Baseball V Cricket?

[_Ed_]

Haha, true.

But surely NL clubs wouldn't pass on potential Cy Young-winning pitchers just because they can't bat.

 

[stephen]

Didn't all of them play from childhood though?

Anyway, that cricketers could play baseball isn't really what's in dispute here. Of course they could. The problem occurs when fans of one or the other sport say any of their top players could walk into the top level of the other and dominate. That's ridiculous.

That was never my contention.

All I said was that some top batsmen could, after an intense period of training (around a year IMO would be necessary to develop the muscle memory to have an acceptable baseball technique) could play at MLB levels, albeit on the lower end of the scale.

Given that the top batsmen have excellent hand-eye coordination (which is a transferable innate ability) I do not think that this is too unreasonable.

Even more than that, I think that on the whole a cricket team could adjust better to baseball than a baseball team could to cricket. That is very far from saying they would have a chance against a MLB side though.

 

[Top_Cat]

That was never my contention.

All I said was that some top batsmen could, after an intense period of training (around a year IMO would be necessary to develop the muscle memory to have an acceptable baseball technique) could play at MLB levels, albeit on the lower end of the scale.

Yes but what is that based on? A find the contention a year of training would be enough to get a bloke up to professional standard incredible.

 

[archie mac]

Didn't all of them play from childhood though?

Anyway, that cricketers could play baseball isn't really what's in dispute here. Of course they could. The problem occurs when fans of one or the other sport say any of their top players could walk into the top level of the other and dominate. That's ridiculous.

Tbf I was just replying to a specific post

I always wonder if the USA would have taken to cricket, and if they would have become the greatest team in the world?

Maybe more importantly would they have taken over the Laws????

 

[stephen]

Yes but what is that based on? A find the contention a year of training would be enough to get a bloke up to professional standard incredible.

Mainly my own experiences of having played baseball as a junior and intuition.

 

[Top_Cat]

Mainly my own experiences of having played baseball as a junior and intuition.

Well, I'm sure someone will come along one day and show me up (especially if T20 breaks into the American, there's likely to be some cross-pollination of skills/players if there's some cricket played there, etc.). And, of course, what I'm saying is a gigantic guess so take it for what it's worth.

 

[Fusion]

But I'm surprised at how decent lots of the pitchers who have to bat in the NL are. If it was indeed the toughest thing to do in all of sports, I would have thought there'd be a few more Chris Martin equivalents who can never lay bat on ball.

"Decent" is a relative term though. The pitchers in the NL are just expected to get on base every once in a while. If their primary job was hitting (as in our discussion of a cricket batsman becoming a baseball hitter), they wouldn't make the team. They are only in the lineup in the NL because the rules stipulate that they bat. Also, keep in mind that even the pitchers have received fundamental training on batting since childhood, although it ceased to become their top priority once they entered the minor leagues. Hitting is not something they picked up all of a sudden in the major leagues.

 

[GotSpin]

Tbf I was just replying to a specific post

I always wonder if the USA would have taken to cricket, and if they would have become the greatest team in the world?

Maybe more importantly would they have taken over the Laws????

Well they used to have a fairly strong team. But i guess that was over 100 years ago

 

[Postmanpat]

YouTube - Fox Sport Science - Cricket v/s Baseball

Wasn't there another one of these Cricket V Baseball comparisons also done by Fox, but they had Franklyn Rose bowling? All I remember is him claiming he'd broken batsman's legs before.

 

[Top_Cat]

Wasn't there another one of these Cricket V Baseball comparisons also done by Fox, but they had Franklyn Rose bowling? All I remember is him claiming he'd broken batsman's legs before.

In Rose's case I'd believe it were he not talking about cricket.

 

[_Ed_]

Also, keep in mind that even the pitchers have received fundamental training on batting since childhood, although it ceased to become their top priority once they entered the minor leagues. Hitting is not something they picked up all of a sudden in the major leagues.

Would have thought the same could be said for bowlers in cricket, but it doesn't seem to have made much difference in many cases.

 

[analyst]

IMO, to appreciate baseball you need to go and see it from a passionate americans point of view and likewise to appreciate cricket you need to go to Australia/India where enthusiasm for the sport is still alive.

 

[GIMH]

Bit harsh to exclude England from that - I know it's not the sport of the masses but those of us who follow it do still have enthusiasm for the sport. Most internationals sell out after all.

 

[analyst]

Bit harsh to exclude England from that - I know it's not the sport of the masses but those of us who follow it do still have enthusiasm for the sport. Most internationals sell out after all.

Yes, I live here and I find a complete lack of passion for it in comparison to Australia and India. Regional intrest surely cannot be compared to two whole countries which are sports crazy.

 

[GIMH]

I guess it depends how you classify it. Amongst the cricket fans there is an enthusiasm that is comparable, I feel, to those overseas, as I say attendance figures surely reflect this. And if you go to cricket strongholds like Lancs & Yorks, this is further enhanced.

Alas, overall of course football reigns supreme so yeah in that sense it's fair enough

I knew you were from the UK btw so apologies if I sounded patronising or whatever

 

[GotSpin]

Australia. India. Pakistan. Bangladesh. South Africa (One Dayers). West Indies (when they're doing well). New Zealand (Doing well against Australia) - All fairly passionate

 

[analyst]

I guess it depends how you classify it. Amongst the cricket fans there is an enthusiasm that is comparable, I feel, to those overseas, as I say attendance figures surely reflect this. And if you go to cricket strongholds like Lancs & Yorks, this is further enhanced.

Alas, overall of course football reigns supreme so yeah in that sense it's fair enough

I knew you were from the UK btw so apologies if I sounded patronising or whatever

No, I didn't find it patronising, wasn't sure if you were aware thats all.

I guess the main thing I am asking is,

Is there a genuine enthusiasm for all formats? First Class matches, One Day Matches in domestic cricket. I am not sure anyone really would know which county team got promoted in 2008 and which team got relegated from division 1, even if they were a casual follower of County cricket. That is my point. It is not that they don't care, it is that they are not particularly enthusiastic, thrilled about it. There is a certian excitement about the Australian and Indian seasons, when you talk about it with them. The same cannot be said from my experience. Internet forums sadly don't count.

 

[slippyslip]

Yes, I live here and I find a complete lack of passion for it in comparison to Australia and India. Regional intrest surely cannot be compared to two whole countries which are sports crazy.

There is no part of Australia where cricket is the number 1 sport. No town, region or even hole in the ground.

Cricket is where its at because of the Aussie Rules/Rugby League divide.

 

[analyst]

There is no part of Australia where cricket is the number 1 sport. No town, region or even hole in the ground.

Cricket is where its at because of the Aussie Rules/Rugby League divide.

Yes, but you still misunderstand, cricket has a loyal generation following, it is not like people are completely not bothered about what happens. People still care, as long as that happens, cricket will be relevant, in most other countries, they don't.

 

[zaremba]

No, I didn't find it patronising, wasn't sure if you were aware thats all.

I guess the main thing I am asking is,

Is there a genuine enthusiasm for all formats? First Class matches, One Day Matches in domestic cricket. I am not sure anyone really would know which county team got promoted in 2008 and which team got relegated from division 1, even if they were a casual follower of County cricket. That is my point. It is not that they don't care, it is that they are not particularly enthusiastic, thrilled about it. There is a certian excitement about the Australian and Indian seasons, when you talk about it with them. The same cannot be said from my experience. Internet forums sadly don't count.

There's not that level of interest in the domestic game, but there is genuine love of international cricket. England is undoubtedly one of the strongholds of Test cricket and attendances at grounds over the last couple of decades have been incredibly strong while the team's performances have been generally dreadful. In fact for many overseas Tests English fans seem to make up the majority of the crowd.