Baseball question

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.

I don't think there is a lot of difference between a cricket ball and a baseball. I think a cricket ball is slightly heavier, and the hardness initially is probably about the same. And I suspect a batsman in cricket can hit the ball at much the same speed (probably a bit less). But, either way, in both games you potentially face a very hard ball coming at you at a very high speed.

So I don't think that this is the reason which justifies the use of a glove. I think it is more to do with the frequency with which you face the situations where the use of a glove is justified.

In cricket, most occasions when you catch a ball bare-handed are:

1) Behind the batter, when the ball has been edged to the slips (so has not had the benefit of the full force of the bat) and is rapidly decelerating.

2) Been lofted up in the air like a fly ball. I am sure, by the way, that any baseball player could easily catch a fly ball without the aid or need of a glove.

In baseball, most other catches are

1) In front the batter. This means that (other than fly balls) the ball will have been middled more often and coming at you at full force.

2) People fielding on the bases. These catchers are having to catch the ball far more often than fielders do in cricket, as run outs are far more common.

In cricket, there are a couple of situations where I have seen players pick up finger injuries:

1) When they attempt to catch a ball which has been middled and hit full force at them when they are close in.

2) When they try and catch a ball thrown full force at them by a fielder to run someone out.

In cricket, these situations are quite rare (you might go a whole day and not have one of these). For certain fielders in baseball, these situations are part-and-parcel of the game due to the nature of the way the game is played.

So, just as cricket gives gloves to its wicket keeper, it is justified for baseball players to use gloves.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
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.

Do you watch cricket?

Originally posted by Rank outsider
I don't think there is a lot of difference between a cricket ball and a baseball. I think a cricket ball is slightly heavier, and the hardness initially is probably about the same. And I suspect a batsman in cricket can hit the ball at much the same speed (probably a bit less). But, either way, in both games you potentially face a very hard ball com ...[text shortened]... cricket gives gloves to its wicket keeper, it is justified for baseball players to use gloves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_cricket_and_baseball

Another consequence is that the maximum distance from the batsman in cricket to the boundary is far smaller than the maximum distance from the batter in baseball and the outfield wall. Since the pitch in cricket lies at the centre of the field, a ball can often be driven beyond the boundary at even the greatest distance from the pitch by a blow that travels around 275 feet (83.8 m). By contrast, a home run to 'deep center' in baseball must travel more than 400 feet (121.9 m). This means that outfielders in baseball must frequently cover considerably greater distances than those fielding a ball in cricket. When hit squarely in baseball the ball leaves the bat at a higher velocity, and travels farther, than in cricket.

also..

Despite the differences in delivery action, the delivery speeds are similar for both sports with the fastest bowlers and pitchers propelling the ball in the region of 95–100 mph (150–160 km/h): the fastest recorded cricket delivery is 100.2 mph (161.26 km/h)[5][6] with baseball's record quicker at 105 mph (169.0 km/h).[7] It is the case, however, that baseball pitches near or at 100 mph are considerably more common than bowled balls of comparable velocity in cricket. The bowler in cricket is much more restricted with respect to how much he can straighten his arm in delivering the ball, and this is one very significant reason why baseball pitchers can deliver the ball faster with more frequency.

Originally posted by thaughbaer
Watch the first wicket go down here...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3T9fwpwjR4

Actually, I would say that, in the first wicket, the ball was not middled. I would say it was hit slightly high up the bat. It was certainly not perfectly timed given where the batsman was trying to hit it. Still a great catch, though.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
Actually, I would say that, in the first wicket, the ball was not middled. I would say it was hit slightly high up the bat. It was certainly not perfectly timed given where the batsman was trying to hit it. Still a great catch, though.

It's all the better because it's on follow through. Unfortunately due to rights deals the IPL is about the only cricket I get to watch these days.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_cricket_and_baseball

Another consequence is that the maximum distance from the batsman in cricket to the boundary is far smaller than the maximum distance from the batter in baseball and the outfield wall. Since the pitch in cricket lies at the centre of the field, a ball can often be driven beyond the ...[text shortened]... significant reason why baseball pitchers can deliver the ball faster with more frequency.[/b]

Thanks for that.

A cricket ball is between 5.5 and 5.75 ounces (155.9 and 163.0 g) in weight and 8 13/16 and 9 in (224 and 229 mm) in circumference.

A baseball is between 5 and 5.25 ounces in weight and 9 to 9.25 inches in circumference.

So the ball in baseball is slightly lighter and slightly bigger, which I presume means it would decelerate slightly quicker. But very litte difference.

Originally posted by FMF
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. ...[text shortened]... time when baseball was played bare handed like cricket is [by 10 of its fielders] or rounders?

The answer is yes. The glove was introduced around the 1870s and had become the norm in the 1890s.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_cricket_and_baseball
Since the pitch in cricket lies at the centre of the field, a ball can often be driven beyond the boundary at even the greatest distance from the pitch by a blow that travels around 275 feet (83.8 m). By contrast, a home run to 'deep center' in baseball must travel more than 400 feet (12 ...[text shortened]... ll must frequently cover considerably greater distances than those fielding a ball in cricket.[/b]

Well that's tosh. The distance you have to cover is only determined by the distance to the next nearest fielder. You don't chase the ball from the bat... unless you're the wicket keeper and there's nobody fine.

Originally posted by thaughbaer
It's all the better because it's on follow through. Unfortunately due to rights deals the IPL is about the only cricket I get to watch these days.

It was a sad day when Channel 4 lost test cricket rights. They introduced a lot of innovation into their coverage. It didn't all work, but some of it opened up whole new areas of the game.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_cricket_and_baseball

Another consequence is that the maximum distance from the batsman in cricket to the boundary is far smaller than the maximum distance from the batter in baseball and the outfield wall. Since the pitch in cricket lies at the centre of the field, a ball can often be driven beyond the significant reason why baseball pitchers can deliver the ball faster with more frequency.[/b]

If a ball does not bounce in cricket before it reaches the batsman (it's called a full toss) - in other words if it's like a baseball pitch - there will be groans from the crowd if the batsman doesn't simply slog it to the boundary and pick up 4 runs. This is an interesting difference between cricket and baseball. I wonder, if baseball players had a cricket bat in their hands, whether they would be able to hit more balls and hit them exactly where they want them to.

Originally posted by FMF
If a ball does not bounce in cricket before it reaches the batsman (it's called a full toss) - in other words if it's like a baseball pitch - there will be groans from the crowd if the batsman doesn't simply slog it to the boundary and pick up 4 runs. This is an interesting difference between cricket and baseball. I wonder, if baseball players had a cricket bat ...[text shortened]... s, whether they would be able to hit more balls and hit them exactly where they want them to.

I really don't know how cricket is played. You're saying the "pitcher" can bounce the ball to the batter (hitter)??

Aren't cricket bats flat? I could imaging that would cause a lot more absorption of the energy in the ball. I'm willing to bet the ball goes a lot further and at much higher velocity with a round bat.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
I really don't know how cricket is played. You're saying the "pitcher" can bounce the ball to the batter (hitter)??

Aren't cricket bats flat? I could imaging that would cause a lot more absorption of the energy in the ball. I'm willing to bet the ball goes a lot further and at much higher velocity with a round bat.

"I really don't know how cricket is played."

Enough said.

You do not need to wave your willy [or hoist your national flag up it when it's tumescent] over baseball v cricket.

Both are superb bat and ball games.

Originally posted by FMF
"I really don't know how cricket is played."

Enough said.

You do not need to wave your willy [or hoist your national flag up it when it's tumescent] over baseball v cricket.

Both are superb bat and ball games.

I wasn't. I'm not even a baseball fan, I was just trying to learn and have a conversation about the difference between the two.

Right now you're the only one trying to have a d*** measuring contest. And you're looking pretty silly because you're the only one with your junk hanging out.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
I wasn't. I'm not even a baseball fan, I was just trying to learn and have a conversation about the difference between the two.

Right now you're the only one trying to have a d*** measuring contest. And you're looking pretty silly because you're the only one with your junk hanging out.

In which post of mine is my "junk hanging out"?

Both cricket and baseball are superb bat and ball games.