Basic questions

[trundler]

I think the way the ball comes off the bat is vastly different in both sports. In baseball you see unsophisticated swinging with more momentum generally.

 

[rodk]

In all fairness, the cricket ball weighs a good 1/4 oz more than the baseball.

I know in Baseball there is Exit velocity, a new addition to the stats. I think Judge and Stanton hits the hardest (117 mph exit velocity).

I think that is higher that the speed off the cricket bat.

Momentum is higher in baseball, so there is your danger to life.

It's not just the momentum but the attitude. There's no option not to run after a fair ball, so hitters aren't defensive in most situations and hit as hard as they can. Also, in terms of glove, there are going to be lots of 90mph + throws by players other than the pitcher often followed tag plays (similar to run outs) involving runners sliding into your hands with their bodies or spikes during routine defense if you are an infielder, whereas in cricket it is definitely unusual to touch an opposing player for any reason.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

It's not just the momentum but the attitude. There's no option not to run after a fair ball, so hitters aren't defensive in most situations and hit as hard as they can. Also, in terms of glove, there are going to be lots of 90mph + throws by players other than the pitcher often followed tag plays (similar to run outs) involving runners sliding into your hands with their bodies or spikes during routine defense if you are an infielder, whereas in cricket it is definitely unusual to touch an opposing player for any reason.

There's your answer.

Rest my case.

 

[rodk]

unsophisticated swinging with more momentum generally.

Also there's not a lot you can do in the time allotted as pitchers have no obligation to tell you how fast the deliveries will be or whether they will be ridiculous drops or hooks at 80 mph

as opposed to 100 mph fastballs or sliders that fall in between, or 75 mph change of speeds. You want to be as consistent as you can because there's no option to hit it in any direction meaning you are always fighting the Laws of Motion rather than relying on it, and because hitting the ball on the ground too often is not going to be a successful strategy as most grounders become outs.

 

[fredfertang]

I didn't realise you had half volleys in Baseball

 

[weldone]

If you guys are going to discuss a stupid game like baseball then I suggest a mod moves this thread to somewhere outside cc.

 

[andmark]

A piece of advice I'd offer is that if you get too bogged down in learning the rules (which can get extremely detailed- see the Laws of Cricket for illustration of such detail), you risk not enjoying the game. If you can get to understand the very basics, you can pick the game up as you watch and follow it. I realise the title of the thread is "Basic questions", but I think you asked earlier about the number of fielders who can wear protection. That's the sort of thing you could pick up whilst watching cricket (my understanding is that the number is all the fielders could wear protection if they're close to the bat). In any case, enjoy the game.

 

[trundler]

Yeah, you ought to stop drawing parallels to baseball and cricket in its own right. Just watch the game as Andmark said and go from there.

 

[Howe_zat]

The guy does not actually want to learn about cricket you oafs.

 

[rodk]

Yeah, you ought to stop drawing parallels to baseball and cricket in its own right. Just watch the game as Andmark said and go from there.

Here's the thing: I'm trying to figure out what I am missing. Announcers in any sport tend to lean on jargon, and there's a lot of that in the Willow telecasts. I can see the dynamic between the bowling team and the batsmen though it is complicated by what seems like a lot of weak execution by the bowlers who don't seem to have much or any idea where the ball lands or what happens after that. But I am not seeing anything in terms of individual fielding, team defense, or situational play by either team as one might if the NFL football is on the 10 yard line as opposed to the fifty and it is first down rather than fourth down, where even newbs can see different approaches to what is going on.

Am I wrong to think the easiest way to figure that out is by analogy?

 

[trundler]

There's an extent to which analogies will be helpful though. The similarities between the 2 sports probably end at "hit ball with bat". Just watch it and go with the flow.

 

[rodk]

There's an extent to which analogies will be helpful though. The similarities between the 2 sports probably end at "hit ball with bat". Just watch it and go with the flow.

Other side of same coin is "how do I get someone out?" I had been under the impression that tests were a batsman's game as he had the option of nubbing bowls all day until he got one he liked while wearing out his opponent whereas t20 was a bowler's game because he didn't have to worry about outs, just being deceptive enough and close enough to the wicket to prevent big hits, but maybe it is the other way round, with the t20 being the batsman's game because he is freed from the duty of defending the wicket all the time and able to swing away, as did Gayle when he scored 50 runs single handedly in about two overs by smushing sixes into the second deck and tests being the bowler's game if he can avoid mistakes and occasionally take advantage of impatient batsmen.

Just a thought.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Going in circles, are we?

 

[StephenZA]

The guy does not actually want to learn about cricket you oafs.

Maybe, but he is going through a lot of effort even tracking down a 2 year old thread he created...

Of course he is also being a bit obtuse. It's not baseball; the game has been around for a couple of hundred years and yes it is understood pretty well from dangers to athletics to even how to play it. Of course if he wants to learn the rules that's great; ask some basic questions and watch the games rather than continuing to question everything that is explained to him.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Howe seems really annoyed with this thread for some reason

 

[cnerd123]

The guy does not actually want to learn about cricket you oafs.

Lokomotive multi?

 

[rodk]

I watched a t20 some time ago (I think it was the IPL) and the game went down to the very last ball with the batting team needing 2 to win, and they got them but just barely.

The result was then described as them having won by 8 wickets, which was technically correct but seemed misleading in context because a test win or ODI win by 8 wickets would typically have reflected a very one-sided match, whereas in this game the victory was eked out.

Why is that phrasing used when it could be misunderstood so easily?

 

[Victor Ian]

Because theoretically they could have got there much quicker if they had decided to bat with more risk for more runs per ball at the expense of more wickets. In limited overs I agree that winning by x wickets can be a bit misleading, because in theory it shows dominance if the x wickets are high. I think the better measure is balls to spare. If you got there on the last ball, it was a close game. If you got there with 30 to spare, you won in a canter.

 

[trundler]

The "with X balls remaining" caveat is also there though

 

[Dan]

This thread just reminded me of Keegan Meth.

Which is good, because Keegan Meth is a ****ing hero. But is also bad, because the memory is of Keegan Meth having his face smashed into millions of bits.