Comparison between cricket and baseball
ben
Excellent site for baseball fans who are interested to learn about Cricket.
Paul Robson
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_between_cricket_and_baseball#Play
>
> Excellent site for baseball fans who are interested to learn about Cricket.
For those who are coming from Baseball to Cricket, I advise you watch Sri
Lanka, as they are roughly in the middle.
Jeff Lawrence
<ben> wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_between_cricket_and_baseball#Play
>
> Excellent site for baseball fans who are interested to learn about Cricket.
Well, as a big fan of both, one thing I've noticed is how people
go wild whenever a diving catch is made in baseball. And it's even
worse when an infielder manages to catch a ball in his non-gloved
hand.
I'd say that far more amazing catches have been taken in cricket,
especially those one-handed reaction ones in the slips or a catch
taken by a close-in fielder from a full-blooded twhack, etc.
Am I right in thinking a cricket ball is harder than a baseball?
Cheers
Jeff
Gafoor
Someone should post a link to the video of the catch
which Collingwood took in a recent ODI.
One of the most stunning catches, I have seen.
shani
LOL, too true
Gareth Owen
> Someone should post a link to the video of the catch
> which Collingwood took in a recent ODI.
> One of the most stunning catches, I have seen.
Or Strauss's in the fourth Ashes test. That would've been a great
catch if he'd had a mitt...
RishiX
a dropped catch off a top order cricket bat.. You just give away a base
hit if you drop a catch(or if you don't attempt a wild catch). So
catchers don't go for extraordinary Collingwood/Jonty type catches
except when they are grabbing the ball on the way to a home-run?!?!
Which is why you would find more spectacular catches in cricket than in
baseball?!?!
Roger Moore
>Am I right in thinking a cricket ball is harder than a baseball?
I don't think that a new cricket ball is appreciably harder than a
baseball. Their size and construction is very similar, so it's hard to
see that they would be greatly different in hardness. I'm fairly sure,
however, that a typical cricket ball in use in a game is softer than a
basebal lin use in a game. Baseballs are regularly removed from play as
soon as they've been damaged in any way, so players never encounter one
that's softened from use. In major league baseball, for instance, umpires
are required to ready six dozen balls before each game, and they routinely
use most of them.
--
Roger Moore | Master of Meaningless Trivia | (r...@alumni.caltech.edu)
There's no point in questioning authority if you don't listen to the answers.
JPM III
news:4332b0c5$0$11741$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_between_cricket_and_baseball#Play
>
> Excellent site for baseball fans who are interested to learn about
> Cricket.
Interesting, although I have a couple of things to say about it:
Who uses the term "ups" to identify a plate appearance or at-bat? "He's up",
sure... but "His ups"? Psh!
Also, the rules do not state that a baseball batter must drop the bat on the
bases. Any hitter is allowed to carry his bat if he wishes, but as the
explanation goes, much more emphasis is placed on the difficulty of
achieving extra bases or scoring extra runs, so it is to the batter-runner's
advantage to drop the bat. However, it certainly is not against the rules to
hang on to it as long as it is not used to intimidate fielders.
Also, if a baseball player hits the ball twice, it is either a foul ball
or -- if the ball is in fair territory for the second hit -- an out. There
are also less common outs in baseball such as interference calls, batting
out of turn, or passing a baserunner.
The "infield" in baseball is the area in fair territory between and around
the bases. Typically, this includes the entire area in front of the
outfield, as far back as the dirt reaches.
It seems like this article was written by someone more familiar with Cricket
than Baseball. I'm thinking about editing it. :-P
Phil.
Whoever wrote it also appears to be unaware that baseball batters wear
'cups' (aka abdominal protectors). Also he thinks that no-one in their
right mind would take the chance of a run-out in cricket because of the
relatively low value of a single run!
Phil.
Gafoor
>> It seems like this article was written by someone more familiar with
>> Cricket than Baseball. I'm thinking about editing it. :-P
>
> Whoever wrote it also appears to be unaware that baseball batters wear
> 'cups' (aka abdominal protectors). Also he thinks that no-one in
> their right mind would take the chance of a run-out in cricket
> because of the relatively low value of a single run!
>
> Phil.
I don't think it was written by one person
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_between_cricket_and_baseball&action=history
latecut
softball :)
Bill G
news:1127440830.3...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Whoever wrote it also appears to be unaware that baseball batters wear
> 'cups' (aka abdominal protectors).
If the cup is protecting your abdomen, you're wearing it incorrectly. It
protects the ... uhh ... manhood and jewels ... of a player.
Sorry about the medical jargon. ;-)
Bill G
Phil.
I agree, I always thought the the term rather amusing!
Phil.
ben
to be the funniest thing I have heard in a while. May be you should have a
look at a cricket ball after it has been used for 80 overs and see exactly
how soft it is compared to a baseball.
ben
swing, easier for spiners, etc.
So time is an important parameter in Test Cricket.
Detoriation of pitch, changing charasteric of ball.
What about in the recent Ashes series. Langer getting his elbow smashed up
by the second ball balled in the Ashes series, goes on to score 90 odd runs.
Ponting getting his cheek bone smashed up, and ending up with stiches, still
has the scar on his face.
Straus getting smashed in the ear, then having it bandaged up, and this was
when he had only score a few runs, but goes on to score a century.
What about Kevin Petreson, getting smashed on the ribs a few times just
before lunch on the last day , and then almost geting his head ripped off
and landing flat on his back, and goes on to score a century.
But after lunch, lee tired to knock his head off again, but Peterson
countered attacked and smashed him for sixes (home runs), just like a heavy
weight boxing match, where one boxer evades a punch and counter attacks and
connects, that was just electrifing stuff, where only one ball would have
been enough to get Peterson out.
This kind of stuff keeps you on the edge of your seat.
"latecut" <lat...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127445427....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Richard R. Hershberger
ben wrote:
[top posting corrected]
> > I'm fairly sure,
> > however, that a typical cricket ball in use in a game is softer than a
> > basebal lin use in a game. Baseballs are regularly removed from play as
> > soon as they've been damaged in any way, so players never encounter one
> > that's softened from use. In major league baseball, for instance, umpires
> > are required to ready six dozen balls before each game, and they routinely
> > use most of them.
> >
> > --
> > Roger Moore | Master of Meaningless Trivia | (r...@alumni.caltech.edu)
> > There's no point in questioning authority if you don't listen to the
> > answers.
> LOL. Cricket ball softer than a baseball in a typical game. This would have
> to be the funniest thing I have heard in a while. May be you should have a
> look at a cricket ball after it has been used for 80 overs and see exactly
> how soft it is compared to a baseball.
I'm trying to understand your assertion. Roger claimed that a baseball
and a cricket ball are, when new, of roughly equal hardness, and that
since baseballs are replaced frequently over the course of the game
while cricket balls are not, the net effect is that cricket balls are
on average softer than baseballs. While you find this argument
hilarious, you haven't actually refuted it. What part of Roger's
argument is incorrect? Please be specific.
Richard R. Hershberger
ben
for 50 overs (300 balls bowled), compare that with a brand new baseball, and
then honestly tell me which one is softer.
If you are still undecided, get a picthing/bowling machine, set it to
pitch/bowl at 80mph or 90mph, stand in front of the ball 20 meters away and
let hit you on the head or ribs or any other part of the body, and then give
an honest opinion which ball you felt was softer and therefore gave you less
injury or pain.
"Richard R. Hershberger" <rrh...@acme.com> wrote in message
news:1127487023.6...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Richard Gadsden
> Also, the rules do not state that a baseball batter must drop the bat
> on the bases. Any hitter is allowed to carry his bat if he wishes, but
> as the explanation goes, much more emphasis is placed on the difficulty
> of achieving extra bases or scoring extra runs, so it is to the
> batter-runner's advantage to drop the bat. However, it certainly is not
> against the rules to hang on to it as long as it is not used to
> intimidate fielders.
Would the bat count as part of the body for being safe?
If so, they're missing a trick, as they could do a headfirst slide and
stretch the bat out ahead of their body, to touch the base (or plate).
That would surely make it easier to get safe?
--
Richard Gadsden
"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death
your right to say it" - Attributed to Voltaire
Smudguk Hai
"Gareth Owen" <use...@gwowen.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:r5id5n1...@gill.maths.keele.ac.uk...
Even better that he didn't!
I remember Mark Ramprakash taking a stunning catch (against the Aussies
again?). He dived to his left(?) and realised the ball was dropping away
from him - readjusted in mid air and stuck out a hand to pluck it out of the
air. Breath taking!
Smudguk Hai
"Jeff Lawrence" <jeff.l...@zonnet.nl> wrote in message
news:1127398745.9...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Am I right in thinking a cricket ball is harder than a baseball?
> Cheers
> Jeff
>
A new cricket ball is harder than a baseball but I'm not so sure that an
older cricket ball is. I have no evidence to prove that though!
Matt Wheeler
"Richard Gadsden" <ric...@gadsden.name> wrote in message
news:memo.2005092...@tg001a0001.blueyonder.co.uk...
> In article <YIGYe.27839$hp.23478@lakeread08> on Thu, 22 Sep 2005
> 19:01:12
> -0400, jpmc...@hotmail.com (JPM III) wrote:
>
>> Also, the rules do not state that a baseball batter must drop the
>> bat
>> on the bases. Any hitter is allowed to carry his bat if he wishes,
>> but
>> as the explanation goes, much more emphasis is placed on the
>> difficulty
>> of achieving extra bases or scoring extra runs, so it is to the
>> batter-runner's advantage to drop the bat. However, it certainly is
>> not
>> against the rules to hang on to it as long as it is not used to
>> intimidate fielders.
>
> Would the bat count as part of the body for being safe?
>
Not sure.
> If so, they're missing a trick, as they could do a headfirst slide
> and
> stretch the bat out ahead of their body, to touch the base (or
> plate).
> That would surely make it easier to get safe?
>
I doubt it... I think that carrying a 33 or 34lb bat whilst running 90
(or more) feet would hinder them somewhat... and could be more trouble
than its worth.... whereas most cricketers do a bat first lunge to get
to the other end, baseball slides can be potentially more
dangerous.... If its a close run thing to get a base, the player will
generally slide, either feet first, or sometimes head first (slightly
more risky), whilst at the base the opposing fielder will be waiting
for them hoping to get the ball in time to tag the player out.
Also, these days, bats seem more prone to breaking, especially on big
hits, sometimes only a small piece will break off, sometimes the
player is left with the handle in his hand... would it really be worth
running with something that is shorter than a relay race baton ?
Yuk Tang
news:JYadnXIfzoh...@pipex.net:
> news:memo.2005092...@tg001a0001.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
>> slide and
>> stretch the bat out ahead of their body, to touch the base (or
>> plate).
>> That would surely make it easier to get safe?
>
> I doubt it... I think that carrying a 33 or 34lb bat whilst
> running 90 (or more) feet would hinder them somewhat
Thank goodness cricketers only use a 3 lb bat then. I don't think I'd
be able to swing a 34-pounder.
--
Cheers, ymt.
Jeff Lichtman
No. Although there's nothing in the official rules that says so, I
guarantee no umpire would consider a runner safe who touched a base only
with a bat or other object. A runner wouldn't even be safe if he touched
a base with his cap held in his hand.
--
- Jeff Lichtman
Author, Baseball for Rookies
http://baseball-for-rookies.com/
Jeff Lichtman
> again?). He dived to his left(?) and realised the ball was dropping away
> from him - readjusted in mid air and stuck out a hand to pluck it out of the
> air. Breath taking!
Sounds similar to a famous play by Ozzie Smith for the San Diego Padres
on April 20, 1978. He was in mid-air while diving after a ground ball
hit to his left. The ball took a bad hop and suddenly was headed over
Ozzie's hip instead of going toward his outstretched left hand. He
reached up and grabbed the ball with his right hand, bounced up off the
ground and threw the runner out at first.
John Hall
Matt Wheeler <sp...@007jbond.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
<snip>
>I doubt it... I think that carrying a 33 or 34lb bat whilst running 90
>(or more) feet would hinder them somewhat...
Surely that weight can't be right? For comparison, a cricket bat, of
roughly similar size though admittedly made of wood, only weighs 2 to 3
lb.
--
John Hall "[It was] so steep that at intervals the street broke into steps,
like a person breaking into giggles or hiccups, and then resumed
its sober climb, until it had another fit of steps."
Ursula K Le Guin "The Beginning Place"
Richard Gadsden
> > Would the bat count as part of the body for being safe?
>
> No. Although there's nothing in the official rules that says so, I
> guarantee no umpire would consider a runner safe who touched a base
> only with a bat or other object. A runner wouldn't even be safe if he
> touched a base with his cap held in his hand.
OK, because that's why cricketers run with their bat - because they can
score just by putting their bat over the crease.
Gafoor
> In article <JYadnXIfzoh...@pipex.net>,
> Matt Wheeler <sp...@007jbond.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
> <snip>
>> I doubt it... I think that carrying a 33 or 34lb bat whilst running
>> 90 (or more) feet would hinder them somewhat...
>
> Surely that weight can't be right? For comparison, a cricket bat, of
> roughly similar size though admittedly made of wood, only weighs 2 to
> 3 lb.
I think he means 33 or 34 oz not pounds.
Tom MacIntyre
Did he use flaps, rudder, or both?
Tom
Phil.
Richard Gadsden wrote:
> In article <KYCdnXc7M6W...@rcn.net> on Sat, 24 Sep 2005 00:58:07
> -0700, swa...@rcn.com (Jeff Lichtman) wrote:
>
> > > Would the bat count as part of the body for being safe?
> >
> > No. Although there's nothing in the official rules that says so, I
> > guarantee no umpire would consider a runner safe who touched a base
> > only with a bat or other object. A runner wouldn't even be safe if he
> > touched a base with his cap held in his hand.
>
> OK, because that's why cricketers run with their bat - because they can
> score just by putting their bat over the crease.
>
baseball who played on our intermural cricket team. The first couple
of games were interesting since he'd drop his bat when he ran!It
disconcerted the slips somewhat! We eventually were abler to persuade
him of the advantages of taking it with him.
Phil.
ben
> I recall we had a visiting american faculty member who'd played
> baseball who played on our intermural cricket team. The first couple
> of games were interesting since he'd drop his bat when he ran!It
> disconcerted the slips somewhat! We eventually were abler to persuade
> him of the advantages of taking it with him.
>
baseball, and the ball bounces like in cricket, your instincts would take
over and you'd try to hit it for a boundary
Roger Moore
[if a bat counted as part of a player's body for touching a base in
baseball]
>I doubt it... I think that carrying a 33 or 34lb bat whilst running 90
>(or more) feet would hinder them somewhat... and could be more trouble
>than its worth.... whereas most cricketers do a bat first lunge to get
>to the other end, baseball slides can be potentially more
>dangerous.... If its a close run thing to get a base, the player will
>generally slide, either feet first, or sometimes head first (slightly
>more risky), whilst at the base the opposing fielder will be waiting
>for them hoping to get the ball in time to tag the player out.
I suspect that a large part of the reason is the exact nature of the
rules. A baseball base is a much smaller safe area than a cricket crease,
both in width and depth, which makes missing the safe area either sideways
or by oversliding a real risk in baseball. Also, baseball often requires
physical contact between the fielder and the runner to record the out,
while run outs in cricket are recorded by contact between the ball and the
wicket. That means that a baseball runner can attempt to avoid the out
with an elusive slide- far easier to do with one's body than with the bat-
and a baseball fielder can attempt to block the runner- and I'd expect
that it's easier to block a bat than the runner's body. In baseball the
runner is also required to maintain continuous contact with the base for
the whole time that the fielder is applying a tag, and it's considered at
least marginally ethical for a fielder to try to dislodge a sliding
runner's hand or foot from the bag to record an out. I'd expect that to
be somewhat easier to dislodge a bat than a hand or foot.
At least as important, carrying the bat around the bases in baseball would
be contrary to custom, and baseball is very tradition bound. Trying
something like that would be frowned upon by the other players and the
umpires. While I don't think that the umpires would deliberately rule
against a player just because he was doing so, I doubt that he would
receive many favorable rulings in questionable cases. The net result is
that a player who tried to do so would quickly decide that it wasn't
beneficial and give it up, even if there might be real advantages to doing
so were there not a tradition against doing so.
Tom MacIntyre
It would be a legal hit/strike also.
Tom
barath...@gmail.com
Roger Moore wrote:
>
> I don't think that a new cricket ball is appreciably harder than a
> baseball.
And you would be mistaken.
Don't just accept my assertion ....
Smudguk Hai
"Tom MacIntyre" <tom__ma...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:71paj1he6pf7cl3rq...@4ax.com...
None of the above (I hope!) He was re-adjusting his box!
Tom MacIntyre
"The cricket ball is smaller than a baseball, and is harder
and has a seam which the bowler uses to cut and swing the
ball.
"
Unless I haven't read far enough into this, there is absolutely
nothing here to refute Roger's statement.
Tom
ben
>
> None of the above (I hope!) He was re-adjusting his box!
>
>
Wouldn't need a box fielding any where expect fielding very close, like a
radius of about 2 to 3 meters from the striker.
ben
> "
> Unless I haven't read far enough into this, there is absolutely
> nothing here to refute Roger's statement.
>
> Tom
Best thing is to compare them side by side.
Jeff Zeitlin
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_between_cricket_and_baseball#Play
>
>Excellent site for baseball fans who are interested to learn about Cricket.
>
Another good site for this would be found at
http://www.dangermouse.net/cricket/ - the author wrote it specifically
for baseball fans with no prior knowledge about cricket, and has updated
it based on feedback from readers of the site.
--
Jeff Zeitlin
jzei...@cyburban.com
Mike Holmans
Gadsden) tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>In article <KYCdnXc7M6W...@rcn.net> on Sat, 24 Sep 2005 00:58:07
>-0700, swa...@rcn.com (Jeff Lichtman) wrote:
>
>> > Would the bat count as part of the body for being safe?
>>
>> No. Although there's nothing in the official rules that says so, I
>> guarantee no umpire would consider a runner safe who touched a base
>> only with a bat or other object. A runner wouldn't even be safe if he
>> touched a base with his cap held in his hand.
>
>OK, because that's why cricketers run with their bat - because they can
>score just by putting their bat over the crease.
I doubt that Shane Warne worries about his bat and the crease when
scoring - surely it's more to do with his texting thumb.
Admittedly, this lame excuse for a joke is merely a front for asking
Mr Gadsden whether it is likely that I have ever sold him a Liberator
songbook, and if so what he thought of my wife's rendition of "Stand
By Your Vote" on Wednesday night.
Cheers,
Mike
Richard Gadsden
Well, I have bought several Liberator songbooks, so I guess the chances
are good.
And your wife sang like the good ol' Oklahoma gal she is. Even if she is
an MFY fan.
PS (to your wife): Greatest choke in history.
Mike Holmans
Gadsden) tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>In article <7d5ej1pvgcmf7th3v...@4ax.com> on Sun, 25 Sep
She thanks you for the compliment and has, with gritted teeth, to
agree with your PS.
However, since I'm posting from rec.sport.cricket where the MFYs' fate
last year is of merely peripheral concern, I'd have to nominate the
collection of exits which South Africa have managed from cricket's
World Cup, which have been truly astonishing in their implausibility.
Cheers,
Mike
Gary Williams
In my opinion, though, the single most important transformation is
this: if cricket had a must-run rule, it would have gone a very long
way toward being baseball. If in addition to a must-run rule a new
batsman came up every time an out was recorded or a run was scored, and
if a batsman although previously out continued to take his turn in that
rotation, then the two games would have gone more than halfway toward
being the same game. Maybe with those two changes not quite as
genetically similar as humans and chimpanzees, but getting close.
Gary Williams
Ron Knight
An Indian friend of mine took up softball while at school in the
States, and enjoyed it quite a bit. He did take a big ribbing though
when the pitcher got a little wild and sent one at his legs. He
leg-glanced it.
Take it easy,
Ron Knight