18 Apr '13 14:43>
Originally posted by ZambonerWhere exactly do 'we see' this snobbery?
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. 😛
Originally posted by ZambonerGiven 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.
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.
Originally posted by Rank outsiderI know cricket watchers aren't snobs. I was just rattling FMF a bit for his signature snobby tone.
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.
😉
Originally posted by ZambonerI 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?
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.
Originally posted by Rank outsiderAbsolutely. Fielding percentage is an important metric in evaluating a players defensive ability.
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.
Originally posted by SmookiePWatch the first wicket go down here...
Because catching the ball without protection would cause injury.
Originally posted by ZambonerNot 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.
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.
Originally posted by FMFMaybe the ball isn't hit as hard in cricket? I don't know.
Why don't the fielders in baseball, aside from the backstop, play without gloves like cricket players do?
Originally posted by sh76I 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?
Taking the gloves off the fielders would force them to play back and completely change the dynamics of the game.
Originally posted by sh76Yeah, I would love to see one of those cricket players bare-hand catch a roided out Barry Bonds line drive back in the day.
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.