Is defensive cricket better?

[RossTaylorsBox]

I mean the concept of baseball pitchers being scared and batters not caring if they get out.

 

[shortpitched713]

I mean the concept of baseball pitchers being scared and batters not caring if they get out.

It holds. The pitchers are under a lot more pressure in a given at-bat compared to the batter who can always shrug it off. Obviously, if you're on a slump of never getting on base, the pressure will accumulate, but generally the pitchers are walking the tightrope.

 

[thierry henry]

I mean the concept of baseball pitchers being scared and batters not caring if they get out.

Since this seems to have become the most literal thread in history - I am not purporting to be able to determine the emotional states of baseball players.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Yeah I know you're still wrong though.

 

[thierry henry]

What even is the counter-argument or the arguable point in the first place

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

The dynamic of "batters try not to get out and bowlers try to get them out" doesn't not imply the reverse in baseball just because the value of wickets/runs is the opposite.

 

[shortpitched713]

Right.

So in cricket the wickets are more valuable, because the runs are more numerous in comparison.

In baseball the runs are more valuable, as the outs are more numerous in comparison.

If we take this relationship to be the determining factor then the "offensive" side in baseball should be batters, and the "offensive" side in cricket should be bowlers.

Which is exactly what thierry henry said. He doesn't want a blase attitude about losing wickets not being that important to ruin this aspect of the balance of cricket. It makes perfect sense, and the analogy with baseball is valid, and instructive.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

The fundamental mechanics of the game (which is indisputable) doesn't necessarily need to correspond to attitudes about how the game is played. Baseball pitchers don't have to pitch "defensively" or are scared of being hit or whatever, you can still be an aggressive pitcher, many of the best pitchers are.

 

[thierry henry]

The fundamental mechanics of the game (which is indisputable) doesn't necessarily need to correspond to attitudes about how the game is played. Baseball pitchers don't have to pitch "defensively" or are scared of being hit or whatever, you can still be an aggressive pitcher, many of the best pitchers are.

Many of the best cricket batters (even in the good old days) are also "aggressive" and many fans like aggressive batting, but it's all relative to other players in that sport (and to what is considered aggressive/defensive within that context). In any sport, if you completely fail to align the level of risk you take to the rules and mechanics of the sport, then obviously you're ****ing up (like if, I dunno, an NRL team tried to do a chip-and-chase every play for an entire game or whatever).

 

[thierry henry]

If a batter in baseball is defensively inclined or "scared of getting out", that doesn't change the fact that in general him getting out isn't a massive deal (relative to getting out in cricket).

If a pitcher in baseball is hyper-aggressive and gung ho about conceding runs, that doesn't change the fact that in general him conceding runs is quite a big deal (relative to going for runs in cricket).

I'm really not arguing anything beyond the indisputable mechanics of the game, if players are adopting approaches which aren't entirely compatible with those mechanics and finding a way to succeed regardless then so be it, that's neither here nor there for me.