1. Joined
    11 Oct '04
    Moves
    5344
    18 Apr '13 14:43
    Originally posted by Zamboner
    Here we see the main difference between the two sports. Whereas baseball is a celebrated game of the common folk, cricket is steeped in snobbery. 😛
    Where exactly do 'we see' this snobbery?
  2. Joined
    09 Nov '12
    Moves
    1810
    18 Apr '13 14:56
    Originally posted by Rank outsider
    Where exactly do 'we see' this snobbery?
    It was a joke. You know, a ha ha?
  3. Joined
    11 Oct '04
    Moves
    5344
    18 Apr '13 14:592 edits
    Originally posted by Zamboner
    Putting it simply, more fielding in baseball and the need for quick throws and catches between other fielders. Runs are at a premium and pitchers in baseball will more often pitch to induce contact and generate outs via fielding. As opposed to a run out in cricket you have a groundout in baseball which you can picture as another fielder instead of the stu ...[text shortened]... range you have with a glove makes for some pretty spectacular looking plays on a regular basis.
    Given I have only ever watched one baseball game live, you will excuse me if I get terminology wrong or say something which is not accurate.

    I was very impressed by the speed, but even more so, the accuracy of the throwing in baseball. As you say, the fact that you are running out more far more often than in cricket does justify the use of a glove. I have seen bowlers at the stumps in cricket trying to collect the ball thrown full force, and they don't like it. Serious injuries are quite rare, but if you upped the frequency, this would change.

    I think, whilst the glove can makes for spectacular catches, it does reduce (for me) the tension when a simple ball is knocked up, say, 30-40ft in the air. In baseball, the catcher, assuming they are in a reasonable position, will catch it 99.9% of the time. So, there is no real tension watching it.

    In cricket, you would expect the outfielder to catch it, say, 95% of the time. So, if the match is at a critical point, with added pressure, as the ball goes up, people really can be on the edge of their seats in case it is dropped.

    I also liked the fact that you get served food at your seat!

    I don't think cricket watchers are snobs. I can personally testify that, at Lords, they let all sorts of riff-raff in these days.

    😉
  4. Joined
    11 Oct '04
    Moves
    5344
    18 Apr '13 15:03
    Originally posted by Zamboner
    It was a joke. You know, a ha ha?
    OK!

    🙂
  5. Joined
    09 Nov '12
    Moves
    1810
    18 Apr '13 15:101 edit
    Originally posted by Rank outsider
    Given I have only ever watched one baseball game live, you will excuse me if I get terminology wrong or say something which is not accurate.

    I was very impressed by the speed, but even more so, the accuracy of the throwing in baseball. As you say, the fact that you are running out more far more often than in cricket does justify the use of a glove. I can personally testify that, at Lords, they let all sorts of riff-raff in these days.

    😉
    I know cricket watchers aren't snobs. I was just rattling FMF a bit for his signature snobby tone.

    The occurrence of a fielding error in baseball can represent a major turning point in the game so in the same sense that there is more tension in cricket for what would a "routine" fly ball in baseball is countered by the thrill or rage of a key error extending a team's rally or and potentially becoming a turning point in the game. There are I think an average of 1.5-2 errors per game in baseball though admittedly the majority of them will be committed by the infield or by outfielders misplaying bounces or throwing errantly and not necessarily by completely botched flyouts though it does happen (Ahem, Josh Hamilton).

    The most famous error in baseball history was committed by Bill Buckner, a first basemen for the Boston Red Sox which caused the Red Sox to lose the otherwise clinching game of the 1986 World Series which would have lifted the infamous "Curse of the Bambino". At that time, the Red Sox hadn't won the Series in over 60 years since they traded Babe Ruth to the Yankees.
  6. Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    34587
    18 Apr '13 15:39
    Originally posted by Zamboner
    I know cricket watchers aren't snobs. I was just rattling FMF a bit for his signature snobby tone.
    I am not rattled at all by your chip-on-your-shoulder tone.
  7. Joined
    11 Oct '04
    Moves
    5344
    18 Apr '13 15:411 edit
    Originally posted by Zamboner
    I know cricket watchers aren't snobs. I was just rattling FMF a bit for his signature snobby tone.

    The occurrence of a fielding error in baseball can represent a major turning point in the game so in the same sense that there is more tension in cricket for what would a "routine" fly ball in baseball is countered by the thrill or rage of a key error ex ed Sox hadn't won the Series in over 60 years since they traded Babe Ruth to the Yankees.
    I seem to recall that, when there is an error, they actually post it up on the screen and attribute this to the player. Am I remembering correctly? Do they record this officially?

    That must add some pressure if they do.
  8. Joined
    09 Nov '12
    Moves
    1810
    18 Apr '13 16:52
    Originally posted by FMF
    I am not rattled at all by your chip-on-your-shoulder tone.
    Of course you're not.
  9. Joined
    09 Nov '12
    Moves
    1810
    18 Apr '13 16:53
    Originally posted by Rank outsider
    I seem to recall that, when there is an error, they actually post it up on the screen and attribute this to the player. Am I remembering correctly? Do they record this officially?

    That must add some pressure if they do.
    Absolutely. Fielding percentage is an important metric in evaluating a players defensive ability.
  10. Standard memberthaughbaer
    Duckfinder General
    223b Baker Street
    Joined
    25 Apr '06
    Moves
    33101
    18 Apr '13 22:07
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Gee why don't they bat the ball with their bare hands like handball players do?
    Because they could never hit a home run. Without a glove they could still catch the ball.
  11. Standard memberthaughbaer
    Duckfinder General
    223b Baker Street
    Joined
    25 Apr '06
    Moves
    33101
    18 Apr '13 22:13
    Originally posted by SmookieP
    Because catching the ball without protection would cause injury.
    Watch the first wicket go down here...

    YouTube
  12. Standard memberthaughbaer
    Duckfinder General
    223b Baker Street
    Joined
    25 Apr '06
    Moves
    33101
    18 Apr '13 22:36
    Originally posted by Zamboner
    Putting it simply, more fielding in baseball and the need for quick throws and catches between other fielders. Runs are at a premium and pitchers in baseball will more often pitch to induce contact and generate outs via fielding. As opposed to a run out in cricket you have a groundout in baseball which you can picture as another fielder instead of the stu ...[text shortened]... range you have with a glove makes for some pretty spectacular looking plays on a regular basis.
    Not that I know much about baseball but I don't think your post paints an entirely accurate picture of cricket either. If the amount of fielding is based on the number of "hits" I can't see cricket being ( far ) behind. Field placement and bowling are often used to induce a "hit" and a catch. There's no real equivalent to a baseman apart from the wicket keeper who would be equivalent to the catcher. But for someone in the mid/deep the work rate and activity is probably not too dissimilar.
  13. Standard membersh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    New York
    Joined
    26 Dec '07
    Moves
    17585
    19 Apr '13 02:592 edits
    Originally posted by FMF
    Why don't the fielders in baseball, aside from the backstop, play without gloves like cricket players do?
    Maybe the ball isn't hit as hard in cricket? I don't know.

    What I do know is that it would be insane to try to play the infield without a glove. Balls are hit seriously fast at infielders (especially pitchers and corner infielders when they play in). Taking the gloves off the fielders would force them to play back and completely change the dynamics of the game.
  14. Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    34587
    19 Apr '13 04:12
    Originally posted by sh76
    Taking the gloves off the fielders would force them to play back and completely change the dynamics of the game.
    I wasn't talking about taking the gloves off the fielders. If gloves had never been used then the dynamics of the game would be different today. If cricket fielders had at some point in the past been allowed to wear body armour they could crowd the batsmen like a ruck of ice hockey goalkeepers; it would have changed the dynamics of the game as they stand today. Was there ever a time when baseball was played bare handed like cricket is [by 10 of its fielders] or rounders?
  15. Joined
    10 May '09
    Moves
    13341
    19 Apr '13 10:45
    Originally posted by sh76
    Maybe the ball isn't hit as hard in cricket? I don't know.

    What I do know is that it would be insane to try to play the infield without a glove. Balls are hit seriously fast at infielders (especially pitchers and corner infielders when they play in). Taking the gloves off the fielders would force them to play back and completely change the dynamics of the game.
    Yeah, I would love to see one of those cricket players bare-hand catch a roided out Barry Bonds line drive back in the day.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree