Getting to first base: Running is faster than sliding in collegiate baseball and softball players

Introduction

As a baserunner in baseball or softball, the primary goal is to reach a base as quickly as possible before being tagged or forced out by a fielder. In many instances, a runner may utilize a slide to avoid a tag. Sliding involves converting the body from a vertical position to a nearly horizontal one and can be performed with either a feet-first or head-first approach. ¹ Given the importance of baserunning in baseball and softball, it is meaningful to consider both safety and speed when comparing the effectiveness of feet-first and head-first slides.

Both head-first and feet-first slides demonstrate injury risk, ¹ and multiple research studies^2–9 have examined injuries related to sliding in baseball and softball. For instance, Dick et al. ² performed an epidemiological study using 16 years of injury surveillance data from National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) men’s baseball teams. They found 13% of game injuries resulted from slides, including 345 injuries from head-first slides and 247 injuries from feet-first slides, though they did not find a significant difference in frequency between the two types. Hosey and Puffer ³ tracked injuries from sliding over the course of one season in three NCAA Division I men’s baseball teams and seven women’s softball teams. While the sliding injury rate was significantly higher in softball players, there were no significant differences in injury rates between head-first and feet-first slides in either group. In an epidemiological study of five seasons of injury surveillance data of Major League Baseball and Minor League Baseball players, Camp et al. ⁴ found over 1600 sliding injuries resulted in time out of play, of which 8.2% required surgery. While 43.7% of these injuries were due to head-first slides and 56.3% were from feet-first slides, injury rates were not significantly different between the two approaches. ⁴ On the other hand, in a season-long study of 10 high school baseball and nine softball teams, Stovak et al. ⁵ found injury rates were significantly higher with head-first than feet-first slides in baseball players, but not softball players. While the evidence comparing the injury risk of head-first and feet-first sliding may not be conclusive at this point, many researchers have suggested rule changes, the use of break-away bases, and other prevention methods may reduce the risk of injury associated with sliding in baseball and softball.^2,4,6–9

Another concern regarding sliding is speed in getting to the base. Corzatt et al. ¹ proposed a biomechanical model that suggested a head-first slide follows the rotational motion already present in a sprinter, while a feet-first slide would change the angular momentum and possibly slow the velocity of the runner. However, using video analysis of several professional baseball players attempting to steal second base, they found no meaningful differences in speed between the two types of slides. While they partially attributed this to their relatively small sample size, similar results were shown by Kane et al. ¹⁰ and Hosey et al. ¹¹ Kane et al. ¹⁰ studied 60 players ranging from Little League to university levels and found no statistically significant differences in time between sliding head-first and feet-first when running from first to second base. Likewise, Hosey et al. ¹¹ found no significant differences in time between head-first and feet-first slides in 20 collegiate baseball players as they ran from first to second base. Interestingly, Hosey et al. ¹¹ also reported 68% of the participants believed head-first slides were faster while 90% perceived feet-first slides to be safer.

While the previously mentioned studies demonstrated no significant differences in speed between head-first and feet-first slides, a particular situation that requires special consideration is a baserunner’s approach to first base after putting a ground ball in play. This play differs from most other baserunning situations in that the runner rarely has to avoid a tag from a fielder and has the option of running beyond the base after initial contact without concern of being tagged out. Players are typically encouraged to “run through” first base in order to beat a force play from a fielder, but some runners may elect to slide (typically head-first) because they believe they will reach the base faster.

Two studies have compared running and sliding techniques in baseball players. In a study of 13 male high school baseball players, Szymanski et al. ¹² examined the time needed to reach first base by either running through or diving head-first after batting a ball off a tee from home plate. After a 15 min warm-up, participants performed two trials of each condition with 3 min of rest between each trial. A digital camera was used to measure the time from bat–ball contact to the time the player touched first base, and the researchers found no significant difference in time between running through and diving into first base. They concluded high school players should use the most appropriate slide for a particular situation, and argued the decision for coaches to allow players to slide into first base was primarily an issue of safety rather than speed. ¹²

In a more recent study, Ficklin et al. ¹³ compared four arrival techniques to second base in nine intercollegiate baseball players. Following a warm-up, participants performed maximal effort runs from a lead-off position approximately 4 m ahead of first base toward second base. Participants performed two trials each of reaching second base by sliding head-first, sliding feet-first, running through the base, and running to a stop on the base, with 2–3 min of rest between trials. One video camera was used for timing purposes, while an additional configuration of two high-definition cameras was used to capture three-dimensional motion of 21 body landmarks to analyze the technique of each approach. Ficklin et al. ¹³ also split the entire 22.9 m run into the first 12.9 m and final 10.0 m for analysis. Since the researchers measured participant center of mass with video analysis, they did not require participants to make contact with second base when performing the run through trials. Overall, they found the time required to run through the base was significantly shorter than sliding feet-first or running to a stop on the base, while there was no significant difference between running through the base and sliding head-first. These differences largely occurred during the last 10.0 m of the run and were not observed in the initial 12.9 m. When measuring the actual velocity of the center of mass over the last 10.0 m, running through the base was significantly faster than the other three conditions while running to a stop on the base was significantly slower than the other three. Velocity during the run through condition tended to increase during the last 10.0 m while it generally slowed down in the other three conditions. Ficklin et al. ¹³ contended the time differences observed between the four arrival techniques were due to differences in movement mechanics over the final 10 m when approaching the base, and suggested even though sliding head-first may provide a reach advantage in some situations, running through the base allows the runner to remain upright and advance to the next base quickly if warranted.

While sliding or diving head-first does not get a runner to first base quicker than running,^12,13 players that are desperate to get a hit or reach base in a particular situation may elect to slide even though it is commonly believed that sliding head-first into first base is more dangerous. ¹² Dick et al. ² claimed increased intensity during competition may lead players to perform more risky behaviors than they would during practice, and it could be argued that sliding into first base to beat out a close play would likely place the runner at higher risk for injury. Though it may be assumed that running through first base is faster than sliding into it, research in this area is limited and results are mixed. Szymanski et al. ¹² found no significant differences in time between running through and sliding head-first into first base in high school baseball players, while Ficklin et al. ¹³ found running through the base was faster than sliding feet-first, but not head-first, in collegiate baseball players. However, their study asked participants to run from a lead-off position from first base to second base, and they did not require participants to make contact with second base when running through. Ficklin et al. ¹³ also acknowledged their results could not be generalized to female softball players given differences in base distances and lead-off rules for baserunners between the two sports. Therefore, the purpose of the present study was to examine the differences in time required to reach first base by either sliding or running in both collegiate softball and baseball players. It was hypothesized that running through the base would be faster than sliding head-first or feet-first.

Method

The present investigation utilized a crossover study design to compare the amount of time required to sprint a distance of 18.3 m (softball) or 27.4 m (baseball) and contact a base by either continuing to sprint, sliding head-first, or sliding feet-first. Each distance was chosen to reflect the distance between home plate and first base in the respective sport. The participant samples for this study were intentionally selected to represent skilled players at the collegiate level, so position players from a women’s softball team and a men’s baseball team from a small, private university in the Midwestern U.S. were invited to participate. The researcher coordinated this recruiting effort with the coaching staffs of each team, who agreed to schedule the research study within their team’s practice schedules on specific days that were already dedicated to baserunning practice. Prior to the study, the researcher met with the head coach of each team and informed them of the nature of the study, and both coaches agreed to announce the opportunity to participate in the study to their position players. Pitchers were excluded from participation since they typically have less baserunning experience at the collegiate level and have different practice regimens. Seventeen male players and 14 female players present in practice on the days of data collection were invited by the researcher in-person to participate. Of these, 12 female softball players (20.0 ± 1.3 years old) and 14 male baseball players (20.6 ± 1.6 years old) agreed to take part in the study. Two softball players and three baseball players declined to participate because of current or recent injury concerns. Both programs played at the NCAA Division II level, and all participants were free from injury at the time of the study. The resulting sample sizes in the present study were comparable to those in similar studies by Szymanski et al. ¹² (13 participants) and Ficklin et al. ¹³ (9 participants).

Testing was conducted in the early part of the spring season on two consecutive days for the softball team and on one day in the later part of the fall season for the baseball team during each teams’ normal practice time in an indoor practice facility with a synthetic turf field. Following a light, aerobic warm-up of approximately 10–15 min, participants were asked to perform three trials each of running, sliding head-first, or sliding feet-first in a randomized, counterbalanced order. Trials were timed using a dual-beam wireless infrared timing system (TracTronix, Belton, MO, USA), which measured time to the nearest .001 s. At the starting line, two sensors were placed on tripods at a height of approximately 0.6 m, while the two sensors at the end line were placed directly in front of the base at a height of about 8 cm in order to capture initial contact with the base. To reduce injury risk, the base was not fixed to the ground. Participants were encouraged to reach the base as fast as possible and were instructed to contact the front of the base for each trial. They were allowed 1–2 min of rest between trials, during which time the researcher would reset the timing system and reposition the base if necessary. Trial times were recorded by the researcher after each trial, but were not shared with the participants. Additionally, after completing the trials, each participant was asked which of the three approaches (running, head-first slide, or feet-first slide) they believed was fastest, which was safest, and which was most preferred. All procedures were approved by a university Institutional Review Board and participants provided informed consent prior to participating.

Results

Approach times for the 12 softball players are displayed in Table 1 and Figure 1. The repeated measures ANOVA was significant (F[2, 22]=36.74, p < .001), and follow-up pairwise comparisons showed running through the base was significantly faster than both sliding head-first (p = .001) and feet-first (p < .001). The effect size difference between running and sliding head-first was moderate, while the difference between running and sliding feet-first was large. The difference between sliding head-first and feet-first was not significant (p = .328) and was associated with a small effect size. When asked which of the three approaches (running, head-first slide, or feet-first slide) they believed to be fastest, safest, and most preferred, all 12 softball players reported running was fastest, safest, and most preferred.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Time required to reach first base by approach in female softball players (n = 12).

Approach	Time to reach base (M ± SD)
Run	3.159 ± .150 s
Head-first slide	3.273 ± .142 s
Feet-first slide	3.300 ± .136 s
Post hoc pairwise comparisons	Mean difference (95% CI)	p	ES (Cohen’s d)
Run versus head-first slide	−.115 (−.175 to −.055) s	.001*	.78
Run versus feet-first slide	−.142 (−.184 to −.099) s	<.001*	.98
Head-first versus feet-first slide	−.027 (−.071 to .017) s	.328	.19

*p < .017 (Bonferroni correction).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Time required to reach first base by approach in female softball players (n = 12). Bars represent group means and lines represent individual participant averages for each condition.

Approach times for the 14 baseball players are displayed in Table 2 and Figure 2. The repeated measures ANOVA was significant (F[2, 26]=13.77, p < .001), and follow-up pairwise comparisons showed running through the base was significantly faster than both sliding head-first (p = .009) and feet-first (p = .002). The effect size difference between running and sliding head-first was small, while the difference between running and sliding feet-first was moderate. The difference between sliding head-first and feet-first was not significant (p = .399) and was associated with a small effect size. When asked which of the three approaches they believed to be fastest, safest, and most preferred, all 14 baseball players reported running was fastest, safest, and most preferred.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Time required to reach first base by approach in male baseball players (n = 14).

Approach	Time to reach base (M ± SD)
Run	4.099 ± .235 s
Head-first slide	4.201 ± .232 s
Feet-first slide	4.237 ± .231 s
Post hoc pairwise comparisons	Mean difference (95% CI)	p	ES (Cohen’s d)
Run versus head-first slide	−.102 (−.178 to −.025) s	.009*	.44
Run versus feet-first slide	−.138 (−.222 to −.054) s	.002*	.59
Head-first versus feet-first slide	−.036 (−.099 to .026) s	.399	.16

*p < .017 (Bonferroni correction).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

Time required to reach first base by approach in male baseball players (n = 14). Bars represent group means and lines represent individual participant averages for each condition.

Discussion

To the author’s knowledge, this was the first study to compare differences in time to reach first base between running through, sliding head-first, and sliding feet-first in both collegiate male baseball players and female softball players. The present study showed running through first base was significantly faster than sliding either head-first or feet-first in both groups, while there were no significant differences in time between sliding head-first and feet-first in either group. These findings supported the researcher’s hypothesis. Additionally, all participants reported that they believed running through the base was faster, safer, and more preferred than sliding head-first or feet-first.

In addition to statistical significance, a practical examination of the results is helpful. When comparing velocities for each condition, the “average” softball player covered a distance of 18.3 m in 3.159 s when running through the base, while the “average” softball player needed 3.273 s to cover that same distance when performing a head-first slide. If these two conditions were matched side by side in a race, the player running through the base would win the race by a distance of about 0.6 m. The average softball player performing a feet-first slide would be even farther behind. In the baseball players, differences in time required to reach the base, while still statistically significant, were somewhat smaller between conditions. Even so, in the hypothetical “race” between the average baseball player running through the base and the average baseball player sliding head-first, the player running through the base would still win by about 0.7 m.

Several earlier research studies examined differences between arrival techniques when running from first to second base. Similar to the present study, Corzatt et al., ¹ Kane et al., ¹⁰ Hosey et al., ¹¹ and Ficklin et al. ¹³ found no significant differences in time to reach the base when comparing head-first and feet-first slides. Ficklin et al. ¹³ and Szymanski et al. ¹² also compared sliding techniques to running through a base. In contrast to the present study, neither found a significant difference in time needed to reach the base when comparing running through and sliding head-first. However, Ficklin et al. ¹³ did find running through the base was significantly faster than sliding feet-first in collegiate baseball players, and the actual velocity of the participants measured during the last 10.0 m of the run was significantly faster in the run through condition than either sliding condition. These differences could be explained by the mechanisms used to measure time. While Szymanski et al. ¹² and Ficklin et al. ¹³ utilized video analysis to assess time required to reach the base, the present study employed a dual-beam infrared timing system.

In their study of male collegiate baseball players, Ficklin et al. ¹³ did not require participants to contact the base at the end of the run, which may explain why they found significant differences in actual center of mass velocity but not time to reach the base when comparing running and sliding head-first. If their participants had been instructed to contact the base, different results may have been observed. The present study addressed this issue by asking participants to make contact with the base in each condition. It is possible that asking players to contact the front portion of the base on each trial could have influenced their running mechanics during the approach to the base, though this is a common recommendation for baserunners. The results of the present study suggest initiating a head-first or feet-first slide reduces a player’s forward momentum and slows their approach to the base.

Hosey et al. ¹¹ suggested there may be a faster sliding technique on an individual basis. Even though they found no significant group differences in time between sliding head-first and feet-first, 12 of their 20 participants had faster head-first slides, six had faster feet-first slides, and two had the same average speed. Hosey et al. ¹¹ also asked their participants which type of slide they perceived to be faster and which to be safer. Sixty-eight percent believed head-first slides were faster, but 90% thought feet-first slides were safer. As can be seen in Figures 1 and 2, almost all of the softball players (11 out of 12) and the majority of the baseball players (10 out of 14) were fastest to the base when running through. When comparing sliding techniques alone, seven softball players were faster going head-first, four were faster going feet-first, and one had the same average time. For baseball players, seven were faster with head-first slides while seven were faster with feet-first slides. This may indicate a preferred sliding technique for each individual, but in most cases the differences in time appear minimal, and running through the base was still the fastest approach overall. All participants also reported running through the base to be the fastest, safest, and most preferred of the three approaches, but they were not asked to rank their choices further. It is unclear from the present research if the participants preferred one sliding technique over the other.

Safety is another important concern when studying sliding in baseball and softball players, and a number of researchers^2–5 have compared injury rates between head-first and feet-first slides at various levels of competition, with mixed results. Related to the task in the present study, Camp et al. ⁴ found a little over 12% of the 1633 sliding injuries that resulted in time out of play in Major and Minor League Baseball players over a five-year span occurred at first base. However, the authors did not specify how many of these slides occurred on the initial approach to first base compared to those in which the runner was returning to first base, such as during a pick-off attempt. While it may be assumed that running through first base is safer than sliding into it, injury risk was beyond the scope of the present study.

Several limitations in the present study warrant consideration. Dick et al. ² argued greater intensity during competition may lead players to attempt more risky behaviors than in practice, and participants in the present study may have given more effort in an actual game situation with more incentive to reach the base safely, though participants were encouraged by the researcher to reach the base as fast as possible. Additionally, while participants were encouraged to reach the base as fast as they could for each trial, completing multiple trials of each condition in a practice environment without batting a ball in play or having to react to the movements of the opposing team may limit the ecological validity of the study. This could be remedied by adapting this approach to more competitive scrimmage or game situations, possibly using video analysis rather than a wireless timing system. Also, Hosey et al. ¹¹ contended little instruction on sliding head-first is given to developing players. This could make players less likely to attempt this type of slide even if it may be faster or more effective in a given situation. Coaches may also have different philosophies regarding sliding into first base, so the players in the present study may have received different instructions over the course of their playing careers. Lastly, while other studies have studied sliding techniques in baseball and softball players at various levels of competition, the present study was limited to members from two NCAA Division II teams. It would be beneficial to replicate this approach in other groups to determine if running through the base is faster than sliding at other levels of play as well. For instance, the findings of Szymanski et al. ¹² suggest running through the base may not be significantly faster than sliding head-first in lower skill levels.

Conclusion

The findings of the present study support the notion that continuing to run through first base is significantly faster than sliding head-first or feet-first in collegiate baseball and softball players. This is important information for baseball coaches, players, and trainers, as this technique will enable a runner to reach first base faster while also potentially reducing injury risk. When trying to reach first base, a runner should only be advised to slide in order to avoid a tag from or a collision with a fielder. Since there were no significant differences in time to reach the base between sliding head-first and feet-first, if a runner deemed it necessary to slide into first base, either a head-first or feet-first approach could be used. Further research is needed to determine if these findings extend to other levels of play in baseball and softball, and if running through the base poses a lower risk of injury than sliding.