4 comments

• 

  akr

  3 years ago

  Fair enough, but I am not so sure about baseball fielding standards in general being superior (given the basic divergence in a basis for comparison), Admittedly I am not best person to alk about baseball, but most times I have had a baseball following person watch cricket with me, there are oohs and aah about how the fielding is so athletic and committed (esp without gloves).
  reply
• 

  andy

  2 years ago

  Ok, this is an exceptionally old post, but this needs to be said. I think this could be yet another one of those comments that has been made without a proper understanding of the game of cricket.
  
  Granted, baseball coaches are becoming more and more prominent in the game of cricket (in my opinion this is largely due to baseball's superior throwing techniques), but to almost ignore that fact that baseball players carry around massive gloves in their hands is ludicrous. Baseball technique is very important, and is therefore well rehearsed, but when you add a glove into the equation, regardless of technique, catching the ball becomes easier. Cricketers have no mits - catching the ball is undoubtedly more difficult.
  
  You make a valid point pertaining to relative value of fielding in the two games, but if any player, be he a baseball player or a cricketer drops the ball, the result is catastrophic. As you rightly mentioned, in cricket, runs are far more prevalent. Conversely, outs are far less likely to come by, meaning that a completed catch in cricket is MORE important than its equivalent in baseball. If you drop a baseball batter he runs to the next base (or further) and will not be seen again until his next 'at bat' and catching him would not give him fewer subsequent turns to bat.
  
  In cricket, batters only get one turn to bat so dropping a batter may result in allowing a batter another 2 days batting - dropping a batter not only gives him a run, but effectively another turn to bat.
  reply
• 

  Martin

  2 years ago

  I've never had a comment on such an old post. Interesting points.
  
  However, I think you misunderstand how outs work in baseball. You can only end the game on outs, not on number of batters like in cricket. Getting any particular individual batter out doesn't matter -- the batting team gets three outs to score in each inning, regardless of how many batters hit to reach that point. The game ends after 9 lots of 3 outs for each time, regardless of how many batters it takes.
  
  Because runs can only be scored within those 3-out spells, failing to obtain an out at a particular moment in a baseball game is (usually) more important than obtaining an out at a particular moment in a cricket match.
  
  Of course, there are exceptional moments in both games where these situations are reversed. In bsaeball, there are situations where a fielding team might concede a base to a batter (in order to set up force plays later on, or to avoid a dangerous batter in the order), and in very close cricket matches, the result can turn on halting a particular batsman at a particular moment. But in both games, those are the exceptions, not the rule.
  reply
• 

  Martin

  2 years ago

  Shorter version of the above: 1-nil is a common final score in baseball. It is extremely exceptional in cricket.
  reply