Baseball V Cricket?

[Debris]

I am actually a fan of both and the recent world series really did show off baseball at its best. Cricket is much more a game of highs and lows for spectators but the best of cricket is just so good that I give it the edge. And the singing of the national anthem at every game in baseball is pretty cringe worthy.

 

[Ruckus]

This, to be honest. As someone who is a huge cricket fan and knows fairly little about baseball apart for a basic knowledge of how it's played, of course I'm going to rate cricket higher, but if I was a baseball fan instead I'd probably be thinking that cricket is outdated and boring.

Yeah but I would argue that there are few reasons (if any) a baseball fan could give to show that their sport is not "outdated and boring" when compared to cricket (especially T20).

 

[Fusion]

I think the main advantage cricket has over baseball are the extra dynamics involved in play. Firstly, in baseball the batsman has no opportunity to be defensive, whilst in cricket the batsmen does. And that sets up a contest between bat and ball, where the pressure can shift between the bowler and batsman. It also means the pace of the game is much more complex. Secondly, in baseball, while the pitcher can add variety to the deliveries like curveballs etc., there is obviously no role for bounce. In cricket, not only can the bowler create the same 'in-the-air' variation like in baseball (i.e. swing), but they can also produce variation in deliveries by making use of the bounce (i.e. seam movement etc.). And also the fact the ball bounces obviously allows two types of bowling: both spin and pace.

So given all of that, I really see no actual advantages baseball has over cricket. You could argue it allows for more spectacular, long-range, shots, but then you just have to compare it with T20 cricket which is easily as entertaining from that perspective.

In summary, I think:

Cricket=more dynamic, more complex, allows for more strategy (intellectual) and just as spectacular (fielding and shots are equal, if not better to watch, than baseball).

Baseball=more linear, more repetitive, allows for less strategy, ****ing boring.

You do realize that your whole post is a subjective opinion right? Let’s take your point about cricket allowing the batsman to be defensive, and that to you means advantage cricket. Well, in your opinion of course. A baseball fan might counter that since a hitter can’t be defensive in their sport, it makes the art of hitting more difficult in baseball. Hence, advantage baseball. Your argument that the “pace of the game is more complex” is also subjective. There are many sports fans in general that would fall asleep watching a Test match (or even an ODI) and complain mightily about the pace. Regarding your point about the “bounce” giving Cricket more variety, a baseball fan can argue that the bounce reduces the average speed of the ball the batsman actually faces and therefore again makes it easier to hit in Cricket.

Basically you’ve just listed your own personal preferences and have stated it as fact that those preference make Cricket superior to Baseball. They are somewhat similar but vastly different sports. They both have their selling points. Liking one does not mean you can’t like the other (or that you have to automatically dislike the other). Cricket will always be my favorite sport, but I love Baseball and I don’t find it inferior to Cricket in any way.

 

[Ruckus]

You do realize that your whole post is a subjective opinion right? Let’s take your point about cricket allowing the batsman to be defensive, and that to you means advantage cricket. Well, in your opinion of course. A baseball fan might counter that since a hitter can’t be defensive in their sport, it makes the art of hitting more difficult in baseball. Hence, advantage baseball. Your argument that the “pace of the game is more complex” is also subjective. There are many sports fans in general that would fall asleep watching a Test match (or even an ODI) and complain mightily about the pace. Regarding your point about the “bounce” giving Cricket more variety, a baseball fan can argue that the bounce reduces the average speed of the ball the batsman actually faces and therefore again makes it easier to hit in Cricket.

Most of the points I made are not subjective. It is the interpretation that is subjective. For example, when I talked about the extra dynamics in cricket, I fail to see how that can be subjective. Batsmen in cricket can both defend and attack. In baseball they can't. This is not subjective, it is a fact. If one wants to interpret extra dynamics as being 'bad', it is up to them. Although many people would agree, like myself, that having more dimensions to the game is advantageous. Furthermore this statement "a hitter can’t be defensive in their sport, it makes the art of hitting more difficult in baseball" has nothing to do with dynamics whatsoever. Once again the idea that the pace of the game in cricket is more complex is a fact. If one wants to interpret more variable pace in the game as being 'bad', it is up to them. Although many people would agree, like myself, it is advantageous. If people complain about the slowness of ODIs or Tests, there are always T20s (which are more frantic than baseball games, and of a similiar duration) - hence why I said "but then you just have to compare it {baseball] with T20 cricket". Your point about no bounce in baseball making it easier to hit the ball has nothing to do with my argument about variability.

 

[Fusion]

Most of the points I made are not subjective. It is the interpretation that is subjective. For example, when I talked about the extra dynamics in cricket, I fail to see how that can be subjective. Batsmen in cricket can both defend and attack. In baseball they can't. This is not subjective, it is a fact. If one wants to interpret extra dynamics as being 'bad', it is up to them. Although many people would agree, like myself, that having more dimensions to the game is advantageous. Furthermore this statement "a hitter can’t be defensive in their sport, it makes the art of hitting more difficult in baseball" has nothing to do with dynamics whatsoever. Once again the idea that the pace of the game in cricket is more complex is a fact. If one wants to interpret more variable pace in the game as being 'bad', it is up to them. Although many people would agree, like myself, it is advantageous. If people complain about the slowness of ODIs or Tests, there are always T20s (which are more frantic than baseball games, and of a similiar duration) - hence why I said "but then you just have to compare it {baseball] with T20 cricket". Your point about no bounce in baseball making it easier to hit the ball has nothing to do with my argument about variability.

Ok so let’s talk about “extra dynamics”. Once again, you’ve pointed out extra dynamics in Cricket that you prefer while ignoring anything that baseball has to offer. Every sport has its own set of rules. Since baseball and cricket have vastly different set of rules, they will naturally have “dynamics” that are different from one another. For example, let’s talk about base running in Baseball. Once you get on a base, you are allowed to “steal” a base. This changes the whole complexion of how the pitcher pitches to the hitter. The pitcher will have to pitch from a wind-up, which is different from when no one’s on base. They have to keep the base runner close, so they have to constantly keep looking at them and perhaps throw their way to keep them close to the base. They may have to re-adjust their delivery to the plate (by shortening their leg kick so the ball gets to the plate faster). If the base runner does attempt to steal a base, you need a catcher with a strong arm to throw them out. Otherwise, a “single” can turn into a “double” or a “triple” (via steals) and the runner is in a better position to score. All of this is extra dynamics that you don’t have to deal with in Cricket. This is just ONE example. There are many more. It is pointless to compare the dynamics of the two sports because the rules/objectives are so different. In the end, it is your subjective opinion which of these dynamics make for a better sport.

 

[smash84]

Reckon someone like Gilchrist might be pretty decent at baseball if they practiced enough.

I think an American baseball coach was once interested in signing up Gilchrist for a season.

 

[silentstriker]

Baseball is a far superior and more nuanced sport (opinion of course). It's also much better run and is much more professional (not an opinion).

I love cricket a lot more only because I grew up with it.

 

[ankitj]

In terms of variety of skills and subtleties in strategy, no sport holds a candle to cricket. But again, I am biased.

 

[smash84]

In terms of variety of skills and subtleties of strategy, no sport holds a candle to cricket. But again, I am biased.

well said

 

[Shri]

Baseball is a far superior and more nuanced sport (opinion of course). It's also much better run and is much more professional (not an opinion).

I love cricket a lot more only because I grew up with it.

Why because there are no balls in cricket?

 

[Ruckus]

Ok so let’s talk about “extra dynamics”. Once again, you’ve pointed out extra dynamics in Cricket that you prefer while ignoring anything that baseball has to offer. Every sport has its own set of rules. Since baseball and cricket have vastly different set of rules, they will naturally have “dynamics” that are different from one another. For example, let’s talk about base running in Baseball. Once you get on a base, you are allowed to “steal” a base. This changes the whole complexion of how the pitcher pitches to the hitter. The pitcher will have to pitch from a wind-up, which is different from when no one’s on base. They have to keep the base runner close, so they have to constantly keep looking at them and perhaps throw their way to keep them close to the base. They may have to re-adjust their delivery to the plate (by shortening their leg kick so the ball gets to the plate faster). If the base runner does attempt to steal a base, you need a catcher with a strong arm to throw them out. Otherwise, a “single” can turn into a “double” or a “triple” (via steals) and the runner is in a better position to score. All of this is extra dynamics that you don’t have to deal with in Cricket. This is just ONE example. There are many more. It is pointless to compare the dynamics of the two sports because the rules/objectives are so different. In the end, it is your subjective opinion which of these dynamics make for a better sport.

What you are mentioning is not what I am calling 'dynamics'. Base stealing is simply a nuance of baseball. It is similiar to me saying that in cricket, when a fielder attempts to run someone out but misses, the batsmen can sneak in an extra run. Dynamics are much more broad concepts like 'attack' and 'defence' which have little to do with the specific rules/nuances of a particular sport. Whatever the case, something like base stealing and any strategic changes to pitcher has to make, is comparable to the various aspects of running between the wickets in cricket, and the fielding/bowling variations used to control scoring (e.g. changing the type of delivery a bowler uses etc.). All of these things could probably be put under the general heading of "Fielding and scoring strategy". The two games undoubtedly have different nuances within this general area, but there are no extra dynamics.

 

[GotSpin]

Baseball is a far superior and more nuanced sport (opinion of course). It's also much better run and is much more professional (not an opinion).

I love cricket a lot more only because I grew up with it.

No surprise here. WOOO AMERICAN STADIUMS

 

[Debris]

Baseball is a far superior and more nuanced sport (opinion of course). It's also much better run and is much more professional (not an opinion).

I love cricket a lot more only because I grew up with it.

It may be well run and professional in the US, not so sure about elsewhere.

 

[joels344]

I grew up a baseball fan and did my fair share of playing as well. I personally love both sports almost equally.

 

[archie mac]

Baseball is a far superior and more nuanced sport (opinion of course). It's also much better run and is much more professional (not an opinion).

I love cricket a lot more only because I grew up with it.

If professional means, player strikes and lockouts, then lets hope cricket never copies it

 

[weldone]

I personally think the game that has batsmen is a lot better than the game that has batters. That's not the only reason though. And I must admit that I have never followed baseball much (actually never felt like doing that, no disrespect of course).

 

[cricman]

It may be well run and professional in the US, not so sure about elsewhere.

Japan, Koreas & South America

Baseball is more aesthetically pleasing to the eyes, Theres much more diversity in terms of skills, There is alot more strategy within the context of a game or even a playoff series.

Personally I think you can teach a caveman Cricket, Baseball is alot harder to pickup at in the beginning.

Runs are common in Cricket, sometimes 1 run might be all you need to win a Baseball game.

 

[vcs]

 

[silentstriker]

If professional means, player strikes and lockouts, then lets hope cricket never copies it

Well, considering the number of Crazystan situations that keep coming up every other week, now's probably not the best time to compare the professionalism.....

 

[Ruckus]

Baseball is more aesthetically pleasing to the eyes, Theres much more diversity in terms of skills, There is alot more strategy within the context of a game or even a playoff series.

Personally I think you can teach a caveman Cricket, Baseball is alot harder to pickup at in the beginning.

I think if you literally reversed everything you said here I'd agree with it.