It is time to end collisions at 1st base. What is the pushback to using a double base?

[jesusoftheapes]

It is 2025 and every girls and many men's semi pro and College teams already use a double base on 1st to stop this insane base runner collision issue.  

It is past time they use a double base at 1st in the MLB because there is no excuse for Pitchers and runners colliding at 1st base then injuring themselves with such an obvious and effectively cheap/simple solution to the problem .   All teams could have the solution here before the season kicks off it is that simple and yet the MLB pushes back against a double 1st base and I have yet to hear a sound argument to why this is unliked or not used that makes any sense.     

 

Anyone out there have any of the reasons for not using one?

[rickh150]

Totally agree…senseless. It would be so easy and would take care of most collisions there.

[nate82]

Umpires union I believe is the blocker there.  I believe this was discussed in the last CBA to be added and the umpires union was the blocker.  I think the umpires union argued it would make their job more difficult having to watch both bags.  One to make sure the fielder has their foot on the bag and the other to watch for the runner.

 I think just making the first base bag bigger on the runners side would make this far easier than adding two bags and trying to get the umpires union to agree with this.

[jesusoftheapes]

1 hour ago, nate82 said:

Umpires union I believe is the blocker there.  I believe this was discussed in the last CBA to be added and the umpires union was the blocker.  I think the umpires union argued it would make their job more difficult having to watch both bags.  One to make sure the fielder has their foot on the bag and the other to watch for the runner.

 I think just making the first base bag bigger on the runners side would make this far easier than adding two bags and trying to get the umpires union to agree with this.

But it is already used all over the place so that argument does not hold water and accepting stupid reasons is not a smart way to look at baseball problems.      Umps use a double base all the time all over the place and it is not harder to see .     Plus there is replay in MLB baseball if they miss something so there is no excuse.   Making the bag bigger is not going to change the runners path like a double bag.     

I do not understand the arguments against the double base.    The idea an ump cannot see it properly is not reason at all because that excuse is ridiculous and untrue.   There is 0 difference between how a person that far from the base would not be able to see the play unfold because of a double base.      If high school umps can manage to see the play unfold with a double base then MLB professionals can figure it out. 

Thanks for your response because I have not heard a argument or reason why it is not being used until you posted this reason.       

  A bigger base is not going to open a new running lane like a double base does.  Making the bag bigger does not prevent collisions .      

If the MLB cared that much about making the Umps job easier when that guy covering 1st has very little to do all game long in the first place instead of focusing on player safety that is just not an acceptable reason .   

A double base is the ONLY move here.   A bigger base solves 0.   you need both running lanes to avoid collisions and they are close enough together for anyone to be able to make the proper call.  

 

I appreciate your post that informed me of the reasons they are using to not go with a double bag though. I appreciate your feedback.  

[jesusoftheapes]

1 hour ago, nate82 said:

Umpires union I believe is the blocker there.  I believe this was discussed in the last CBA to be added and the umpires union was the blocker.  I think the umpires union argued it would make their job more difficult having to watch both bags.  One to make sure the fielder has their foot on the bag and the other to watch for the runner.

 I think just making the first base bag bigger on the runners side would make this far easier than adding two bags and trying to get the umpires union to agree with this.

Is it really that hard to see?

[bigred]

16 hours ago, nate82 said:

Umpires union I believe is the blocker there.  I believe this was discussed in the last CBA to be added and the umpires union was the blocker.  I think the umpires union argued it would make their job more difficult having to watch both bags.  One to make sure the fielder has their foot on the bag and the other to watch for the runner.

 I think just making the first base bag bigger on the runners side would make this far easier than adding two bags and trying to get the umpires union to agree with this.

If that's what umpires union said, it's a lame excuse imo. It's not like the double 1st base is 5 feet long, so not sure how they couldn't see both. Plus, they should just be watching the base, while listening for the ball to hit the glove, before making the call. If they truly can't see both bags just by looking at one, then they must have very narrow ranges of sight. 

[Cool Hand Lucroy]

Especially with replay, the umps argument is nuts. Bad work. Bad union leadership.

Pros of this FAR outweigh the cons. First base has always been a footrace scenario. Footraces work best with finishing lines and not finishing points. Anyone who has ever done musical chairs with grade schoolers knows that races to points are a recipe for injury.

[Thurston Fluff]

16 hours ago, jesusoftheapes said:

Is it really that hard to see?

Pretty sure the umpire doesn't see it at that angle. Is there a reason it's a different color? That could make it weird to see.

[Jopal78]

They’ve played for 130 years with one first base, if it isn’t broke there’s no need to fix it. 
 

The ban on sliding into second to break up a double play is stupid enough (MLB seemingly can’t help itself when it comes to knee jerk reactions). This would be another rule change for “safety’s sake” where there really isn’t a pervasive safety issue to begin with. 
 

 

[Frisbee Slider]

Here is one example of what can go wrong expanding first base.

 

[Matt]

24 minutes ago, Frisbee Slider said:

Here is one example of what can go wrong expanding first base.

 

That's stupid. Just allow stepping on the inside bag. 

[wiguy94]

14 minutes ago, Matt said:

That's stupid. Just allow stepping on the inside bag. 

That would give a competitive advantage to the runner on 1st base with a larger area to safely be, so you can't do that.

[Matt]

12 minutes ago, wiguy94 said:

That would give a competitive advantage to the runner on 1st base with a larger area to safely be, so you can't do that.

Why not? They change the rules all the time. Think of the number of times they've screwed with mound height. 

[Underachiever]

8 hours ago, Matt said:

Why not? They change the rules all the time. Think of the number of times they've screwed with mound height. 

Twice since 1950? Not since 1968?

[Underachiever]

8 hours ago, wiguy94 said:

That would give a competitive advantage to the runner on 1st base with a larger area to safely be, so you can't do that.

Can the fielder step on the orange bag? 

[Playing Catch]

I have no problem with extending the first base bag. I don't know how softball or youth baseball works with the orange bag, but isn't it orange simply to better see fair/foul? I don't see any competitive imbalance by making the "safe" bag larger to the foul side.

[Fear The Chorizo]

Having the bag extension be a different color helps (but doesn't make it obvious) to see if a batted ball hitting the bag is fair or foul

 

I dont know what percentage of injuries at 1b on these plays would actually be prevented by the extra bag...most of the time the pitcher is rolling an ankle clumsily trying to find the bag and/or the runner is intentionally running through the middle of the bag to try and disrupt the play.  Extending the bag gives the runner alot more room to reach safely on a throw that pulls 1b off the bag and avoid being tagged out, too - that itself could lead to other injuries for guys reaching back further.

 

I say leave it alone as is and be more aggressive with both runner and fielder interference calls on those plays if you want to promote more safety.  Draw a line through the center of the existing bag for which sides fielders/runners need to step on...or do something different with bag materials and metal spikes that really aren't very compatible.

 

 

[Playing Catch]

20 hours ago, Fear The Chorizo said:

Extending the bag gives the runner alot more room to reach safely on a throw that pulls 1b off the bag and avoid being tagged out, too - that itself could lead to other injuries for guys reaching back further.

Excellent point

[bigred]

On 3/26/2025 at 10:17 PM, Frisbee Slider said:

Here is one example of what can go wrong expanding first base.

 

That's just a bone head mistake on the runners part. He should have his head in the game. Imo, it's not a legitimate reason to not tryout the double base. 

[wntrtxn21]

On 3/23/2025 at 10:48 AM, Jopal78 said:

They’ve played for 130 years with one first base, if it isn’t broke there’s no need to fix it. 
 

The ban on sliding into second to break up a double play is stupid enough (MLB seemingly can’t help itself when it comes to knee jerk reactions). This would be another rule change for “safety’s sake” where there really isn’t a pervasive safety issue to begin with. 
 

 

There is no ban on sliding into 2nd base. The ban is for sliding AWAY from 2nd base to make contact with the fielder. If you have ever seen a collision at 1st base you should know the orange base make the game safer. 

[wntrtxn21]

On 3/27/2025 at 11:42 AM, Fear The Chorizo said:

Having the bag extension be a different color helps (but doesn't make it obvious) to see if a batted ball hitting the bag is fair or foul

 

I dont know what percentage of injuries at 1b on these plays would actually be prevented by the extra bag...most of the time the pitcher is rolling an ankle clumsily trying to find the bag and/or the runner is intentionally running through the middle of the bag to try and disrupt the play.  Extending the bag gives the runner alot more room to reach safely on a throw that pulls 1b off the bag and avoid being tagged out, too - that itself could lead to other injuries for guys reaching back further.

 

I say leave it alone as is and be more aggressive with both runner and fielder interference calls on those plays if you want to promote more safety.  Draw a line through the center of the existing bag for which sides fielders/runners need to step on...or do something different with bag materials and metal spikes that really aren't very compatible.

 

 

using the orange base actually makes it easier to tag out a runner if the throw is to the foul side of the bag. The whole point is to avoid collisions at 1B, especially with pitchers running to cover the bag on bang-bang plays. 

[wntrtxn21]

On 3/26/2025 at 10:17 PM, Frisbee Slider said:

Here is one example of what can go wrong expanding first base.

 

All players are told, once you reach 1B safely the orange base is out of play, as if it doesn't exist. It's like the dirt on the infield. 

[Fear The Chorizo]

36 minutes ago, wntrtxn21 said:

using the orange base actually makes it easier to tag out a runner if the throw is to the foul side of the bag. The whole point is to avoid collisions at 1B, especially with pitchers running to cover the bag on bang-bang plays. 

Then tell the pitcher not to stand on the entire bag and get his foot on the fair side edge of the bag where it's supposed to be.  And practice that play at game speed so he doesn't risk injuring himself.  Rodon almost dislocated his ankle on a play like that yesterday on Opening Day and it wouldn't have mattered if there was an orange bag or not.

High throws or ones up the line in fair territory would force the 1b to reach further into foul territory to tag a runner flying down the line who then dives towards the farthest corner of an orange bag in foul territory.  Throws into foul territory down the line would still lead to 1b/runner collisions even if there were two orange bags extending into foul territory.

I think this is a case where adding that bag at the MLB level will limit injuries on certain types of plays only to make injuries for other types of plays more common.

 

[Jopal78]

19 hours ago, wntrtxn21 said:

There is no ban on sliding into 2nd base. The ban is for sliding AWAY from 2nd base to make contact with the fielder. If you have ever seen a collision at 1st base you should know the orange base make the game safer. 

There is no safety issue at first base. Imagine how many close putouts are there at first base in a MLB season?  Hundreds if not thousands. Now how many “collisions” are there at first base where someone is hurt? It would be a fraction of a percent of the close putouts at first base. 
 

MLB is already a craven organization changing the way their game has been played for over a century because of what the content generators and blowhards on TV say. Maybe next they should let the whole lineup bat each inning so nobody feels left out. 

 

 

[Playing Catch]

55 minutes ago, Jopal78 said:

There is no safety issue at first base. Imagine how many close putouts are there at first base in a MLB season?  Hundreds if not thousands. Now how many “collisions” are there at first base where someone is hurt? It would be a fraction of a percent of the close putouts at first base. 
 

MLB is already a craven organization changing the way their game has been played for over a century because of what the content generators and blowhards on TV say. Maybe next they should let the whole lineup bat each inning so nobody feels left out. 

 

 

I tend to agree. I haven't seen any evidence to prove extending the bag does, or does not make things "safer". But Jopal is right. It's only "unsafe," in the sense that playing a game with athletes running in close proximity of each other is "unsafe".