- This topic has 27 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
So, if they make the bases three inches wider in all directions doesnt that mean the bases are now 89 feet six inches apart instead of 90 feet?
And the 90 feet that’s been around for 150 years, how is that measured? From where to where? Is it from the edge of the base to the edge of the next base? From the center of the bases to the center of the next base? From the foul line to the edge or center of the next base?
r/Esteemed Rat
The bases are laid out kind of funny. The outside edge of third base and the outside edge of first base are on the fair/foul line. Just like the entire foul pole is actually in fair territory, the entire base is in fair territory. The back corner of both first base and third base is at 90 feet. That means the front edge of first base would be 88 feet 6 inches from the back point of home plate with an 18 inch base.
At second base, the measurement is to the center of the base. The center of 2nd base is 90 feet from the back, outside corner of first base and 90 feet from the back, outside corner of third base. Therefore, it would be 87 feet 9 inches from the inside edge of first base to the closest part of 2nd base. It is the same between third base and second base.
EDIT: Looking up some information on the MLB field, that may be wrong. I know what I said is the case for a little league infield with shorter dimensions.
EDIT #2: Unless there is some additional information, I am correct in how to lay out the bases. The MLB site just gives dimensions but it doesn’t specify to what part of the bag the measurements are made to. I have found a lot of other sites that state ALL bases are laid out as I described but the only thing that changes is the distances. i.e. Little League is 60 feet, MLB is 90 feet, etc.
Reading this rekindles vivid memories of coach Norman Dale having his team measure the height of the basketball🏀 hoop and court dimensions at the huge Indiana collegiate arena, to reassure them that it was identical to their own court back in Hickory. If Rat could ever be coaxed away from watching hour after hour of “Mannix” and “Streets of San Francisco” episodes, I bet he would make for a pretty fair Little League coach.
Pugs, that’s a great scene you mention and the concept is worth stealing. Carries over well to tennis too.
Another way to look at the infield dimensions is that the size of the diamond doesn’t change. It’s still a 90-ft square. The bases just grow closer to each other.
You can think of each base as a diamond, just like the infield, with top, bottom, left and right points. The right point of 1B is coincident with the right point of the infield diamond, the top point of 2B is coincident with the top point of the infield diamond, the left point of 3B is coincident with the left point of the infield diamond, and the bottom point of the plate is coincident with the bottom point of the infield diamond, i.e., where 1B and 3B foul lines intersect.
Euro, unless the MLB diamond is laid out differently, The top point of 2B is outside the 90 foot square. The squares’ point at 2B is in the center of the bag. I don’t know why it is laid out this way but I know it is on most diamonds. I have had to lay out the bases on at least 4 different fields and it is something that surprised me the first time I encountered it.
forsch31, the only thing I see off with your post is the nearest distance from 2B to either 1B/3B. With conventional 15-inch bases the distance is 87 feet, 6 inches (90 ft minus 2 x 15 inches). With 18-inch bases, the distance will be an even 87 feet.
I think you are off because you are not making the top point of the 2B bag coincident with the top point of the infield diamond. You said 2B is measured from the center of the bag, which is true, but it’s the top point of 2B that is coincident with the top of the infield diamond. In other words, no part of the 2B bag extends outside of the infield diamond.
Euro, I know your last post addresses that you MIGHT be off but I wanted to analyze the dimensions a little. If the 90 foot measurements are taken to the middle of 2nd base AND the top point of 2B is coincident with the top of the infield diamond, then geometric principles would be off.
forsch31, a picture is worth a 1,000 words. I found a diagram in the mlb.com rule book that illustrates it as you described.
That’s what I was looking for. I don’t understand why 1B and 3B go to the back corner and 2B to the middle but that’s the way it is.
forsch31, I’m not exactly sure what you’re asking in that last post, but I drew a quick diagram at how I came up with my numbers when I was assuming the top point of 2B was coincident with the top point of the infield diagram.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EwnljY1WQAQwWAy?format=jpg&name=large
I don’t understand why 1B and 3B go to the back corner and 2B to the middle but that’s the way it is.
Probably just arbitrary from ages ago, but doesn’t seem consistent. It’s why I was off. I remember a long time ago a little league umpire explained to me that the corners of the bases/plate defined the diamond. True, I guess, except for the anomaly at 2B.
So based on Euro’s diagram shown above, the current distance is
90’ – 15” – 7.5“ = 88’ 1.5” right?And could become 4.5” narrower? 90 – 18” – 9” = 87’ 9”
If they want to change without controversy, why don’t they just set 4.5” of the first and third base bags in foul territory?
so cal, I agree with your calculations based on the correct diagram. However, the point in the change (just for trial in minor league as I understand) is not to eliminate controversy. The purpose is to add excitement with more offense (e.g., base stealing, beating out more grounders, etc.). Or maybe I missed your point?
Euro, when you made this statement
You said 2B is measured from the center of the bag, which is true
I thought you were saying that you knew 2B was measured to the center. However, you also originally laid out 2B as having the back corner of 2B as one corner of the infield diamond. I was basically pointing out that it could not be 90 feet to the back corner of 2B and also be 90 feet to the center of 2B. Not a big deal.
Philosophical thought of the day: definitely teach the base stealer to slide to the back edge of the bag. The throw from the catcher still has to be the same but the runner has 4.5 inches less distance to run to the back edge. If they slide to the front edge, the throw has to travel slightly less distance, too.
I wonder how much difference that 4.5 inch difference will make?
Yes forch31 I was saying center of 2B, meaning center horizontally, but top of the bag vertically. In actuality it’s center-center (horizontally and vertically).
The purpose is to add excitement with more offense (e.g., base stealing, beating out more grounders, etc.).
Maybe I missed the point. I thought the new initiative was for safety, with a bigger bag lessening stomped hands, feet, for every play not involving Machado.
forsch, since we’re being geometry nerds, I have more to add to your last point. Runners typically lead from 1B and 2B to the outfield side. That also makes the straight line to the back of the bag even shorter.
That’s good for stealing bases. However, rounding 1B trying to stretch a single into a double presents quite the quandary. Rounding 1B puts the runner closer to the back of 2B, but the throw is coming from the OF. So what to do? LOL, no need to respond.
so cal, if they wanted to add safety, one of the easiest ways is to add the orange base to the foul side of first base like in little league. That way the runner from home plate is always on the foul side of the line and won’t be anywhere near the first baseman’s foot, leg, etc., except on a wild throw.
so cal, if safety was the sole purpose, what you said makes perfect sense. Maybe it’s a combination of both. The article I read didn’t mention safety, but I don’t remember if it asserted excitement/more offense was the only purpose, or even if it was a reliable source.
They are making the changes to encourage more stolen bases. Fans want more steals according to them and I agree but I think that’s been true for a while now.
This guy might be blowing smoke
What MLB wants to see: The MLB primarily cites a reduction in injuries and collisions for the change, the idea being more room on the bases means more room for runners to reach base without running into or onto defenders. It’s also hoped that slightly larger bases will mean slightly increased success on stolen base attempts.
Triple-A (Larger Bases): To reduce player injuries and collisions, the size of first, second and third base will be increased from 15 inches square to 18 inches square. The Competition Committee also expects the shorter distances between bases created by increased size to have a modest impact on the success rate of stolen base attempts and the frequency with which a batter-runner reaches base on groundballs and bunt attempts.
Of course three inches equates to a one-hundredth of a second.l, during which a thrown ball travels one foot.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.