Baseball vs. Cricket

[Days of Grace]

Is the greatest feat in baseball hitting a home run with bases loaded? Surely, it doesn't get better than that.

Also, like adharcric says, conditions are roughly the same in baseball whereever you play. The most important thing is that the pitch conditions are taken out of the equation, which IMO makes cricket much more interesting.

 

[silentstriker]

A perfect game is the greatest feat in baseball. Only has been accomplished about fifteen times in the past century. And thats with every team playing 160 games a year...and 30 teams...(there were less teams and games at the beginning of the century, but still a lot).

 

[Days of Grace]

Would I be right in thinking that baseball is a lot less physcially demanding than cricket? I mean, baseballers play 160 games a season FFS!!

 

[Fusion]

Doesn't that kind of take away from the skill factor involved?

I meant "guess" in a sense that you have to anticipate the direction of the ball. A pitcher can throw you a fastball right in the strike zone. Or a curve that moves away from you. Or he may throw you an off-speed that throws off your swing. Think about it in Cricket terms. A batsman playing a Warne has to somewhat anticipate/guess which way the ball will turn.

Would I be right in thinking that baseball is a lot less physcially demanding than cricket? I mean, baseballers play 160 games a season FFS!!

Depends on what position you play. Most of the infield positions are very tough. The catcher position is one of the most physically demanding in sports. 2nd base and Shortstop are pretty tough as well.

 

[roseboy64]

Yeah catcher's a tough job. You'll rarely find a catcher playing more than 85% of the games in the National League. Whereas an outfielder may play 95%.

 

[The Baconator]

Would I be right in thinking that baseball is a lot less physcially demanding than cricket? I mean, baseballers play 160 games a season FFS!!

Whatever the case, there are a few rather portly fellows in the MLB.

 

[roseboy64]

They're usually pitchers though.

 

[Days of Grace]

Do they have any 'allrounders' in baseball? Great pitchers that are also handy with the bat, or vice-versa?

 

[silentstriker]

Would I be right in thinking that baseball is a lot less physcially demanding than cricket? I mean, baseballers play 160 games a season FFS!!

A lot more actually. There is a game every day, so imagine all the traveling you do every day. It is extremely demanding physically.

 

[roseboy64]

Do they have any 'allrounders' in baseball? Great pitchers that are also handy with the bat, or vice-versa?

Not in the modern game. You have pitchers who are decent with the bat but nothing close to being "allrounder" status.

 

[Fusion]

Yea, but guys have 60+ completion percentage. Not even remotely close for baseball hitters. Since the 1940s, not a single hitter has been able to hit the ball four times out of ten at bats over an entire season. Not one. That's seventy years that no one has had a 40% success rate. To have a 40% success rate, you probably only need to hit about 15% of the balls pitched at you in the strike zone. So no hitter can hit 15% of the deliveries thrown at him, over an entire season.

That is ridiculous IMO...70 years....

Here's a quote by the great Mickey Mantle that illustrates the point:

"During my 18 years I came to bat almost 10,000 times. I struck out about 1,700 times and walked maybe 1,800 times. You figure a ballplayer will average about 500 at-bats a season. That means I played 7 years without ever hitting the ball." - Mickey Mantle

 

[adharcric]

That's quite misleading. Drawing a walk doesn't necessarily mean you can't hit the ball. Even a strikeout doesn't necessarily mean you can't hit the ball. Given that you have foul territory and nine men in the field, the placement is the tough part. Otherwise, I'm sure these guys can hit the baseball without getting base hits.

 

[Fusion]

That's quite misleading. Drawing a walk doesn't necessarily mean you can't hit the ball. Even a strikeout doesn't necessarily mean you can't hit the ball. Given that you have foul territory and nine men in the field, the placement is the tough part. Otherwise, I'm sure these guys can hit the baseball without getting base hits.

I think The Mick was referring to getting a base hit, IMO. He was exaggerating as well, to just make a point about how hard it is to get a hit in baseball.

 

[atisha_ro]

i'm actually beginning to love baseball, not taking anything off the greatness of cricket.
but cricket can be amazingly dull at times, while in baseball every at-bat is a little piece of drama.
i support the Boston Red Sox in MLB.

 

[silentstriker]

i support the Boston Red Sox in MLB.

Dire.

 

[atisha_ro]

meh.
they are really unpredictable, take the Royals series last week. Sunday 4-0 and cruising, Monday 3-9 and horrible, and they have a custom of losing close games - and still they lead the AL East
it would be interesting anyway to compare the two games as in how they reflect the culture and mentality of Americans (baseball) and Commonwealthers (cricket).

 

[adharcric]

Dire.

Dire. Who do you support?

 

[TT Boy]

Would I be right in thinking that baseball is a lot less physcially demanding than cricket? I mean, baseballers play 160 games a season FFS!!

That's what the roids are for...

I use to be a bit of part-time fan but the whole Mark McGwire, Barry Bonds and Sosa (et cetera) escapade made me lose interest. I still catch a game if its on TV but I don’t go out of my way like I use to.

 

[adharcric]

Uhh, no. Steroids hardly play a role in that, even though several modern-day sluggers are probably on 'em.

 

[silentstriker]

Dire. Who do you support?

Phillies. Hate the Yankees and the Sox with a passion.