I thought this was a great video. ESPN decided to test whether running straight through 1st base was faster then sliding to first base. No question as to which is riskier, sliding into 1st base can cause serious injury. To me it seems common sense tells me that diving is faster.... But I have always heard the opposite, that in fact, running through 1st base is the faster way to get there...... and that seems to be the conclusion of this demonstration. The evidence seems to suggest that running straight through is the proper play..... But I'm not sure.... Watch the video.
http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=espn:10766501
All this seems to prove to me is that diving from 10 feet is a slower way of getting to 1st base then running through. But watch it when they overlap the video around 1:35. During the initial part of dive... the diver pulls significantly farther ahead of the runner.... It's not until around the last foot and a half that the runner catches then passes the diver.
Really, all this tells me is, injury concerns aside, diving is always the better strategy.... just not from 10 ft. If you were to begin the dive from say 6ft, it seems that you make up significant distance. Now of course the injury concern overrides everything and it's probably not a good idea.... But in playoff games... where the risk/reward factor may lean more towards risk ... maybe it becomes the best strategy.