Arseface

Oh! But one last point that I was witholding because it was so unanswerable:



I mean, jeeze, just LOOK at that hat. And a white shirt? And a TIE? What is this, Great-Aunt Shirley's garden party?

Well, if by "can't do" you mean, "banned because it killed somebody" and "could do, but nobody would be fool enough to swing at it." The games are different. And, I'm sorry, but just going from the number of runs you guys get (even disregarding the 6 and four and wide and all that stuff) implies that there is something easier about hitting in cricket. But you're right, cricket bowlers have more things they can do legally.

Talking a pitcher or any baseball player? Because, no offense, but I suspect that a baseball pitcher could just pitch as usual and do... okay, if not neccesarily spectacular, against a batsman. A cricketer on the other hand... bowling methods wouldn't work AT ALL in baseball.

Yeah, they're initially thrown at the same speed. Probably.

Well, I'm not going to go do the research on that at the moment, but I did come across that at some earlier point. Baseball had that rule, and it slowly faded out. I don't know that softball EVER had it. If it did, it faded out the same way. And I don't remember why it faded out in either sport. And, again, I don't feel like doing the research.

I'm sorry, I'm kinda running out of argumentative-ness.

Yeah, we banned spitballs years ago 'cause a batter got killed when the ball slipped out of the pitcher's hand. So, you're right, we don't have that. 'Side from that, then. And you might be right that the ball can ricochet unpredictably. But you also know that it IS going to ricochet unpredictably. That has to count for something.

That's probably true, but only because of the "before you could learn how to bowl" addendum. I have the physical skill of something dead and rotten, even if I'm vaguely in shape. Specifically, my arm is ****, which is why I haven't played baseball since I was 14. (Although I do have lots of practice bowling. Just like skee-ball! (only joking))

Yeah, and after it hits the ground it'd slow, is what I'm saying.

And yes, the follow-through on an overhand pitch allows the wrist to remain straight, because you can follow-through moving your whole arm. Underarm, that's not possible. You can't rotate your arm again after you've already spun it around. Admittedly, you can't spin your whole arm around again overhand either, but snapping your wrist wouldn't do much. Plus, pretty sure that softball pitchers also do crazy **** with their fingers and wrists.

I asked my sister, rather than talking out my ass. The ball HAS already left the pitcher's hand when the arm curls up, but that's because curling the arm up at the end allows them to snap their wrist more. It means they pitch faster, but that's because it's the follow-through on a wrist movement. Without it, the major difference would be that their wrist wouldn't move as fast. The analog for you would be whatever a bowler's arm does as he comes down from releasing the ball.

Yes, it does those things more SEVERELY (which I suddenly feel like I misspelled), because it bounces off the ground. But a baseball will do all of those things while still in the air. Except possibly up, you might need softball for that. Yes, a cricket ball changes more abruptly. But it's also somewhat more predictable. Easier to tell when a ball is going to bounce off the ground, than change direction in midair, and easier with more distance, too.

No, he doesn't. He can do the same things, just constrained by the rules of baseball, and so less dramatically.

(The boy plays for the Diamondbacks. My player he ain't.) Yes, but there's no way to prove your point either way. I realize that's absurd considering that the whole point of this argument is something impossible to prove, but I can argue with just as much support as you that baseball is harder to hit because the ball is in the air, against a round bat, and can curve and drop and change in midair. Sure, swing away.

She's not a pitcher. This ain't cricket, boyo. Pitching is an acquired, specialized skill. Plus, if I asked her she would start making snide remarks. Which is pretty rich considering that the arguments I have with her are usually more pointless than this one.

Roughly the same, but the bounces that a cricket ball takes means it loses speed. The greater mass also means that it comes off the bat slower. (F=ma, so the same force with a greater mass means less acceleration.) Admittedly, probably not MUCH slower, since it's only .25-.35oz, but still.

(Incidentally, I was bored, so I calculated the densities for baseballs, softballs, and cricket balls. I used stupid units (g/cm^3) but as it turned out softballs are noticeably less dense than baseballs or cricket balls-- around .3, give or take a tenth But baseballs and cricket balls have roughly the same density, because they're almost the exact same size and mass. No idea why I thought they were different, but they aren't. This neutralizes some earlier comments I made, but the point about cricket balls being hit slower still stands. I think.)

I do not think so. A baseball can be put through most of the same paces that article mentioned, just has more time to move around. And yes, it's thrown from closer... you know what's thrown from further away than either baseball or softball? A cricket bowl. Cricket pitch is 66 ft/20.12 meters long, vs. 60.5 ft/18.44 meters. Logically, with more time to prepare the batter can compensate more for the entirely predictable ricochets off the ground.

Why do you say that? If baseball pitchers COULD play the ball off the ground, they would. Since they CAN'T, they don't. Or is your point that they couldn't do it if they were suddenly bowling? True, and a bowler couldn't pitch worth a damn.

No, I'm not saying it's the easiest thing in the world. I'm saying it's easier than baseball.

There we go, the women point I can't argue. There's an entirely unverified and unverifiable claim of a male softball pitcher who could hit 104mph. Density I can't argue, either-- a softball is noticeably less dense. What I can argue is that the fact that they curl their arm at the end has anything to do with it. The ball has already left their hand by that point. What do you expect them to do? The only difference in the motion of a softball pitcher and a bowler is that softball is underhand. They've gotta do SOMETHING witht their arm at the end. Curling it up is the least uncomfortable follow-through. (And, in addition to all my sister's softball games I've seen in person, I just watched six videos of softball pitching from youtube and three of cricket bowling. The same.

Altoona, PA

And I know a song about Allentown (Allentown-Billy Joel) Good song

It's logic (pure, untainted logic) which should make it obvious for anyone with a working brain that having a larger surface area, bigger ball, and slower speeds, makes a ball easier to hit. Wait! That's NOT true for softball! Logic fails me! Oh noes!

Yes, that was my point-- a bowler has more space to work with, and can bounce the ball off the ground and all. A pitcher can't bounce it off the ground and has to keep it in the strikezone or convince the batter to swing at it, but he can do the same things, but less dramatically.

I'm sorry, is telling me that the bowler doesn't even know where the ball is going REALLY supposed to convice me that bowling is harder than pitching? I'll admit it's possible that a batter couldn't handle bowling. But then, a batsman probably couldn't (clearly couldn't, from that video) handle pitching. So it balances.

A size difference of three inches does not equal a velocity differnce of 28mph/63k. I'm sorry, but that's just not logical. (Feel free to try proving me wrong with physics. My response? Every ball-related ballistics problem I've ever seen has started "disregard air resistance." For balls that small it's immaterial.)

The next trivia question has been posted.

No, I wish. I'm a good ole' Pennsylvanian

Oh, and I hadn't finished the softball one before I posted. It really is kinda relevant. Talks about how softball is harder to hit than baseball. No idea how cricket would match up, but it does say that there's a definite difference depending on how the ball is thrown, size, whatever. I would love to see a cricket-on-baseball matchup in reality. Rather than the cheap version on that Fox segment. It'd be interesting.

I honestly don't think they do. The games are similar-- with practice, someone from one game can switch to the other-- but the details are different. Same skills, applied in different ways. And wait-- your national team's fielding coach is a baseball player. How, exactly, does that match up with your claim that the fielding in baseball is so much easier with the glove.

That works for me-- nothing is a LOT more complicated in sports-- they're all games. But some are a little more or less in different ways.

Okay, you're right, the LBW rule is more complicated than anything I can think of in baseball except possibly the infield fly rule, which I'm not going to even try to explain myself. It might be more complicated, but again not by much. A pitcher can do anything a bowler can, but it's less dramatic, because it's constrained by the strike zone rather than by... well, the things cricket is constrained by. The ground, possibly.

It's possible. Inconclusive, and wildly so, but possible. It's also possible that a batter's stance would deal with that better than a batsman's.

I don't think it does. Going from a very brief googling, the fastest cricket bowl was 161k/100mph. The fastest softball pitch was 116k/72 mph. Of course, that's going from random googling and women's softball only, but that's a definite discrepancy that doesn't seem to back up your "extra speed from forearm flick." Seriously, I think the ball's left the hand by the time that movement's made. On the other hand... An interesting (to me, anyway) article on it being a ***** to hit fastpitch.

Kinda, yeah. But I think we need to educate local cricketers. They need enlightenment.

No, sorry. Just about the flaws of science TV.

Also, I have to say-- brilliant comeback in the ask the staff thread, really brilliant.

In reply to the video-- a batter's reflexes would lead him to get out of the way with that pitch, because in baseball it'd be a ball. If it hit him, and he was trying to avoid it, he'd get a base. That's because he'd be playing baseball. If he were specifically trying to play cricket, he'd probably be taking a baseball-style stance, which might or might not deal well with that pitch. I suspect that he'd be able to get the bat on the ball.

On that matter... I don't think so. Yeah, the elbow is bent a little, but no, I don't think it does much for the pitch. If you mean at the end, then yeah, they curl up their arm after the ball leaves their hand. It's still a very similar motion to a cricket bowl, but underhand.

No, we've been over this. A batter gets, at the outside, four. More would require either extra innings or a ridiculously one-sided game. And he still has less opportunity to hit. He usually gets only six pitches, at the most, and whatever happens you're done. Either you run, or you're out. Either way, you're not batting until eight other people hit. Cricket batters, on the other hand, bat until they're out. They have much more opportunity, even if they do only get one... innings.

Did you just get the heading and a blank blue page? For some reason, that site sometimes doesn't work.




Let's see if copying it works.

They do, but not as... actively as cricket. I haven't played recently, mind you, but for instance, if the second baseman is trying to field the ball, the shortstop will cover the bag and the left fielder will get behind the second baseman in case he ****s up. Or if one outfielder is going for a catch, one of the others might get behind him in case he drops it. But beyond that, the closest to that little pass play would be a cutoff-- outfielder gets the ball, throws to someone closer in, who throws to the relevant base. Or maybe a double play.

No, I wouldn't. There's more to do with fewer people to do it. Less field to cover, I admit, but the field that IS covered has more people doing more-- trying to deal with between one and four runners rather than two. And trying to deal with the runners, as well, rather than just trying to get the ball thrown in to the pitcher/bowler or catcher/keeper.

Um... no, I don't think it's any more complicated.

Um... okay, are you replying to my comment on my comment on running being harder in baseball? What are you replying to with the video?

(I'll reply to the rest later, going to dinner.)

Nope. Three of those fielders cover the outfield three more cover the bags. They're restricted to those areas, not by any rule, but by custom and habit and "actually working in the context of the game." So there's none of those odd plays I saw in cricket videos, where one player dove to stop the ball from rolling overt the boudary, rolled it backwards to another player, who threw it in. One player would have made that play by scooping up the ball and throwing it back.

I have a feeling you might be leading up to something that I won't like, but no, it doesn't. It's an acquired skill to make sure you get the glvoe under the ball, like I said. It honestly isn't as easy as you might imply.

I know, what I'm saying is that it IS easier to score in cricket. One run in baseball means more than one run in cricket. It's not really relevant to "better" in any way, but it is a fact.

Well, no. It's a sport, a game. Of course it's not rocket science. But it's more interesting than the same portion of cricket. Or any other I can think of.

Well, yes. They're different games. Being good at one doesn't mean that you'll be good at the other.

I couldn't get youtube to open last night-- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQQHBt1cpDA Girl throws a pitch in the first two seconds. The motion is very similar, only cricket players seem to run along with it, and softball is underhand.

Okay, then the guy from Owings Mills was REALLY full of it. "Oh, batting in cricket is much more tense, you only get one chance," my ass.

Oh, and I just read a comic that I thought might amuse you, relative to the cricket vs. baseball video http://www.smbc-comics.com/

Sure, I'll agree with that.

But you DO have a larger ball, frequently at a lower velocity, and more teammates out there to help you.

Glove. Restricting it to the majors, bare-handed catches are very rare, usually only if your glove is wildly out-of-position and all they had time for was the bare hand.

That sentence doesn't make sense. Explain.

No, you don't. Say you get a double. There's no guy behind you on first to force you to run-- do you want to stay or run or steal? Say you got a single. The batter doesn't get a hit. You can steal, if you so choose. Depending on where and how the ball is hit, the batter can decide whether or not to run. Oh, and one instance I forgot-- if there's a popup, the baserunners usually won't go, or they'll go cautiously. If it's caught, they have to get back to the bag they started on before the ball does, otherwise they're out. But once they tag up, they can run off again.

And I can tell you that you can swing baseball-style and still hit ****ty rolling-on-the-ground pitches. I was never that good of a hitter, but I was pretty reliably able to get hits, even if they fouled out-- I could go down in the dirt or way out of the strikezone.

You have something of a point. Cricket pitching is more like an overhand version of fastpitch softball. It's still the same. A ****ty pitch in baseball or softball, one that smacks into the ground and bounces around and all, can be a good bowl in cricket.

Makes sense. Baseball pitches don't get the extra friction from the ground-- all they have to deal with is air resistance. And, this doesn't matter as much, but they're smaller, so they probably have less of that, too.

Um... I think (might be wrong) that you guys would say something like, each batsman gets five innings? An at-bat in baseball is one time up to the plate to hit.

Well, I have the athletic ability of a dead cow and my dad has the physique of... a dead cow. Possibly beating my dad at cards would qualify?

Please, don't, though. People dying-people having fun. The comparison just... doesn't seem right.

I'll reserve judgement.

The problem is getting there, getting the glove in position, and making sure you don't have it at a ****ed-up angle or some stupid **** like that. And even then it can still just bounce out. On some occasions the "giant novelty mittens" don't do much beyond making you look like an ass.

That's what I'm saying. Cricket it's ridiculously easy to score. Baseball it's much harder. And no, a home run is closest equivalent to getting a hit over the boundary. Sends the batter and any runners all home. But where doing that would get a cricket player six points, it gets a baseball player at most a grand slam-- four runs, extremely rare. Baseball is very low-scoring because a run that would get a baseball player a run-- to first, to second, to third, to home (we'll say a base is the same distance as a cricket run) would get a cricket player four. And then you can get all those points from hitting out of the park, where in baseball you only get 1-4 runs if it flies over, and only get to advance to second if it bounces.

Yes, but you decide WHERE you hit it. Bunt, sacrifice yourself to advance the runner? Try to get it between the shortstop and second baseman so that you can get to first? Try to crush it and advance that way? And then once you're on base that's a LOT more involved than running in cricket, and possibly moreso than batting in cricket.

Why would you say that? You've never seen one try, and some batters are good at hitting junk pitches-- and cricket bowling is basically a ****ty baseball pitch raised to an art form (which isn't meant as a criticism-- that's what it IS.

I mean each batsman gets five at-bats, except whoever ends up being the 11th man.

(Dear god, I broke 2000)

Okay... and so... six balls-- for more than one batter, or does the bowler switch when the batter does? If the batter doesn't get... "dismissed" or run, then does he stay in batting? If he DOES run, does he stay batting?

So, every player hits five times in a test match? And it's ludicrously easy to get runs, compared to baseball. No wonder they score so much.

And yeah, we've completely taken over. And yeah, that's me. Ninja-pirate-wannabe.

Your point? Hell, ALL sports have traditions like that. Not quite as old, but look into the Washington Redskins-Dallas Cowboys rivalry. They hated each other before Dallas even existed. And no, we don't have any moments like that. We had a fairly bloody revolution instead. Good times.

Um... I'm sorry, but could you please stop using military analogies for sporting events? It just makes my teeth hurt. Always makes me want to start screaming "it's just a game."

Well, I don't know a lot about the intricacies of cricket. Baseball is about a battle between two teams - the overall picture - and the associated nuances. Not just a ton of runs, a few dozen easy-as-**** hits, a bit of running and then someone leaving as a winner.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the benefits of baseball gloves and relative difficulty of catches. I believe you're talking out your ass, and, well, arguing that point further will just devolve to "you're wrong!" "no, you're wrong!"

Sorry, I saw Ks and I thought Kilometer-seconds. Which didn't make any sense, anyway.

We were talking about beaning the batter, yes? There's no rule against drilling the ball at the pitcher's head, either.

Yes... but you GIVE the batsman a run without trying if the pitcher manages to throw wide. Basball, it takes four of those and even then it's a base, not a run.

Not the batting, so much as the running. There's a lot more involved in getting a man around the bases than there is in getting a run in cricket. How you hit ties into advancing the runners. And you can steal bases, for one thing.

Where would you find a pro, paid cricketer in the US? And don't worry, the Reynolds guy couldn't even make the All-Star team. But yeah, I just posted it because it was interesting. And I doubt that very much, but hey, it's immaterial.