blabberwock wrote:First off, I hate american football and all its padded giants. I would rather watch Rugby. Basketball has never interested me but know enough to keep up with the "how about them lakers?" kind of typical american small talk.

I am not a total outsider wrt baseball because I used to follow baseball seriously for about a couple of years when I was cricket deprived, surrounded by a lot who grew up soaked in baseball culture. I have been to the ballpark several times to watch the games live. I also played regularly in a softball league, which I confess was somewhat of a joke (though the women took it quite seriously).

(1) I don’t think one can compare a 3-4 hour game to a 5 day test match cricket. Weather conditions, state of the ball etc. while they may have some effect on baseball pitching, I cannot imagine it to be on the same scale as a test match. In a 5 day test, one can having an overcast opening day where the ball swings and seams and a fifth day where the pitch turns dry and starts cracking with a couple of days in between of perfect conditions for batting, posing a wide range of challenges to the technique and skillset of a batsman. The sheer length of the game is very important and cricket beats baseball hands down here.

(2) There is no 22 yard pitch involved in baseball. How many possible variations of pitches can be there, compared to the possibilities in cricket? The effect and the use of pitch is a very important factor in cricket and dramatically expands the variations possible. While there are various kinds of "balls", there is only so much one can do with a full-toss.

(3) The number of strokes and the aesthetics involved – no cover drives, no off-drives, no straight bat strokes. With just a horizontal bat (club?), how many deft strokes can be played? Cricket beats baseball in sheer aesthetics.

(4) Fielding – baseball certainly demands more athleticism from outfielders and cricket has been influenced by this but an over-sized glove to catch a ball? They need to get rid of that to compete. Where are the close catchers who need remarkable reflexes to grab a hard, flying cricket ball with BARE hands?

(5) Can baseball accommodate and glorify various kinds of batters? Who is the Gavaskar in baseball? Who is the Boycott? Who is Viv Richards? Also, do the batters have to deal with balls directed at their body and head without it being declared a “ball”?

While baseball, I admit, has its moments and strategies, I could not see anything that is as subtle, fascinating, engrossing and beautiful as hard test match cricket. I see beauty in test cricket and an ugly, power game in baseball. One is an Ozu movie, the other is a James Bond movie. JB is obviously much revered as well. T20 slog-bash cricket and baseball make a better comparison. T20 too has strategies, I am told. They also borrow the baseball terminologies - dugout for instance. And some batsmen use the baseball style of wielding the willow.

artood2 wrote:In general the lower the scoring in a game, the outcome is more unpredicatable. you can score a goal in the last min or a home run in your last at bat. I do not think cricket is more unpredicatable than the other sports.


Cricket has lesser strategy on each play. baseball strategy are at micro level. Nothing prevents cricket from having as many coaches. It is just the way it is becasue it has always been like that.

blabberwock wrote:R2D2, Thanks for that. I suppose "some" cricket watchers can enjoy baseball. I tried and I could not. Baseball simply cannot give me the same pleasure that test cricket does.

Do batters in baseball routinely get pounded by such deliveries and are they considered legal? A well directed short ball in cricket is a legal delivery as long as it is not a beamer. That was just one ball that hit him. Atherton was repeatedly tested by short balls and he had to duck and sway and look the bowler in the eye.

There are scores of clips like this - especially from the battery of WI bowlers. Ishant's spell to Ponting at Perth is another that comes to mind. Spinners offer a completely different flavour.

Test Cricket gives one a lot of opportunities to witness a mini-battle within the large battle. Also, the nature of the game gives the batsman enough time to fight through a hostile phase.

Anyway, I think it is all somewhat subjective and for me, cricket is the clear winner and baseball is an ..err..also ran.

doofus_maximus wrote:

artood2 wrote:In general the lower the scoring in a game, the outcome is more unpredicatable. you can score a goal in the last min or a home run in your last at bat. I do not think cricket is more unpredicatable than the other sports.


Cricket has lesser strategy on each play. baseball strategy are at micro level. Nothing prevents cricket from having as many coaches. It is just the way it is becasue it has always been like that.

I never said cricket is more unpredictable. I was comparing sports like baseball/cricket with sports like basketball and football.

Micro level strategy is a bunch of baloney spouted by commentators. when the commentator says "oh he pitched a slider..expect a fast ball or sinker" I always wonder what will happen if the pitcher decides to change it. Invariably the pitcher will try to pitch what the commentator said he will pitch. Results vary only due to lack of execution.

Tell me what the role of a first base coach is in baseball.. At least the third base coach tells the runner to keep running to home base and it is helpful to the runner when the ball is hit to the left field. Other than that third base coach just stands there scratching his ass.

artood2 wrote:
Other than the pitcher don't you have to decide on base running, sacrifice balls, runner advancing, bunts, steals etc?

doofus_maximus wrote:

Another Brick wrote:

blabberwock wrote:
There are so many interesting byplays that take place within the contest that makes it a much richer and more exciting sport than baseball. Individual battles, historic duels, playing for time, balancing attack and defense, effect of weather conditions, pitch, shine on the ball - all these are not relevant in baseball, AFAIK.

i don't know about baseball; i hate it more than i hate golf. however, barring "playing for time" (which happens only in test cricket) i think other things are offered by every sport. wind/humidity/heat/the nature of the surface (clay, grass etc) all affect other sports. i have never bought "cricket is a gentleman's game" and "it is a game of glorious uncertainties" cliche either. i think it was perhaps never a gentleman's game and it is as uncertain as any other sport. you can have 3 goals scored against you in the last few mins, and you can save 3 match points and then two sets to win the tourney. as uncertain as KKR vs MI last night.

Aside..

Cricket, baseball, tennis are uncertain because the "offense" in those game can never hide the ball from the "defense" during the dying moments of a game.

In American Football and Basketball one can keep the ball and hide it away from "defense" to preserve a lead.

In cricket, baseball and tennis you have to bowl, pitch or serve to your opponent till the very end. That gives an opportunity for the "defense" to influence the outcome.