Baseball V Cricket?

[Ikki]

Well, that's good to know.

TBH, I thought much like yourself. But then again it looks like we both know jack-all about Baseball. It's always come across to me as Baseball = Checkers whereas Cricket = Chess.

 

[vcs]

Yeah, it's one of those situations where you actually have to be in a baseball fan's shoes to appreciate those things.

 

[silentstriker]

This. At the risk of looking like a fool

Let me know if I am wrong but isn't every variation in baseball pitching replicable in Cricket bowling?

You are wrong. The stuff baseball pitchers can do in the air is ridiculous. And their accuracy is absolutely unbelievable.

 

[jan]

I often use baseball to describe what cricket is to people because baseball is known more than cricket here. It looks quite like this:

JAN: "Its pretty much the same. They only have different bats and ball. And the playground isnt the same. And they throw different way. Players also score different ways..."
A GUY: "So it is the same, really?"
JAN : "Weeeell...yes. But...you see...some can bowl unbelievably fast...yes, they do stand around a lot..."
...
A GUY: "So baseball is based on cricket the same way american football is on rugby = yanks twisted rules to get the gay version of the original game?"

Have seen a couple of games in both sports and find cricket more fun

 

[Furball]

You are wrong. The stuff baseball pitchers can do in the air is ridiculous. And their accuracy is absolutely unbelievable.

Cricketers would be able to do some unbelievable stuff in the air if they were allowed to throw it

 

[silentstriker]

Cricketers would be able to do some unbelievable stuff in the air if they were allowed to throw it

But they aren't, so they don't.

 

[Blaze 18]

How the heck did baseball manage to get six votes on a cricket forum?

 

[silentstriker]

Because it's a better sport . I like cricket much more, but tbh, with all the crap that goes on in the cricket world, I wish I didn't.

 

[Daemon]

Hate it when I discuss this with people and they say "a baseball is so much harder to hit than a cricket ball so baseball is harder to play". They forget that while that is true, in cricket you have to score a lot more runs than in baseball so it all evens out eventually.

One thing baseball players do have an upper hand is throwing. Some of the players in my school have sick throws, fast and accurate.

 

[Mike5181]

They are a bit soft with the gloves though. They think cricketers are crazy for not wearing gloves in the field.

 

[Fusion]

They are a bit soft with the gloves though.

They are not wearing anywhere near the protection a cricket batsman does. Also, I don't mean to make baseball sound like Rugby, but there is at least a chance of a full-on collision between a runner coming home and the catcher (whereas Cricket is a non-contact sport). Many a bone-jarring collisions (and injuries) have taken place that way. So I wouldn't call baseball players "soft". Again, it's pointless to compare and say "well cricket/baseball is superior because of this or that". Whatever you say for one, the other side can one-up you on something else.

 

[Top_Cat]

They are a bit soft with the gloves though. They think cricketers are crazy for not wearing gloves in the field.

Yeah but the standards are correspondingly higher. One dropped catch is a huge deal in baseball, to the point where it's quantified as an error.

 

[Nate]

That video is horrible. Yuck.

Will be moving soon to a suburb dominated by baseball. Not sure whether to give in, or to try and find a cricket/football team.

 

[Daemon]

Give in. All sports are fun to play (if you're half decent at them), no need for eliticism

 

[hang on]

one simplistic but useful (for me!) way of deciding the complexity (and hence, charm) of a sport is to look at the number of parameters that need to be taken into account (or number of degrees of freedom permissible ie needing to be accounted for and mastered). been a while since i had to use physics speak on here and even longer since i did any physics, so please excuse any inexactitude in terminology.

for example, the ball has more ways of reaching - bouncing, full toss, swinging, moving off the pitch, spinning - the batsman, while the batsman has more options and ways of hitting it...behind the wicket. additionally, the element of time, the pitch etc. add greater complexity to the game. in all these regards, cricket and cricketers have more elements, dimensions or parameters to deal with. of course, it can be argued that such variety might aid a greater mastery of breadth of activities but less specialization ie hitting a ball in a zone better and better....

garbled message but feel a bit tender today. will try and elaborate further in future unless one of the more energetic and youthful on here can do it for me!

 

[smash84]

one simplistic but useful (for me!) way of deciding the complexity (and hence, charm) of a sport is to look at the number of parameters that need to be taken into account (or number of degrees of freedom permissible ie needing to be accounted for and mastered). been a while since i had to use physics speak on here and even longer since i did any physics, so please excuse any inexactitude in terminology.

for example, the ball has more ways of reaching - bouncing, full toss, swinging, moving off the pitch, spinning - the batsman, while the batsman has more options and ways of hitting it...behind the wicket. additionally, the element of time, the pitch etc. add greater complexity to the game. in all these regards, cricket and cricketers have more elements, dimensions or parameters to deal with. of course, it can be argued that such variety might aid a greater mastery of breadth of activities but less specialization ie hitting a ball in a zone better and better....

garbled message but feel a bit tender today. will try and elaborate further in future unless one of the more energetic and youthful on here can do it for me!

This was stated earlier when it was mentioned that theoretically speaking, since the ball is allowed to bounce on the pitch there are many more (infinite number) deliveries possible in cricket in terms of variety than in baseball.

Assuming The set of all pitches in baseball = set of all full tosses then the amount of more variation offered by cricket bowling would encompass the set of all deliveries that bounce

 

[Howe_zat]

This was stated earlier when it was mentioned that theoretically speaking, since the ball is allowed to bounce on the pitch there are many more (infinite number) deliveries possible in cricket in terms of variety than in baseball.

Assuming The set of all pitches in baseball = set of all full tosses then the amount of more variation offered by cricket bowling would encompass the set of all deliveries that bounce

Just because are as many possible variations of full toss as there are baseball pitch doesn't mean that as many are used, far from it. After all a bowler is very rarely trying to bowl a full toss.

Then there's the fact that fewer restrictions are placed on the baseball pitcher (most notably that throwing is allowed) and so there is more scope for variation there.

The only area that I can see with a much greater amount of variety in cricket is the number of shots a batsman posseses.

 

[smash84]

Just because are as many possible variations of full toss as there are baseball pitch doesn't mean that as many are used, far from it. After all a bowler is very rarely trying to bowl a full toss.

Then there's the fact that fewer restrictions are placed on the baseball pitcher (most notably that throwing is allowed) and so there is more scope for variation there.

The only area that I can see with a much greater amount of variety in cricket is the number of shots a batsman posseses.

Not really. You can't pitch (I think) at the batsman's body nor bowl too wide in baseball either.........don't you have to pitch a full toss inside a certain region???

 

[Howe_zat]

Not really. You can't pitch (I think) at the batsman's body nor bowl too wide in baseball either.........don't you have to pitch a full toss inside a certain region???

Generally, yes. But you also have a limited number of pitches that can be sent outside that area in order to decieve the batter. If you send down a pitch outside the "legal" zone, the batter still swings and misses, you get a strike. Whether or not you send down a delivery in this area is a major part of the mind games that go on before each pitch.

It's true that you can't hit the batter. But you can't bowl wides, beamers, grubbers or more than one or two bouncers in cricket. So I think there are more restrictions on bowling than pitching.

 

[smash84]

Generally, yes. But you also have a limited number of pitches that can be sent outside that area in order to decieve the batter. If you send down a pitch outside the "legal" zone, the batter still swings and misses, you get a strike. Whether or not you send down a delivery in this area is a major part of the mind games that go on before each pitch.

It's true that you can't hit the batter. But you can't bowl wides, beamers, grubbers or more than one or two bouncers in cricket. So I think there are more restrictions on bowling than pitching.

but you can bowl all full tosses at waist height and below and aimed at the batsman's body so if anything there is more of a window to bowl full pitches in cricket