Arseface

Incidentally, I have a statement to retract. I was kinda thinking, oh, my, six pitches every at-bat? How absurd. But really that's not all that odd. 3-2 counts aren't that unusual (three balls, two strikes) meaning that to get rid of the batter you need one more pitch to get rid of them-- six. Plus, if the batter starts fouling it off (out-of-bounds, but not in the right direction) they can prolong it. Because a foul counts a strike, but you can't strike out on one.

I also have a question, because I'm genuinely confused. So, batsman's at the plate, which you don't have. He gets a ball. He swings, connects, and doesn't get caught. The ball is out there. Does he have to run? Can he be gotten out? It doesn't seem like it...

And sorry for the stream of posts. I'm avoiding physics homework and trying to figure out this weird-ass sport you aussies play. Hell, the Mesoamerican ball game makes more sense than this.

Sorry, but I wanted to share this one too-- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8Ga8OiNgBQ&feature=related

Just because the club that's playing is based in Owings Mills, MD, and because it amuses me that the second guy doesn't even know how many innings baseball has. Plus, he seems to forget/not know the difference between baseball and cricket innings. Which are really very different, from what I can tell. Six balls per batsman until 10/11 are out or the captain calls it? And then there's around 20 of those in the shortest version of the game?

And for some reason the one freezes at "70%..." and feel free to sling accusations of bias specifically for the definition of "in play" that's never clarified. I mean, jeeze, what do these Americans know?

And I love the one commenter who's trying to have this argument, and then tries to claim that the cricket ball is smaller than the baseball.

Not really part of the argument, but I did find a couple of interesting, relevant videos. Feel free to swing accusations of bias.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mb-E5Yo2_ag&feature=related

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

And that's a good thing? Seriously, I want my spectator sports to be entertaining, not to require a doctorate in the history of athleticism. And if you want to go there, a Test Match is an epic battle... and so is a series, or a tournament of baseball/softball. Only the baseball/softball doesn't take as long and isn't as boring.

Yeah, but one player isn't going to get up to bat every inning. If you go through the lineup it's unusual. More than once is very unusual. So, in other words, cricket is about batting practice. Only more competitive. If I wanted to see that, I'd get to a baseball game earlier. Or go watch my sister's little indoor four-on-four softball.

Tee-ball doesn't count. Hell, if you've played tee-ball you know how easy it is to drop the ball more than anything else. That's what tee-ball games mostly consist of. Oops! Dropped the ball! Ooops! Dropped it again. Oops! Smacked the tee.

Ks? I assume you mean kilometers per hour, and not kilometers a second, right? And I haven't managed to find any actual information, but I will point out that catching a little baseball with no glove is much harder. And persist in my belief that making one-handed catches of a baseball would lead to broken fingers, simply due to the small size.

Ones who deal with unsportsmanlike conduct harshly. Well, unless you're Ty Cobb, of course. The psychopath.

Now I have a problem. Okay, so you guys call it a "wide" rather than a "ball" and you have a much wider... call it a strike zone. But still: what the hell. You give a batter (okay, fine, a batsman) a run if they throw wide? Why make it so easy to pitch and hit?

And it would be no more boring than watching them actually hit and then run back and forth. Hell, at least there's some tactics required to score in baseball. With cricket, it's just hit-- can I run? Yes? Go.

No, that's not strategic, that's "holy ****, this game is going to go for eight hours, and seems to have no set endpoint beyond what we randomly choose."

That's what I'm saying. What's the point of a game that takes up more time than a lot of people's day job? Seriously, there's no sense is spectating anything so absurd. There's a reason I never go to my sister's softball tournaments.

27? More like 16. More than four at-bats is unusual (or it is in kiddie-ball, I've never counted for major leaguers.) And we'll assume they walked every time. Admire? Yes. Want to watch them do it? HELL no. Bad enough watching nine innings of baseball. I'd get burned out on cricket in the first thirty minutes.

Have you ever played baseball? Don't be so derisive until you have. If you tried playing WITHOUT gloves, there'd be a lot more broken hands and fingers and other noncritical bits. Especially at pro levels, that ball moves fast and hits hard, and it's a lot easier to **** up a catch than you seem to think.

Batters don't get runs if they hit, either. They get a base, assuming they hit well enough and get there fast enough. Which, incidentally, is another reason cricket is easier. They just get to SIT there until they hit it well enough that they decide to run? Is that what you're saying? Oh, that one wasn't good enough, give me another pitch? Jeeze. And I thought four-strike coach pitch was bad, back when I was eight years old.

(I posted on my own damn wall. What BRILLIANCE.)

Another good point. Any game where the lawyer is an important member of the team is one that needs the addition of a good attack dog.

No, not SLOW, games, STRATEGIC games. Ones where the strategy involves how you play, where you pitch the ball, when you run and with how much skill you do those things-- rather than your anti-heatstroke strategy. Quick! Buy my camel! She'll be a great cricket player!

Plus, if your REALLY want an eight-hour game, most fastpitch softball and youth baseball tournaments run over the course of several days, with two or three games each day per team. You spend as much time in the sun, and you're slightly less likely to keel over.

Something that only proves a lack of skill in a pitcher is a prime attraction to cricket? That's like NASCAR-- the only reason that anybody watches is for the ugly crashes. No arguments about home runs, but it's way more impressive to see a baseball player smack a ball four hundred feet through the air and over a wall than four hundred feet on the ground or through the air or both and over a rope laid on the ground.

Hey, I played catcher for years. Sure, it took a really good eleven-year-old to pitch even 70 mph/112.6 kph, but I know all about balls flying at your head because the pitcher can't aim. But baseball players can survive with just a cup and a helmet, unless you're the catcher. Seriously, a non-contact sport really shouldn't require every player to put on a ton of armor.

And... ditto for baseball. But WE make it even more unattractive by giving the batter a base if they get hit. Only reason batters get nailed is if they ****ed someone off. No way to get cheap runs like that.

(And yes, I do deliberately try to make my typing sound redneck when I'm getting all stereotypically arrogant American.)

And what, cricket players haven't figured out the concept of a "cup" by now? What, are they all masochists? I admit that watching people getting beat to hell is entertaining, somewhat (hey, I come from a country where the biggest sport is football (translate for yourself, I ain't calling it gridiron) but when it's a recognized tactic to rely on beaning the batter rather than actually striking them out? That's pathetic. Sure, it might be more entertaining that a deliberate walk, but that's just our way. Us Americans aren't as bloodthirsty as you Brits and Aussies and such.

C'mon, man, that's the point. Any game where a prime requirement is that you can stand around for eight hours is just boring. Seriously. Okay, so you got your game time down to three hours. Big whoop. Seriously-- the only reason that baseball games average about that long is because of all the TV timeouts and ****. And even then, baseball is too long a game.

Nobody's going to sit through an eight-hour long game, and if they do (I assume they do) it only goes to show that a real appreciation of the game requires either brain damage or large quantities of alcohol.

(And allow me to correct myself-- FIVE DAYS? Sorry, cricket loses any credit for being faster-paced solely on the basis of that. Baseball gets accused of being slow and boring, but at least games don't usually run longer than two to three hours.)

Incidentally, is it just me or would it be cool to see a hybrid cricket-baseball game? And "simpleminded" doesn't really seem to fit the game after I read more. "Rules six miles long," however, does. Seriously. Baseball is much simpler, while still requiring more skill to get runs.

And yeah, baseball is the younger game, as only makes sense. It had more time to develop before it broke off from rounders, so when it did it was a more advanced form. Cricket, of course, broke off so early that it was fairly primitive. It's had more time to develop on its own, but it kept the same unconstrained, simpleminded rules.

And I tried to find video of the softball variant I mentioned, but I couldn't. They really are fairly similar. The softball version just puts a net over the center square area of cricket, makes it a run if the ball isn't caught, or isn't thrown to the catcher within 3 seconds, and eliminates the running. And goes by pitching rules.

Exactly my point. Seriously, somebody playing cricket can do whatever they want, and still be in. Baseball, though, you need real skill. Gotta slam that ball past the batter in the strike zone, or trick them into swinging. Got to hit it, and get it by the extremely well-prepared fielders dead ahead of you.

Baseball is WAY more difficult, requires so much more skill to hammer out a run or to strike out a batter. It might be slower, but that's because some people have the longer attention spans neccesary for more strategic games. (Did I go there? Yes, I did. Personal attacks!)

THEN, instead of running back and forth frantically until the fielders throw the ball to someone, anyone in the "infield," to use a baseball term. Seriously, you know what cricket is? It's indoor four-on-four softball, only minus the cage, and with no strikezone.

And incidentally, I spent the last eleven minutes or so watching a few short cricket videos on youtube.

Ah, yeah, it's baseball, only simpler. And more high-scoring. Maybe faster, but at least baseball doesn't have people running back and forth like chickens with their heads cut off.

Plus, I'm sure if I could get my sister out here she could explain why softball is better.

I will admit that cricket seems to give more opportunity to abuse the other team.

I'll skip replying to the actual thread and go straight here (just saw your reply.):

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. That's hysterical.

Did that second sentence make sense? Can't tell. What I meant is "I'm not getting mad over this. I'm just having fun."

Have I mentioned that I really like arguing with you? I just want to make sure that you aren't actually getting angry over something that consummately doesn't matter.

I'm not, just having fun arguing for the sake of it.

Well, okay, I really AM mad at the IOC, but aside from that bit of dementia.

It's more the fact I'm on his Ignore list, but he has apologized. I'm convinced he didn't mean it, but whatever.

Guts? Nah, I've never been afraid to admit I'm wrong. But it did take some thinking. Tyloric deserved to learn that he can't take everything to heart, but I went the complete wrong way about it - and I understand this now.

I'd like an apology from Tyloric, too. But I know that won't happen.

50 pictures of llamas?

Nope, you really didn't look past the first page.

Also, I recommend you go to my thread in the off topic section.