go for second? Continue on, but that decision is made at or near 1st base.
Why does everyone keep repeating this? It's not true. I'm not a major league player, but after watching a good number of games, I assure you that I, most fans, and every major league player knows, very likely, what base they will reach when it becomes apparent where the ball will land. Sorry to repeat myself:
* Over the centerfielder's head: Triple
* Reaches the wall elsewhere: Double
* Doesn't make it past the outfielders: Single
If the defense tries to make a play on another runner, you might take an extra base, and there are a few other variables, but the above is pretty reliable. Think how many times a major leaguer has hit a ball: It's not like they have no idea what is going to happen, or that they won't make it past first when they hit it a line drive off the wall in left-center.
The article you link points out that the Fosbury Flop was a response to changed landing surfaces and that many high-jumpers were experimenting at that time.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
Incorrect. As long as you're not "making a mockery of the game" (I believe that's the term, but it may be something roughly equivalent), until a defensive player attempts to make a tag, you are free to run absolutely anywhere you like. Once the tag is attempted, you are restricted to remain within 3 feet of the line connecting your current position to the next (or previous) base. This running strategy would quite easily be allowed within the rules.
I thought that too, but wikipedia and other online sources say that this only applies when a defensive player is attempting to make a play on the runner.
Maybe the Wikipedia guys should, I don't know, WATCH a little baseball?
As this rule has been interpreted, there doesn't have to be an attempted tag - the umpire just needs to think the player is running out of the acceptable baseline (that line between the player and the next base) with the intention of avoiding a potential tag.
There are a lot of rules like this in baseball, where the strictly literal interpretation is not how the game plays out in the real world. Here's another example - catchers blocking home plate well before they've received a throw. They do this all the bloody time, and it's technically against the rules (they're not supposed to do this until they're in possession of the ball, according to rule 7.06b).
#DeleteChrome
A lot of commenters seem to think this is a bad idea, but once you're sure you hit the ball over the infield, you should be running as if you've got at least a double, as your single is essentially guaranteed regardless of how you run (unless they catch your fly ball, in which case you're out anyway). Most ball players can immediately tell the difference between hitting the ball into the infield and hitting it over them (and if it goes through on the ground, the first base coach should be telling you what to do).
Also, to clear up the rule question everyone's asking (I've been an ump for >10 years): so long as no one is trying to tag you out, you can go out as far from the diamond as you want. What you can't do: go inside the diamond. (Also: if you overrun first, even if you curve to the left (or right) as you run past the base, you can't be tagged out unless the ump thinks you've made a break for second, so even fewer worries with this strategy.)
This is pretty funny. If we were talking about Halo, we wouldn't see so many naive claims and theories, and so many of them moderated up! Instead of replying to each one, let me clarify a few points:
A major league batter knows the base he'll likely reach as soon as he knows where the ball will land. Having seen many thousands of hits, he can make a pretty good judgement pretty quickly. I've merely watched the games, and I can tell you well before the ball lands. It's all done without any math or calculations, if you can believe it, just rules of thumb based on experience:
* Over the center-fielder's head is a triple
* Reaching the wall elsewhere: a double
* Doesn't get by the outfielders: a single.
There are variables from that 'baseline': The defense could make a play on another baserunner, giving the batter the chance to get another base. Fielding mistakes, and sometimes a hard hit, a very fast/slow runner, or a very good/bad arm can make a difference of a base, but it's rare.
For the other question, I really don't know for sure. Baserunners are regularly outside the baselines, but I've rarely seen a baserunner go that far out unless he was avoiding a tag, taking out a fielder in a double-play, or over-running first base. But they sometimes round bases pretty widely without being called out. The rules are more complicated than they appear and the umps have discretion. I don't know for sure, but I doubt they'd be called out unless they were avoiding a tag or interfering with a fielder. I wouldn't depend on an answer that didn't come from an umpire.
I'm just a long-time avid baseball fan. I'm surprised I don't see more on /.; baseball depends heavily on a very controlled environment (batter vs pitcher) and is accessible to extensive statistical analysis. For those interested, I recommend Baseball Prospectus, Baseball Think Factory, the Society for American Baseball Research (SABR), and the writings of Bill James, the great modern popularizer of the statistical analysis of baseball (I think of him as the Bruce Schneier of baseball -- very insightful, clear analysis). Now, back to your regularly scheduled News for Nerds ...
The penalty for obstruction at the plate is awarding the next base. So if they enforced the rule, the result would be the same as if they didn't. So why bother?
Learn to love Alaska
There's something deliciously ironic about math helping people get to 3rd base quicker.
Of course if you're only trying to get to first, a straight line might be advised.
Huh? You're trying to get to who?
Rather, who is only trying to make out? I'm always trying to have sex.
Wait... we weren't ACTUALLY talking about baseball, were we?
Take a right-handed batter. The swing will turn the batter toward third, making the run toward first naturally start toward the inside of the diamond. On the other hand, a left-handed batter will naturally start on a more outward trajectory. I wonder if this is a quantifiable advantage in doubles statistics for left-handed batters after accounting for factors like the shorter distance to first base from the left-handed batter's box.
I wonder if really good base runners have a left leg that is shorter than their right leg. Like all the tennis players with one arm that's like three times as big as the other one.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
With respect to first base it makes no sense to run anything other than in a straight line to first base as any other distance would be longer and hence for a runner's greatest speed would be slower increasing the probability he would be called out as it gives fielders more time to throw the ball to the first baseman tor the force out.
1) Have a comma or four, old chap: ",,,,"
2) If you know you're not stopping at first (which I believe is the assumption here), then it seems it's quicker to swing wide early so you can round off the corner and get to 2nd and beyond quicker.
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
But like in most real-time decision-making scenarios, a lot of it is gamed out and optimized ahead of time. Check these out:
http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Baseball-3rd-Robert-Adair/dp/0060084367
http://www.baseballcalculus.com/articles.php?name=brad
* Reaches the wall elsewhere: Double
Not in Fenway Park. If it bounces hard off the Green Monster then it's a single. Hard line drives that are home runs in other parks are singles at Fenway.
Many should appreciate this: Shakespearean Who's On First
Rule 7.10(a):
"Any runner shall be called out, on appeal, when --
(a) After a fly ball is caught, he fails to retouch his original base before he or his original base is tagged;
Rule 7.10(a) Comment: "Retouch," in this rule, means to tag up and start from a contact with the base after the ball is caught. A runner is not permitted to take a flying start from a position in back of his base."
In case you're curious about the relevance of comments, there is this note in the Official Rules Foreword:
"The Playing Rules Committee, at its December 1977 meeting, voted to incorporate the Notes/Case Book/Comments section directly into the Official Baseball Rules at the appropriate places. Basically, the Case Book interprets or elaborates on the basic rules and in essence have the same effect as rules when applied to particular sections for which they are intended."
The article points out that the fielders would make sure to park themselves in the most efficient basepath.
I will have to watch on television to see if hitters/baserunners ever go outside the outer chalked line that guides the runner outside of the diamond on the way from home plate to first base. It is mandatory that the runner stay outside of the diamond on the second half of this leg except for touching first base, which is inside the diamond. If the first baseman keeps to the inside of the base, there is little chance of a collision with the runner. As has been stated in comments, the runner is free to collide with the other basemen as long as he is heading directly toward the base.
The kids I played baseball with would never have thought of going outside the outer chalked line even on a sure double, but there seems to be no rule against it.
Their they're doing there hair.
I agree with the guy a few posts back.
Even when it seems "obvious" (off the wall, etc) you almost always base the decision to go to 2nd from the 1st conference presentation. You make contact, start running at fast as you can, everyone starts looking, and you are basically over 1/2 way to 1st base before anyone figures out whether the result has merit. And a lot of the time you are not the only one running - you (and your faculty advisers) have to look out for other runners, figure out what they are going to do, and guess the composition of the peer review panel, etc, to know whether the paper will be accepted for publication.
Trying to plan for the exact base and route to it (beyond the usual wide turn that any little leaguer already knows) from the moment you make contact is about as useful as planning where you are going to swing before the pitch. Mathematics research is NOT a video game...
Now it all makes sense. The paper is actually a parody on outcome-based research investment as depicted in the red states.
Why nerds are not Jocks.... In a real game of baseball, there are only 2 instances where a runner tries to run the entire 4 bases: 1) a home run, in which case NO ONE is trying to complete the loop as fast as possible, heck its more aptly named the home-not-so-brisk-jog. 2) an inside the park home run. While aptly applied, the number of times this situation is attempted, much less completed is so infinitesimally small, if kinda makes this junk science. Furthermore, this idea assumes that the runner is aware of the necessity of obtaining an inside the park home run path (as opposed to say a straight line single) from the time he leaves the batters box. This is simply never the case, a typical inside the park home run is usually a stand up double or stretched triple and during the base running the runner must make 2-3 judgment calls as to the prospects of reaching the next base successfully and usually occurs through some unforeseeable bounce in the outfield or fielding bordering on an error. Therefore, in all but a fraction of a percent of plays, following this path will actually cost runners time, bases and outs. Furthermore, in the instance of a single, where from leaving the box the runner understands extra bases will not be an option, the straight line reigns supreme. The only instance where this applies is when leaving the batters box, where at least a stretched double is assumed. Again providing inside the park home runs occur so infrequently that a four base path should be completely omitted from calculations because it would disproportionately and adversely effect the 2 and 3 base runs. Basically apply the distance/speed algorithm used here to a triple and again for a double both will end up different from the 4 base version and each other, merge these two paths weighted based on the proportionality of doubles hit to triples hit. Thats is the path to be followed. furthermore, overlay the double and tripple paths ontop of the combined paths to allow the runner to deviate from the combined path at any point during the run to accommodate for an assumed more expected result which can be judged multiple times during the run. Now that would be applied science.
The baseball rules state that you need to be within 3' of the vector between the base you are leaving to the base you are going to, if a defensive player is trying to make a play on the base runner. That could be why the runners do not run so wide.
No you don't! You throw it to who!
Who else read the article and thought it had something to do with rounding numbers in different bases?
One fifth is still better than the NFL, which I believe hovers around one eighth. That's half of the reason I watch hockey - play is always moving when the clock is running. Even when the clock isn't running, stoppages rarely take more than 30 seconds.
The thing is, if a batter waits to see where the ball lands (will land) before he starts running for first base, he is unlikely to make it as far as you project from the final landing spot. Another factor is one of the rules of baseball. If a player runs straight to first base and over runs it, he is safe as long as he touched first base before a player holding the game ball touches first base. If however, a base runner rounds first base towards second base, an opposing player with the ball can tag him out.
Basically, to maximize his chances of getting on base, a batter must start running for first base as soon as the ball leaves his bat. Since at that moment he does not know where the ball will land, his optimum decision is to start running straight for first base. If while he is running, he realizes that the ball will land where he will be able to get extra bases, he can then curve out toward the optimal path for going for extra bases.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Well it is quite straightforward calculations to optimize path, and could be easly done even 50 years ago. There is probably some reasons nobody done and used this results, it already.
Any math teacher should know this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brachistochrone_curve
In brief, the Brachistochrone problem asks: what is the shortest time between two points. I'm simplifying a bit. It isn't always a straight line!
It should be fairly obvious to anyone in academia that the solution presented intuitively makes sense. Assuming that the goal is only to round the bases as fast as possible.
I do have to add that it seems sad that professors these days solve problems with mathematical modeling instead of equations.
I'm not a major league player, but after watching a good number of games, I assure you that I, most fans, and every major league player knows, very likely, what base they will reach when it becomes apparent where the ball will land.
You really haven't watched enough baseball games, and the article admits that the people that did the math aren't really familiar with baseball, either. The variables involved are far larger than most people would realize.
First, the assumption is that either there are no runners on base or that there are two outs.
Second, not just speed of the fielders but their quality (e.g., will they play a carom correctly, do they have a strong and accurate arm) determines whether taking another base is realistic.
Third, the speed of the runner will greatly change the equation. The very fastest runner might need a very wide circle, but much slower runners will not benefit from the wide turn.
Last, as the article briefly notes, runners already do all these calculations in their head and adjust their basepath optimally. Even the most casual viewer of baseball will notice that a runner leads off second not only towards third, but towards left field. In other words, they are positioning themselves close to the correct location on the curve in the article. And, again, even the most casual viewer will also know why this cannot be done at first base.
>why are adults still playing this kiddie game?
Because there's apparently money to be made. More to the point, because there are people who pay to WATCH them play this kiddie game.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.
Dude, you are sooooo over-thinking this one.
Everybody should just HIT THE BALL AS HARD AS THEY CAN, and then RUN LIKE THE WIND!!!!!11
An experienced batter will have a pretty good idea where the ball is going to land, from the moment it leaves his bat. He will know whether he's going to have to really hustle to get to first base before the ball does, or if he might have a chance at second. If he's got a chance of making second, he doesn't have to take the fastest path to first, to be sure of getting that far. And if he's still thinking that he may be able to make second base by the time he's half way to first, he should still be able to round first base toward second, and then put the brakes on, and get back to first before the ball does.
Since when is a sport required to maintain a frantic pace to be entertaining? I think most people watch a sport based on what happens when there is action not how often those actions occur.
There is something to what you say. However, what an experienced batter won't know is how the fielder will choose to play the ball. That means that the batter doesn't know if it will be over the fielder's head or not. Additionally, that knowledge of where the ball will land is really only true in his home park. Over the course of this past baseball season, I saw several occasions where a home team batter got an extra base because of where the ball landed that on another night a visiting team batter did not. The reason for this was that the home team batter knew that the ball hit to that spot would take a tricky bounce while the visiting team batter did not. This was compounded by the fact that the home team fielder also knew that the ball would take a tricky bounce and the visiting team fielder did not (I only noticed this particular occurrence because the announcers pointed it out, but in future games after that I noticed that the home team fielders consistently fielded balls hit to that area better than visiting team fielders).
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
You evil person.. now I'm gonna be hearing Yakety Sax for the rest of the night!! ;}~
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
taking a wide swing at first is a gamble. If the right fielder cuts off that ball in the gap they can throw the ball behind the runner making a big turn at first base and get them out. You are only allowed to over run first base if you are going straight, if you make the turn you are considered to be heading to second and can be thrown out at first. It doesn't happen much, but then runner usually don't gamble on a double until they are sure.
The difference in run expectancy for a man on second vs a man on first is at best about a quarter of a run so you would have to make it to second fairly often vs the number of times you get thrown out for this to be worth while. I figure it would be pretty close to the success rates calculated for stealing second.
Still, it is possible that slightly wider paths are used by the best base runners without getting quite to this extreme case of going for a double on every ball out of the infield. Maybe some of the faster players who hit a lot of doubles are already employing some of these tactics when the are "Thinking double right out of the box."
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
yea, 18 feet away the second baseman would just have to have the ball in hand for you to be called out.
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
Not to mention "hits the wall near Pesky's Pole and before the fielder can react it's scuttled like a rat all the way to the bullpen." Inside-the-park home run in that case if you're a decent runner.
Save Maine's economy: write stuff down. All comments are exclusively my own, not my employer.
Yea, but if the ball doesn't get past the outfielders, which would pretty much assure a double anyway, it will be in the hands of the second baseman very quickly, likely before the runner reaches second base.
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
by the time the ball has gotten through the gap, the player should already be part of the way to first base. If you started curving out before it actually gets through the gap then you are subject to ichiro flying out of right field, grabbing the ball and throwing it to first behind you while you are making your wide turn.
That said, sometimes you really do know that the ball is a double right off the bat, like when its on a line into the gap. Maybe in those cases players could take a slightly different route, my guess is that they already do, but it might not be as extreme as it could be in the optimal case.
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
And to play baseball all you need is the hand eye coordination of an ace fighter pilot (plus fast legs and a strong arm are nice).
I see what you mean though. If someone the size of Dustin Pedroia can win an MVP then at least the game isn't contingent upon a particular extreme body type.
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
The only time that a very small gain in getting to second base would help you is when you're transitioning from a 'can't quite get to second base in time' state to a 'can just get to second base in time' state.
If you're in the 'can't quite get to second base in time' state doesn't it follow that you're also in a 'easily got to first base in time' state?
So in this state, does it really matter if you misjudge the fielder and take marginally longer to get to first base?
Insanity: voting in the same two parties over and over again and expecting different results
Thought that's what it said at first. I'm wrong.