04/26/24
October 26, 2010
Square Gets the Circle: the fastest way to get around a baseball diamond? Running in a circle. Almost.
"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."
While not that great of a player, Glanville is well known for being both an excellent quote for articles, and one of the smarter (and more open) former-player commentators. His endorsement of experimenting on the base paths will probably lead to someone trying it out in spring training.
However, I'd ask the researchers to run their simulations on "possible doubles" and "possible triples", more than inside-the-park-home-runs. Baserunners that can squeeze out any advantage on trying to turn a single into a double, or a stand-up double into a stretch triple, can be VERY valuable to a team.
posted by grum@work at 05:10 PM on October 26, 2010
On a hit to left field, the batter-runner can pick up the ball as he rounds first, and he should be able to determine whether he will be able to make 2nd easily. If so, he could take the "great circle route" to 2nd and pick up the 3rd base coach's signal to hold or advance. once he has headed to 3rd, it's all up to the 3rd base coach, but most runners will be running wide as they turn for the plate. A hit to right is a different story. The batter-runner will have to rely on the 3rd base coach from the time he touches 1st, and the coach probably will have trouble determining the batter-runner's chances at second. Thus, unless the hit to right is obviously not to be fielded cleanly, the path to 2nd will be more direct than circular. Most runners will run wide to 1st and 3rd, but 2nd requires an early decision.
posted by Howard_T at 05:43 PM on October 26, 2010
No runner would complete an inside the park homerun with a square route, they might not approach the circle, but certainly come close at times.
As the others have stated, the reality is that the batter rarely knows they're going to be going for a triple, let alone a homerun, right out of the box. They have to get to 1st as fast as they can, and the circle is not the way to do that. Once they know that they're going to continue on, they do bow out their path, it's just too late to make it a circle.
on edit, what howard said.
Additionally, many inside the park homeruns involve some sort of fielding/throwing error, and the runner can't anticipate that, so it would be dangerous to veer that far out. The next base is the priority, not the base after that.
posted by dviking at 05:54 PM on October 26, 2010
It seems like the wider path would be more useful for runners with sub par agility and acceleration but those runners are less likely to be running more than two bases at a time anyway. I would like to know where they got their speed numbers before I'd buy into this. Or, you know, they could actually test out the theory.
posted by tron7 at 05:56 PM on October 26, 2010
I always thought there was an unmarked "path" of some width between the bases that the runner had to stay within, but I guess that is only if a fielder is trying to tag them.
posted by graymatters at 06:12 PM on October 26, 2010
...but I guess that is only if a fielder is trying to tag them.
Exactly, gm. The baseline is determined as the straight line between the runner and the base at the time the fielder initiates a tag play. It is considered to be 3 feet either side of the center of that line. A batter running to first is supposed to stay within the 3-foot box outside the foul line for the last 45 feet, but this only applies to a play at first from the infield when a batter runs between a fielder attempting a throw and the fielder attempting to catch it at the bag.
posted by Howard_T at 10:46 PM on October 26, 2010
Don't concentrate so much on the batter; this would apply to all runners. I think the real value here would be for runners on first or second trying to advance on subsequent hits. A more efficient path would give a runner a much better chance to pick up two (or three) bases rather than just one on a hit to the outfield.
posted by bender at 09:32 AM on October 27, 2010
My first thought when looking at the illustration in the artical was, "looks like the shape of the infield."
My second thought, "Wait, if this wasn't already known, why is the infield dirt shaped the way it is?"
At first I thought the center of the arc was home, but at second glance it appears to be a lot closer to the pitcher's mound. I'd like to see an overlay of the two images.
posted by MrFrisby at 10:11 AM on October 27, 2010
As the others have stated, the reality is that the batter rarely knows they're going to be going for a triple, let alone a homerun, right out of the box. They have to get to 1st as fast as they can, and the circle is not the way to do that.
You don't have to know. If the ball is not hit on the ground you either reach base safely, or you'll be out. There's no reason to 'get to 1st as fast as they can'. First is a given. It's getting to second as fast as they can that matters, and the circle route is in fact faster, you might as well start from home.
In fact, I'd guess that home to first is the path that this route would benefit the runner the most. Plenty of good runners already take wide paths from second to home.
posted by justgary at 02:34 PM on October 27, 2010
You don't have to know....
From the article: Of course, a runner is best off running straight toward first base until he's certain he's hit more than a single
The question then becomes exactly when a batter knows that he's going for 2nd.
posted by dviking at 06:48 PM on October 27, 2010
Of course, a runner is best off running straight toward first base until he's certain he's hit more than a single
But that's completely wrong. On a fly ball of any depth please tell me how running straight to first is an advantage. Ground ball, sure. Fly ball, none. If the ball is caught, it didn't matter if he never ran to first. If it falls in for a hit, then he's better off running in the alternate path (if it's faster) in case there's a chance to advance.
But 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.
There is no reward for getting to first faster. If first is a given, then you might as well prepare for a possible double. If taking a wide route is preferred for a double or triple, then a wide route is best when there's no chance of being thrown out at first.
The runner doesn't need to know "exactly when a batter knows that he's going for 2nd". He only needs to know when he doesn't have to worry about getting to first as fast as possible, and that happens on much more than just obvious hits.
Maybe I'm missing something. But tell me what I'm missing. The quote doesn't say anything to back up what it's claiming.
posted by justgary at 07:11 PM on October 27, 2010
Once again....The question then becomes exactly when a batter knows that he's going for 2nd.
me thinks you're giving the batter too much credit for knowing quickly that 1st is a given. If they run even just 5 to 10 feet down the line before knowing, it changes the curve they should run, and it turns into less of an arc. I grant you that more often players should run a wider arc, but I'll stand with my original thought that most often the next base is the priority, not the one after that, at least just after passing the bag (or leaving the box) so the arc doesn't approach the optimal layout.
Keep in mind that (at least I believe this to be the case) that the optimal path for a double is not as wide as the optimal path for an inside the park homerun. The extra wide arc from 1st to 2nd is to keep your momemtum going around second, instead of slowing to make a turn. So, given that the batter rarely leaves the box thinking triple, or home run, they don't bow it out as much as the study shows. I think this article is interesting, however, I also think they need some additional data collection to prove their case.
Is it just me, or has the optimal path in the link changed over the past couple of days? Seems like it's been cut back from 3rd to home.
posted by dviking at 10:34 PM on October 27, 2010
One item that I don't see addressed in this circle, but also as rule is not enforced properly (IMO) is the runners lane to first base that the batter/runner is required to run inside of for the final 45 feet to the bag. This link gives you the rules on the runners lane.
posted by Demophon at 08:16 AM on October 28, 2010
Demophon, the rule only applies if there is a tag play on the runner at 1st, or if a fielder were to hit the runner with the ball throwing to 1st. The circle path would not be used by a runner trying to beat out a ground ball.
posted by dviking at 10:14 AM on October 28, 2010
me thinks you're giving the batter too much credit for knowing quickly that 1st is a given.
That's where we disagree. Any decent fly ball for an average runner and first is a given. The majority of the times the hitter knows he's hit the ball well immediately. Think of a runner hitting a home run and admiring the shot. He doesn't even take a step before knowing the balls hit well. He's got first already.
So for a hitter that hits a deep fly ball he knows immediately he's not beating out a grounder.
If the article says this:
Of course, a runner is best off running straight toward first base until he's certain he's hit more than a single. But 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.
It's claiming that taking a wide route from when the hitter know's it's a double is better, yet runners almost never did it. The runner will know that he's hit a decent fly ball as quickly that he's hit a ball in a pocket. So the same would apply.
posted by justgary at 02:51 PM on October 28, 2010
Exactly. As long as an infielder is not going to be making a play on the ball, the batter is not going to be thrown out at first base, so taking the "circular" path to hedge his chances slightly on getting to second is the right decision. You know as soon as the ball hits the bat whether it's on the ground or in the air.
posted by bender at 04:39 PM on October 28, 2010
Any hitter is going to know before he leaves the box whether or not he has a double or more. Even the Mariners know when they have extra bases.
posted by tron7 at 05:31 PM on October 28, 2010
Think of a runner hitting a home run and admiring the shot. Often those batters are incorrect and give up extra bases because they admired a shot that hit the top of the wall, but that's not the point.
Before I add some additional comments, let me stress that I have stated I grant you that more often players should run a wider arc in my prior post, so we're really debating the exceptions at this point.
Let's look at it this way:
All ground balls, and low line drives, would have to be treated as potential plays at 1st by the batter right out of the box. Even a shot up the middle might have a play made on it, so the runner doesn't take the wide route out of the box. Many extra base hits start out this way. The batter starts his route to first immediately, so even if just a split second later he knows the ball got through the infield, it would take him considerable distance to change his course. As I said, even just 5 to 10 feet down the line changes the arc considerably.
Hard line drives right at the right fielder would also fall into this category.
So, on all other hits the batter should take the wider path. Now, the question is what arc? I still believe, and the article doesn't address this, that the optimal arc from home to 2nd is not the same as the arc from home to third. So, given that even if the hitter knows he hit the ball well, I would think that 10 feet from home they're thinking double, not triple. Yes, some exceptional runners, and/or very agressive runners might think triple out of the box, but then they run a higher risk of being thrown out at 2nd if they take too wide of an arc. Again, the arc's benefit is it saves time by reducing the cornering time. If no corner is going to be made, then it actually increases time.
posted by dviking at 06:39 PM on October 28, 2010
Even the Mariners know when they have extra bases.
Nice!
posted by rcade at 07:20 PM on October 28, 2010
Not that this is scientific evidence, or that it proves any point, however, in watching the game tonight, there were several very clear shots of the base running that I was talking about. That is, even on a ball that was hit well enough that 1st was a given, the batter still was a couple of strides down the line before it was 100% apparent that this was the case.
The best case I recall was Renteria batting in the 8th. Line drive out into left field, but you can clearly see him a stride, maybe two, down the line before he adjusts his path to take a wider arc into 1st.
posted by dviking at 11:50 PM on October 28, 2010
That is, even on a ball that was hit well enough that 1st was a given, the batter still was a couple of strides down the line before it was 100% apparent that this was the case.
I'm not arguing what percentage of plays a hitter would know first is a given. There are certainly times he wouldn't, there are certainly exceptions. I said that in many instances a hitter could tell right away that getting to first wasn't an issue, and if that's true, and an arc is preferable, he should go that route.
I'm also not really getting into what size arc a player should take, or if it even helps when leaving the batters box. I'm simply saying that if it helps, there are many times that it could be used beyond when a hitter 'knows' he has second.
That's my only argument, and we're going in circles (ha) so I'll just leave it at this. The idea that in most at bats a hitter doesn't know where and how well he's hit a ball within the first step if not immediately, well, lets just say I strongly disagree and leave it at that. A batter that hits a ball well, in the air, knows it. His best route is the one that gets him to second if the ball isn't caught.
If a batter hits a ball between third and short, then of course, until he knows the ball is through the hole he has to get to first as fast as possible. But that's because he realizes that he hit a grounder between third and short (Renteria), immediately, just as the guy that hits a long drive to the gap knows he should have a double from the minute he leaves the batters box. It's not that he doesn't know where he hit the ball. It's because he does.
I should also add that hitters have been taught for over a hundred years to get out of the box as fast as possible in a straight line to first, and if it's a hit take an arc at the last second. Batters are even timed from home to first. It's ingrained. Now some guy comes out with a theory that an arc is better and faster in certain circumstances.
You can't change the runners instincts right away. This type base running would probably have to start at the lower levels. So when you look at players like Renteria, that have been playing baseball for decades, and taught to get out of the box and run straight to first, that's what you'll see. No matter what. Renteria has not been taught to run that way.
So you're using him as an example, getting into his head, believing that he ran straight to first because he couldn't tell where the ball was, when in fact I'm betting that Renteria would run that same way no matter what. Again, it's ingrained in him. And until there's a complete change in thought (if it is faster) you're not going to see hitters use this method. It's not how they've been taught. Nothing more.
posted by justgary at 03:32 PM on October 29, 2010
I hear you on that, but my point is that Renteria did change his arc the moment he knew he was possibly going for more than a single, so I'm not so sure an ingrained straight path is what causes professional players to not start out in an arc.
posted by dviking at 04:07 PM on October 29, 2010
In watching the batters very closely during the series, I think the reality is that they do follow the arc, and that they really only run down the line when 1st isn't a given by conservative standards (that is, not a high fly ball).
They arc out as soon as they sense any chance of possibly going past 1st. I stand with my view that they don't automatically know as quickly as you think they do, as I saw numerous batters take that one or more strides down the line prior to arcing out, even on line drives that on screen easily made it into the outfield...the batter just didn't know right off the bat.
However, on the more obvious fly balls, they did arc out right away, so I don't think they have a straight line mentality that is drilled into them. They just have getting on as their top priority, so a straight line makes sense until events change.
posted by dviking at 01:44 AM on November 02, 2010
The only way I could see such a path being successful would be if the hitter some how knew it would be an inside the park homerun or nothing. Still it is good to see that math people are looking at such things. This could be the next Moneyball theory.