As I have already told you, I am a baseball researcher. I have just begun to follow cricket and I am trying to do some comparison between these two great sports.
In my opinion baseball hitters would have some little advantages over cricket hitters.
- Baseball bat doesn't have the flat surface. So it is much more difficult to hit the ball.
- In cricket there are no foul balls. You can hit everywhere: in front of you, behind you, on the side.
- In baseball it is easier to be out.
In my opinion, cricketers would have problem to face curve balls, breaking balls and change-ups, which are those pitches that appear to be fast ball, but they are much slower. I think that it would be less difficult for a baseball player to shift to cricket, than a cricket player to baseball.
Bowlers and pitchers cannot be compared. Although they have the same task, it would be impossible for a baseball pitcher to shift to cricket (and viceversa).
I wouldn't agree. It is true that there is the strike zone in baseball, however good pitchers can make all kinds of effect. They can pitch a 100 mph fastball. But they can also pitch a curve, which seems too high (so the hitter won't try to hit it) but then comes down. Or they can pitch a ball which seems good, but at the very last moment it breaks: the ball is much lower and the hitter hits the air! Or they can pretend to pitch a fast ball, but actually that ball is much slower, so the hitter starts to swing to early.Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad
Of course, in baseball hitters do not have to think about bounces. However, in cricket it is much more difficult for the defense to get the outs than in baseball. And in cricket hitters collect more good hits than in baseball (and not just because games are longer).
PS: I don't want to appear rude, saying that baseball players are better than cricket players. What I would like to do is having an interesting conversation with you.