Basic questions

[rodk]

I've tried and failed with baseball though. Just seems so shallow and an overall downgrade compared to cricket.

Sidenote: cricket, baseball, rugby, and hockey are the only respectable major sports.

It isn't. Baseball has every element of cricket -- the confrontation between the batter and the guy delivering the ball -- and thousands more.

The productive use of outs. Hit and run. The use of full rosters with substitutions. Base runners who distract the defense. Runners on the move with the pitch, usually at full speed. Double plays. The thousands of specific techniques to properly play defense: how to make a correct tag, how to set your feet on receiving a throw vs a batted ball, how to line up a throw from the outfield and when to cut off a throw from the outfield, how to catch a ball falling into the stands, where to throw the ball back if there are multiple runners on base, how to get a lead off of first and how that does not apply to second or third, how to steal off a lefty vs a righty. How to start and complete a rundown or hold a runner from advancing on an infield ground ball. How to play a batted ball off the fence. How to know to swing at a pitch that seems like it will hit you in the head before swerving 12 inches across and 24 inches down. The weighing of today's game against tomorrow's and the day after's. Dozens of specific situations that can come up at any time in any game and require a specific approach to batting. The immutable law that the winning run can come at any time in a game and that virtually no lead is definitive. The absence of a motive to stall.

Mostly, there's the 98 mph fastball that could not be hit with a cricket bat either as the result of precise execution vs the 52 mile an hour bowl coming on the run, a speed typical of 10 and 11 year old pitchers but who pitch from 46 feet, making the timing to hit it the same as full distance High School pitchers throwing in the 70 mph range.

I have heard the checkers vs. chess argument. It holds no water. My own baseball bookshelf has about 60 volumes to explain what happens during a game. I see defenders in cricket dash around to 20 or so positions with names; I've seen weak execution and almost nothing in the way of team defense that might be categorized as a choreographed play involving 3 or 4 or 5 moving parts.

I know I'm ignorant about cricket. I choose not to be ignorant. That does not seem to be the uniform rule here.

 

[Starfighter]

I know I'm ignorant about cricket. I choose not to be ignorant.

Let me tell you mate, you've done a pretty poor job at it so far.

 

[Adders]

Hey rodk......haven't you got some guns to polish? Jog on matey.

 

[Dendarii]

The productive use of outs. Hit and run. The use of full rosters with substitutions. Base runners who distract the defense. Runners on the move with the pitch, usually at full speed. Double plays. The thousands of specific techniques to properly play defense: how to make a correct tag, how to set your feet on receiving a throw vs a batted ball, how to line up a throw from the outfield and when to cut off a throw from the outfield, how to catch a ball falling into the stands, where to throw the ball back if there are multiple runners on base, how to get a lead off of first and how that does not apply to second or third, how to steal off a lefty vs a righty. How to start and complete a rundown or hold a runner from advancing on an infield ground ball. How to play a batted ball off the fence. How to know to swing at a pitch that seems like it will hit you in the head before swerving 12 inches across and 24 inches down. The weighing of today's game against tomorrow's and the day after's. Dozens of specific situations that can come up at any time in any game and require a specific approach to batting. The immutable law that the winning run can come at any time in a game and that virtually no lead is definitive. The absence of a motive to stall.

And how long did it take you to pick up on all those things? Certainly not after watching a handful of games. Cricket has its own nuances which can take a long time to appreciate, even for those of us who have been exposed to cricket for many years.

Baseball isn't better than cricket. It isn't worse either. It's simply different, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with preferring one over the other for any number of reasons. But you keep posting about how cricket isn't as good as baseball, which comes across as being at odds with your claim about wanting to learn more about cricket, and I think it makes people question your intentions.

If you are genuinely interested in learning about cricket then maybe you should try to drop the baseball comparisons. The two sports do have some similarities in the sense that they involve a ball being hit and people running after that has happened, but that's probably about it.

That includes not using baseball terminology. This may seem rather pedantic in the case of batsmen vs batters, but when it comes to things like offence/defence, those aren't cricketing terms and while batting could be viewed as offence and bowling as defence, I don't know whether batting and bowling in cricket encapsulate exactly the same things as offence and defence in baseball, so it's possible that you're getting hung up on trying to directly equate the two. It also might help make people a bit more receptive to you as by using baseball terminology to describe cricket (e.g. calling fielders "defenders") you're possibly still giving off a baseball vs cricket vibe. We're all very willing to help you understand this game that we love if you genuinely want to learn more about it, but you don't always give the impression that you do.

 

[Bahnz]

I took a gander at the IPL salaries, and it looks like cricket players in that league are paid much better than almost all major leaguers on a per game or per day basis. https://www.statista.com/statistics/675301/average-ipl-salary-by-team/ The average salary for Bangalore for 6 weeks is $5.2 million; if it was spread out for the 7 month period of baseball (and I don't know if there is enough interest for it to be possible) then their salary would be $26 million per year. That is pretty much dead on what Kohli made last year. https://www.wisden.com/stories/news-stories/virat-kohli-worlds-highest-paid-cricketer-forbes

Only a handful of guys in American sports make that. Only 10 NFL players do. Only the most celebrated American athlete, LeBron James, and a few boxers, such as Floyd Mayweather, make significantly more than that kind of money.

Couple things

1) Your first source is full of **** - the average salary for Bangalore players was not $5.2 million. Virat Kohli - undeniably the most popular player in the IPL had a salary of $2.7 million in 2018. The most highly plaid player on Bangalore's roster was Shane Watson $2 million. The average salary is tough to know, but I'd be shocked if it was much over $500,000 USD.

2) You can't just say 'Cricketers earn as much as baseball players because they earn as much in a week during the IPL as baseball players do during the MLB season'. Even if you were correct in this statement (which you're not), this completely ignores the fact that professional cricket outside the IPL is vastly less remunerative. Virat Kohli - again probably the most popular cricketer in the world - makes $1 million from his annual contract with the BCCI (India's cricket Board). You can probably presume that he makes roughly as much again in match fees. That would bring his total annual earnings from cricket (including his IPL salary) to around about $5 million (this assessment of his salary is roughly in line with the wisden article you link to). This is dwarfed by the annual salaries of the top baseball players (Mike Trout's 2018 salary was $34 million).

 

[marc71178]

Baseball has its WinExpectancy https://www.fangraphs.com/library/misc/we/ that seems to be more or less the same as cricviz but probably is more mathematically complex because baseball has much more in the way of situations. A batsman may come to the middle 100 or 150 or 200 runs behind but always with exactly two wickets taken if he is in the fourth spot in the lineup; a batter may come to the plate 3, 2, 1 or no runs behind with 0, 1, 2 or 3 runners on in as many as eight permutations, with zero, one or two outs anytime he comes up. The batsman with two wickets gone has one of 3 players as a partner who may or may not be fast enough to leg out 2's or 3's to increase the scoring and the batsman's personal productivity; the batter as 8 permutations of baserunning combinations in front of him, and there can be as many as 5 different combinations as to who those guys are. Cricviz says it is based on 500 real games and simulations; Fangraphs is based on historical results from tens of thousands of games.

Christ, if baseball is so brilliant and cricket so bad, why are you bothering?

 

[TheJediBrah]

I've tried and failed with baseball though. Just seems so shallow and an overall downgrade compared to cricket.

This is so true. I've honestly genuinely tried to enjoy baseball, and I probably would if I never grew up with cricket. But it's like trying to learn to love lactose-free vanilla soy "Ice Cream" after growing up eating Double Choc-Hip fudge every summer, never going to happen.

 

[cnerd123]

The problem with baseball for me is that the outcomes are so limited. All you can do is bowl full tosses and hit in the V. That gets repetitive after a while. It's like going to a salad bar and only being able to get roast chicken, sweet corn and mayonnaise. Sure;it's not bad, but like...why?

 

[Spark]

rodk I strongly suggest you actually watch a fair amount of cricket before you comment further about comparisons. Because so far all your posting has come off as arrogantly trying to claim "my sport is better than your sport" when you haven't really shown any genuine interest about learning about the nuances about the sport to which this forum is dedicated as opposed to point-scoring.

 

[Second Spitter]

This is so true. I've honestly genuinely tried to enjoy baseball, and I probably would if I never grew up with cricket. But it's like trying to learn to love lactose-free vanilla soy "Ice Cream" after growing up eating Double Choc-Hip fudge every summer, never going to happen.

Baseball is a better sport to play, but cricket is better to watch.

The problem with baseball for me is that the outcomes are so limited. All you can do is bowl full tosses and hit in the V. That gets repetitive after a while. It's like going to a salad bar and only being able to get roast chicken, sweet corn and mayonnaise. Sure;it's not bad, but like...why?

Just to play devil's advocate, the criticism that baseball fans play make against cricket are as follows:
-- you don't have to run when you hit the ball.
-- how can you miss the ball with a bat that wide.
-- batsmen get rewarded for false shots.

I don't agree with these criticisms, ftr.

As for your "full tosses" comment, hitters have less reaction time and the variation of pitches typically includes:
-- 2 seam fastball
-- 4 seam fastball
-- curveball
-- slider
-- change-up
-- cutter
-- splitter
-- sinker

I can go on.


That's said, I hate how much baseball is micromanaged.

 

[trundler]

Cricket evolved past dreary underarm lob bowling and monotonous, unsophisticated clubbing 150 years ago. Baseball really has nothing on it. It's a dumbed down version of crochety for a people ignorant of finesse.

 

[mr_mister]

Cricket is way more fun to play than baseball

Nothing in baseball compares to raising your bat for a hard earned fifty

A home run feels as good as a six. It's definitely an awesome feeling but that gradual accumulation of runs is next level enjoyable. Saviour the memory for years

 

[trundler]

Dead batting everything to piss off everyone is pretty fun too.

 

[Daemon]

I played baseball for 2 years, was loads of fun. Fielding in baseball requires ridiculous levels of awareness. Great sport.

Lets not keep putting it down because of the knobhead who's more or less here to get the rise that so many of you are providing.

 

[trundler]

Dammit Daemon whose side are you on

 

[Dan]

Dead batting everything to piss off everyone is pretty fun too.

This is literally the most enjoyable thing in the world.

Seriously, rodk, go play a game of cricket and bat for four hours without trying to score a run. Watching the other team go through the full Kübler-Ross model over the course of an afternoon is one of the funniest things ever:

"He's not scoring lads, the wicket's coming."
"You are the ****ing ****tiest ****ing batsman I've ever ****ing seen you ****ing **** ****."
"Just ****ing get out already, you ****ing **** ****."
"Did you seriously just block a ****ing full toss? You ****ing **** ****."
"**** this ****, we're going home. You ****ing **** ****."

 

[Dan]

That or the use of the phrase "better luck next time champ" in literally any situation.

There's a reason why 'The Grade Baseballer' isn't a thing. Cricket ****ing sucks and that's why we love it.

 

[mr_mister]

I played baseball for 2 years, was loads of fun. Fielding in baseball requires ridiculous levels of awareness. Great sport.

Lets not keep putting it down because of the knobhead who's more or less here to get the rise that so many of you are providing.

I've played both too. Fielding is better sure, you're in the game way more. but batting can't compare.

 

[rodk]

If you are genuinely interested in learning about cricket then maybe you should try to drop the baseball comparisons.

I'd love to do that but each time I note something that seems odd or illogical in cricket -- whether or not I do so with a reference to baseball -- somebody on the board invariably responds with something along the lines of "It's not like stupid baseball" or "you stupid fat Americans will never get it." At which point they deserve whatever they get back.

 

[rodk]

I was watching India vs. Australia test match, day 1, last night, and as it got to lunch time, Australia had Starc bowling. If I recall the over correctly there were four dot balls -- 88 mph bowls that nobody swung at but bounced over the wicket -- a single and a tapper for a dot ball.

And it sure looked like the batsmen were completely overmatched by the speed. It looked good on tv and it looked good on paper.

Here's what I'm not getting: What did it mean? The teammates, announcers and fans were exultant over this outcome. But what did he do to advance the team toward a win? He burned an over for the team and for himself, but did not get a wicket that would get his side closer to the end of the game. He didn't seem to be fooling any of the batsmen such that they were likely to bat themselves into outs later.

And while he was helping break up the pitch (which affects both sides), he was also softening up the ball and giving India more chances to play with a softer ball.

I am thinking India wouldn't be too disappointed with that aspect of their game once they hit lunch: Even though we can't touch him, Starc didn't do us any damage, and we are that much closer to not seeing him again in this game.

Please explain.