Could an American team made up of minor league baseballers become T20 world beaters?

[Daemon]

Yes, IMO.

Spinners are useless in baseball - advantage baseball.

Batsmen can play horizontal bat shots to beamers, while playing with the straight bat is an entirely new skill to be learnt by baseball batters - advantage cricket.

No slips in baseball. Batsmen would not need to worry about nicking one - advantage cricket.

Batters would need to curb their natural instinct to have airy fairy wafts at the ball and run without a second thought. Batsmen can treat baseball as the slog overs of an ODI - advantage cricket.

Baseball batters would need to learn what the ball does off the pitch. Even international batsmen can be all at sea against the moving ball. Batters have no chance - advantage cricket.

Bowlers can chuck. Pitchers would probably have to watch Malinga to learn to bowl properly - advantage cricket.

I've played both sports and can reasonably conclude this is all bollocks besides the part about learning how to bowl.

 

[Daemon]

Ftr 'nicking' in baseball can get you out if the catcher takes it. It's also counted as a foul ball if he doesn't anyways and counts towards your strikes.

 

[Hurricane]

Devon White played cricket as a 13 year old before concentrating on baseball for the blue jays. He had a more vertical arc to his swing and was very good against low pitches.

 

[GGG]

Kidding yourselves if you reckon a bunch of cricketers could do well at baseball.

Cricketers have such inflated opinions when it comes to this yet noone's ever made the cross-over despite plenty of blokes playing both sports at junior levels. Batting in baseball does not equal slogging, pitching does not equal throwing.

Don't think they will do well but I think the adjustment of a baseballer playing cricket is larger than the adjustment for a cricketer playing baseball.

 

[Daemon]

Don't think they will do well but I think the adjustment of a baseballer playing cricket is larger than the adjustment for a cricketer playing baseball.

And the adjustment for a cricketer to go from cricket to boxing is even less but that won't stop his face from being caved in.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Don't think they will do well but I think the adjustment of a baseballer playing cricket is larger than the adjustment for a cricketer playing baseball.

Bingo.

Do people even ****ing read before attacking their keyboard?

I reckon a team of the best cricketers in the world could fare a lot better at baseball than a team of the worlds best baseballers would fare at cricket.

The adjustment for a cricketer being less than the adjustment for a baseballer, this statement holds true.

Baseball apologisers, learn to context.

 

[Howe_zat]

Bingo.

Do people even ****ing read before attacking their keyboard?




The adjustment for a cricketer being less than the adjustment for a baseballer, this statement holds true.

Baseball apologisers, learn to context.

Neither of you have come up with a convincing reason that'd be true though. Both are professional sports that take years to learn. Why should cricketers adjust less?

I really struggle to see bowlers playing with anything like their usual action without any runup, for example.

The only comparison I can make is that there's more money in baseball which means there's more investment in the players. So I think the world's top baseballers would be better athletes.

 

[GGG]

Neither of you have come up with a convincing reason that'd be true though. Both are professional sports that take years to learn. Why should cricketers adjust less?

I really struggle to see bowlers playing with anything like their usual action without any runup, for example.

The only comparison I can make is that there's more money in baseball which means there's more investment in the players. So I think the world's top baseballers would be better athletes.

Because rolling your arm over while releasing a ball and landing it on a spot is so foreign to everyone that hasn't played cricket, standing still and throwing a ball isn't. Not saying that pitching a baseball is that simple or easy just that bowling is cricket ball is more difficult to master for anyone that has never bowled, no amount of fitness or athleticism is going to make it any easier to learn, it is a motor skill.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Can we have the baseball-cricket debate in a less trolly thread?

 

[Top_Cat]

The adjustment for a cricketer being less than the adjustment for a baseballer, this statement holds true.

Baseball apologisers, learn to context.

It's not true. At all. Learn to baseball then come back to us.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Nein, that's such a cop out.

 

[Daemon]

I really hate the comparisons to playing a beamer in cricket. Yeah you're playing a beamer, but

a. It's going to have all sorts of variations on it at an incredibly fast (or slow) pace
b. You have to choose which deliveries to swing at
c. Use a bat that's round and has a sweet spot that's way smaller and less forgiving than a cricket bat

and most importantly

d. Hit in a 90 degree angle ahead of you where there are 9 other fielders including the pitcher. How many runs do you think you'd make with 9 fielders in the V in cricket if you were forced to run every ball?

On the other hand your cricket player who's going to be doing the pitching is going to be terrible at it and feed homeruns till you get mercy rule'd the **** out of.

Basically both sides would demolish the other at their own sport and that's all there is to it imo.

 

[Red]

It's not true. At all. Learn to baseball then come back to us.

I think it's very true.

- Pick any Major League Baseball batter that hasn't played cricket.
- I'll pick Dave Warner
- Both players now swap sports: the baseballer has to play FC cricket, and Warner has to play FC cricket's American baseball equivelant.

Who do you think would be more successful if they had to play a season each as batsmen/batters?

 

[BackFootPunch]

I think it's very true.

- Pick any Major League Baseball batter that hasn't played cricket.
- I'll pick Dave Warner
- Both players now swap sports: the baseballer has to play FC cricket, and Warner has to play FC cricket's American baseball equivelant.

Who do you think would be more successful if they had to play a season each as batsmen/batters?

They'd both be ****ing terrible. I guarantee it. Baseball player would probably have a cannon from the outfield, and Warner would be handy enough with a glove I'd imagine. But you're absolutely joking if you think either guy could have any success, at all, at the FC level or equivalent.

 

[Red]

They'd both be ****ing terrible. I guarantee it. Baseball player would probably have a cannon from the outfield, and Warner would be handy enough with a glove I'd imagine. But you're absolutely joking if you think either guy could have any success, at all, at the FC level or equivalent.

My point isn't whether they'd have great success, it's who'd adapt easier, particularly as batsmen/batters.

And simply just that I think a guy like Warner would pick up the hitting skills of baseball much quicker than a baseballer would take to understand to subtle nuances of cricket batting.

 

[BackFootPunch]

My point isn't whether they'd have great success, it's who'd adapt easier, particularly as batsmen/batters.

And simply just that I think a guy like Warner would pick up the hitting skills of baseball much quicker than a baseballer would take to understand to subtle nuances of cricket batting.

And hitting in baseball doesn't have subtle nuances? There's a reason why the best batters in the world only get a hit a third of the time. Yeah David Warner would occasionally get it right and hit one well, but there's no reason why a baseball player couldn't have the same luck on a cricket pitch. Frankly I think they'd both take years to even be serviceable at a decent level.

 

[Red]

And hitting in baseball doesn't have subtle nuances? There's a reason why the best batters in the world only get a hit a third of the time. Yeah David Warner would occasionally get it right and hit one well, but there's no reason why a baseball player couldn't have the same luck on a cricket pitch. Frankly I think they'd both take years to even be serviceable at a decent level.

I really don't think baseball has as many subtle nuances as cricket. I'm not belittling one sport compared to another, but baseball is a simpler game than cricket. My point is, essentially, that batting in cricket is more complicated than batting in baseball. There are a variety of shots played in cricket depending on the ball bowled and the bowler bowling. Baseball is essentially the same action used by batters (obviously with some nuances that matter and I may not understand and am willing to be corrected on), but in cricket a drive, a cut, a leg glance and a pull shot are all completely different actions biomechanically, plus you are dealing with a bowler who can choose to do a variety of things with the ball and bowl it in a larger zone than baseball pitchers (who might pitch slower or curve balls or whatever, but have to put it in a hitting zone).

Maybe a different way to look at it is if you took a couple of coordinated 20 year olds who'd never played baseball and cricket and asked them to become proficient at batting in both, which would they develop at quicker? I'm guessing baseball because biomechanically it's a much simpler technique with less variance from the bowler/pitcher.

 

[Valer]

Baseball requires significantly more precision, moves further in the air (read late) and is faster over a slightly shorter distance.

 

[BackFootPunch]

I really don't think baseball has as many subtle nuances as cricket. I'm not belittling one sport compared to another, but baseball is a simpler game than cricket. My point is, essentially, that batting in cricket is more complicated than batting in baseball. There are a variety of shots played in cricket depending on the ball bowled and the bowler bowling. Baseball is essentially the same action used by batters (obviously with some nuances that matter and I may not understand and am willing to be corrected on), but in cricket a drive, a cut, a leg glance and a pull shot are all completely different actions biomechanically, plus you are dealing with a bowler who can choose to do a variety of things with the ball and bowl it in a larger zone than baseball pitchers (who might pitch slower or curve balls or whatever, but have to put it in a hitting zone).

Maybe a different way to look at it is if you took a couple of coordinated 20 year olds who'd never played baseball and cricket and asked them to become proficient at batting in both, which would they develop at quicker? I'm guessing baseball because biomechanically it's a much simpler technique with less variance from the bowler/pitcher.

The simplest way I can explain it is to talk about how many 'non-batters' in each sport have some level of success. As cricket fans we've seen countless tailenders, with average techniques, score runs - even against good bowlers. It doesn't happen every time, but it happens frequently enough that there are a whole heap of cliches about having to take all 10 wickets etc. Everyone in cricket bats and, forgetting about the quality of their techniques for a second, everyone (with very few exceptions) is capable of scoring runs. You talk about the nuances of all the different cricket shots, but an average or poor batsman doesn't have to play half those strokes if they don't want to. If they can defend and have one or two scoring shots, they're capable of being at least a nuisance, and possibly much more (see Richardson, Mark). I know that part of the appeal with cricket is the aesthetic side of it but if we're just thinking practically, it doesn't matter how the runs are scored.

With baseball, on the other hand, if you're not one of the absolute top guys you're ****ed. As I said before, even the best hitters only have success a third of the time. In terms of the range of different shots/variations there might be less going on than in cricket, but just getting the basics right is pretty damn hard. I honestly think hitting in baseball is made to look easy because unless you watch a full game, all you see are the important hits and batters having success. Much like with cricket, power sells - so it's all about the home runs. Sit down and watch a game of baseball for three hours and the ball will dominate bat the vast majority of the time.

So, looking at this hypothetical situation with a couple of 20 year olds who've never played either sport, I'd say they'd become proficient at batting in cricket much more quickly. They might not look pretty, and they'd be quite limited I'm sure, but if they could defend their wicket they'd go alright. I really don't think you could expect them to become even somewhat proficient at hitting a decent pitcher, at least not quickly.

 

[Red]

Good points. Perhaps I'm viewing baseball a bit simplistically.