Jump to content

Talk:Comparison of baseball and cricket/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

early comments

Is it worthwhile adding 'Retired Out' to the list of dismissal types for cricket? More test players have been given out in that way (2) the for, say, Obstructing the field.? LFG

Hope that this is the right place. Surely there was a mistake in the comparison table at the end of the article? There are 22 yards between the stumps but the popping creases take approx 8 feet off and the bowler's stride and action must account for at least another foot.--81.156.208.120 19:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

A dipper in cricket is a delivery that curves before pitching. A swing curves after pitching. A dipper compares to the curved pitches in baseball. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 20:25, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC

The term in the table is "curving in the air type delivery". In cricket that is an inswinger or an outswinger. The vast majority of cricket deliveries bounce before reaching the batsman, so why should this term get such a restricted definition? A curved pitch in baseball curves in order to make hitting it harder, right? Which is also the motivation for swinging the ball. I see no reason to restrict the definition hear. Particularly with "outdipper" which I had never heard of before, and which turns up 5 hits on google, 4 of which are to derivatives of the wikipedia entry and 1 of which is about motorcycles as far as I can tell. Why use a term which, it would appear, nobody uses? Sam Holden 12:40, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
In all my many hours of slouching in front of the (British) TV watching cricket, I've *never* heard the terms 'indipper' or 'outdipper' used (I'd say 'inswinger'/'outswinger'). Are they perhaps Indian English? Harry R 19:04, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The term is rarely used I agree. Infact I learnt about the term from a cricket book (in the glossay section) in my school library, and I'm pretty sure that it was published in England. I was 14 at that time so I can't recall the name of the book after all these years. Nichalp 18:55, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

A wide is not something that's pitched out of a zone. It's a ball that the batsman can't be expected to hit (or in one-day internationals, can't be expected to make a scoring shot from). The ball pitches where it first bounces. Jongarrettuk 19:43, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Innings

There is no real need to add the meaning of inning/s in the similarity of terms. The term innings is clearly disambiguated in the analogy section and is only present in plural form in cricket. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 18:57, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

Switching players

Are there any cases of players moving from one sport to the other? User:Andycjp March 2005

Australians players are known to play baseball in the off season to sharpen their skills. Nichalp 18:55, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
Ed Smith comes to mind - he has played cricket at the top level for England, and for several years from 1998 spent spring training with the New York Mets. He wrote a book [1] about it, though I haven't read it. Loganberry 23:40, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
In the early 90s one of the Essex bowlers tried out with a few major league baseball teams as a pitcher. As might be expected, the tremendous difference between pitching and bowling didn't work to his advantage. John FitzGerald 13:50, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
And there are Australian players in major league baseball who doubtless played cricket in their youth.

Changes under consideration at the ICC

Should there be an addition to the page, given that the ICC is considering introducing a 'double play' type modification to the run out law? Also, the Australian national side has started relay throwing in from outfielders, as in baseball; the Indian side also used it on occasion during the last Tests against Pakistan. Hornplease 00:04, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not to mention the ICC's plan to allow one tactical substitution per side during one-day matches. Loganberry 00:15, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bats, crossovers

I don't know why people have to keep removing the observation that it's easier to hit with a cricket bat than with a baseball bat. That's what makes cricket great. Okay, I think I know why they keep removing it, but still. Even if your feelings are hurt, it's still the truth. And cricket is still a great game.

When I was introduced to cricket the implications of the baseball glove and cricket bat were immediately apparent to me. With hundreds of runs being scored off those big flat bats and the batsmen being better able to direct their shots away from fielders, fielding is nowhere near as important in cricket. I once saw Intikhab Alam let a slow roller go between his legs while playing on the boundary – that is, he'd had a lot of time to watch it come to him.

In baseball, meanwhile, those huge gloves allow the players to catch balls a cricket fielder couldn't get to. you don't see cricket fielders diving into the stands to make catches or diving full-length to make one-handed catches or catching the ball in the air and making an accurate hard throw before touching the ground again. I've seen some tremendous catches in the slips at cricket matches, and some pretty good batting at baseball games, but in general baseball has better fielding and cricket better batting, and it's because of the equipment.

I believe the Chappell brothers played baseball, by the way. John FitzGerald 13:44, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You don't often see full-length diving one-handed catches, certainly, but it does happen occasionally. That's an observation, not a quibble, though. Loganberry (Talk) 14:33, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Taken in the spirit it was intended. Depends what you mean by often, eh? What I meant was that there are enough excellent fielding plays in the major leagues to make a daily highlight reel. But my main point is that they're both great games and if you only know one you'll profit from watching the other. Oh -- there are also a fair number of failed diving catches, eh? John FitzGerald 18:06, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Unfortunately as I don't have satellite TV, the only baseball we get is in the middle of the night, but I do watch it occasionally and it's certainly my favourite American sport. Mind you, domestic cricket is barely covered at all on free-to-air TV -- not even highlights -- so it's hard to tell how many thrilling catches and run-outs there are. Loganberry (Talk) 22:24, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"you don't see cricket fielders diving into the stands to take catches" This is probably due to the laws (of cricket) making any catch taken outside the boundary invalid.
That's certainly part of it. It's the same reason baseball batters don't develop batting stokes which drive the ball sideways or backwards. In general cricketers don't get any benefit from many of the fielding skills which baseball players require, and in particular they get little benefit from the type of throwing seen in baseball. John FitzGerald 20:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Cricketers also have little decision making before throwing. They throw to end with that has the slower batsman going to. I was impressed with that vichensa guy (whatever his name is) who threw to third base guessing that the player would try to run for home. That type of anticipation isn't needed in cricket. josh (talk) 21:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
And on the other hand baseball is missing all sorts of strategy required in cricket because of the superior batting and the bigger field. I'm afraid, though, that fielding is getting worse in major league baseball because of the new emphasis on home runs. Many people I know were impressed by the World Baseball Classic because of the real baseball played by Japan, South Korea, and Cuba, teams which, unlike major league teams, still take infield practice. And I'd rather watch Ichiro Suzuki than Barry Bonds; all-round skill is always more interesting than watching a big bulked-up guy hit the ball a long way. John FitzGerald 23:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Now, for a really spectacular sport, you can try box lacrosse and indoor lacrosse. Skill, speed, and guys hitting each other with sticks. One of the advantages of living in Canada is you get extensive coverage of nealry every major sport in the world (for some reason we don't get Rugby League) plus all the superior Canadian ones. Cricket is to chess as chess is to curling, for example. John FitzGerald 11:51, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

P. S. In general British sports appeal to me more than American ones, which to me are too deliberate, too specialized, and too highly coached. I was thinking of expanding on that point in the article – the only thing professional baseball players are allowed to make up their own minds about is baserunning, and as Don Zimmer has pointed out, they're so unused to thinking for themselves they make a lot of mistakes when running the bases.
I disagree. Yeah, managers do make a lot more in-game on the fly desicions in baseball than they do in say, soccer, where the coach hardly does anything except sub in players and give them a pep talk at halftime. That isn't a criticism, mind you-I like soccer, and the coach probably couldn't do much anyway, seeing as how there are no timeouts in which the coach can revise his strategies and give his team a talking to (other than halftime). But I think that the great thing about baseball is that it isn't all about how one single player preforms physically (although his physical ability to, say, run down and catch a sure home run or hit a curveball is certainly vital to the game). The player needs to be able to recognize for himself when the ball is too far outside the strike zone or what kind of pitch to throw the cleanup hitter on a 2-2 count when he just gave him a high changeup-he isn't going to have his hitting coach or pitching coach or manager there holding his hand. The player DOES HAVE and needs to have his own sense of judgement in games, which he needs to be able to make on his own. But on the same token, the manager also needs to be able to coach as well and tell the pitcher what to do in certain situations-the pitcher isn't going to have the stat sheet in fornt of him on the mound. So while I agree with you that most British sports don't require as much coaching but instead more raw skill, I disagree that American sports are overcoached, simply because the majority of them (baseball specifically) have more strategy written into the game and need more coaching as a result. Jackattack58
Good points, but on the other hand the batter is also forced not to swing at good pitches when he has the take sign, and since most coaches and players aren't trained in statistical testing I doubt the stats sheet is all that helpful, especially as a lot of the data on it are from extremely small samples. Basketball seems to involve less coaching during the game than other American sports, but American football has unnecessary coaching in spades. NFL quarterbacks wear radio receivers so the coach can tell them what play to call. I don't think the game has improved since they started doing that. Terry Bradshaw mounted some pretty good offences calling his own plays.
However, I must admit I prefer overcoached baseball to less coached basketball, so perhaps I'm not all that clear about my own preferences. John FitzGerald 12:22, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, as it happens I have Canadian family and friends, so I know a little about Canadian sport. Ice hockey doesn't appeal to me, and box lacrosse reminds me a bit of an indoor version of shinty, but curling I like a lot -- and did even before we got that Olympic gold in 2002! I'd never choose it over cricket, but it's a really interesting sport and if only there were curling rinks in England (they're common in Scotland, but that's no use to me!) I might well have taken it up at the fun level myself. Loganberry (Talk) 14:31, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
In Canada the best curling is definitely overcoached. In major bonspiels teams are allowed a time-out to consult their coach. And curling is really deliberate. What I like is last rock of every end – I can never understand what's gone on before that, and last rock is often spectacular. You don't like hockey? I've never understood why hockey's not more popular in the UK. It's like football with added speed and violence, and football and violence certainly seems to be a popular mix in Britain. Of course, it helps to have cold winters if you're going to appreciate hockey, and maybe, as I implied above, my preferences are dictated by things other than what I think they're dictated by. Gaelic football and hurling are quite the sports, too, come to think of it. John FitzGerald 12:22, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It's perhaps a little out of date to say that "football and violence certainly seems to be a popular mix in Britain" - the amount of hooliganism within football grounds is considerably lower than it was twenty years ago (though outside them can be another story), and in some respects other European countries are worse; Italy, Germany and the Netherlands probably all have worse problems than this country now, and Spain has a much more serious problem with racist chants than we do. Having said all that, football is a sport I only take an incidental interest in, so don't take what I say about that as gospel. (And I'm afraid I know zilch about Gaelic football and hurling, so I'll have to leave those to one side.)
But as for ice hockey, I think there are several reasons why it's not that popular here. A major one is that perennial problem with minority sports - there are no home-grown heroes for kids to watch on the TV. The sport has very little coverage in the mainstream media here and that means that only hardcore fans come across it at all; I doubt one person in fifty in Britain has even heard of Wayne Gretzky, for example, just as a (very Anglophile) Canadian friend of mine had no idea who Ian Botham was. Secondly, there's little opportunity to play ice hockey at a young age: most towns don't have ice rinks, our mild winters make pickup games on ice outside impossible, and street hockey is difficult given Britain's narrow and congested residential roads and the lack of interest in organising games in leisure centres etc. Thirdly, there's the cost: to play football you need a ball, and that's it. Even basic ice hockey gear is going to be considerably more expensive. And finally, there's the padding. This one may take a little explaining, but there is something of an ingrained prejudice amongst a lot of Britons against any sport that needs a large amount of protective clothing; witness many rugby fans' contempt for American football, for example.
Of course, the last two factors also apply to cricket - a half-decent bat is expensive, and considerably more padding is worn than in other mainstream British sports. Now that Sky Sports have bought the rights for Test matches for the next four years, there's also going to be the problem of access; I'm not sure I'd quite go as far as Wisden in calling it a "potential catastrophe" for the game, but I do think it was a very short-sighted decision by the ECB. It means that from next year there will be no live cricket at all on any free-to-air channel; the only other major sport that that's happened to is boxing, and general interest in that sport certainly declined markedly because of it. Imagine if every single professional baseball game was only available live on a subscription channel; that's where cricket is going next year. (There; I knew I'd get a cricket/baseball comparison in somehow!) Loganberry (Talk) 23:52, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the British don't understand about padding. It's there to make the game more painful, not less. If you compare today's NHL to the NHL of my youth, when far less padding was worn, you find that play today is far more violent. The introduction of the helmet alone increased eye and spine injuries as players now felt safe in waving their sticks up around opponents' heads and checking their opponents into the boards head first. It used to be customary to let your opponent turn his shoulder before you bodychecked him into the boards (and not to bodycheck him if he didn't), and now it isn't. These developments have reduced my interest in the game (for example, I've done a lot of work with people with brain injury, and I do not like watching people get crosschecked in the head, which is a standard tactic these days, as is headplay in general), but millions seem to like it. And no one is going to return to the days when players wore little padding and no helmets. What hockey players wear these days isn't really padding, either, but armour.

As for American football, you need only compare the injury rates in American football and in rugby to see which is the tougher game. An old study I read recently reported that in the early 90s an average of 8 American football players a year died of injuries received in games. Again, I see the lesser violence in rugby as an advantage. There is so much head injury in American football that the NFL establishes baseline awareness measures for each player so they can be tested for concussion during games.

Consistent with your argument, my interest in cricket was not developed in Canada (where they play on a mat, anyway). I spent a summer in England many years ago and one of the attractions of cricket was that the bars at cricket matches didn't close for two hours every afternoon. Did see some impressive cricket, though. That was 1972, when one of the great Australian teams toured England. Those lads liked to pull the bat back; the bowling was nothing to be embarrassed about, either. I later saw much the same team in Toronto. I did try to maintain my interest in cricket in Toronto, and a lot of local games are played near me, but the deficiencies of the grounds nearby are so great (they're tiny, for a start) that I quickly lost interest. John FitzGerald 12:17, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • John, have you got a reference for baseball "fast balls" being faster than cricket deliveries? As far as I know, the records are almost identical - just over 100 miles an hour. I don't know if that is before or after bouncing, but it certainly isn't a "far higher velocity" for baseball. StuartH 13:42, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Here we are:
Fastest pitch, 100.9 mph [2]
Fastest delivery, 100.2 mph [3]
There's practically nothing in it. StuartH 14:05, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Stuart. Further research is necessary, I think, but for the moment your revision is certainly justified. As you note, the important point is just how the velocities of the two deliveries are calculated. I'll see what I can find. Fastball is a standard baseball term, by the way. Breaking pitches, which move vertically or diagnally, are much slower (a fastball, depending on how it is thrown, can move down or sideways, but is always faster than a breaking pitch). Hitting a batter with a breaking pitch is almost always taken as an accident. John FitzGerald 12:30, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Haven't found anything so far, but I have found a similarity between cricket and baseball – the obsession with statistics.
After a little more work I find that whichever is faster really doesn't seem to matter much, since the damage done appears to be about the same. As you say, there's nothing in it, so thanks for pointing it out. I also found a longer article about the record-breaking cricket ball [4] which raises the question of the validity of the speed measures (baseball and cricket use the same guns, apparently). The author seems to think that if the bowlers question the gun they must be wrong, but I'd tend to trust their judgment. John FitzGerald
I noticed in some of the hawkeye technology used in the last Ashes that they were mesuring the speed of the ball at different parts of its flight. The speed when the ball reaches the batsman is only about 60-70 mph. Also a section about the use of technology might be a good idea. It seems to be used alot more in cricket (hawkeye was around even before k-zone) but whats the debate like for using it within baseball. josh 11:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm unaware of any debate in baseball. For most people it's just something the game is dressed up with. You can tell if a guy's got a hot fastball without a gun – he's breaking bats. Do you know of a definitive source about the speed of cricket balls, or about the validity of Hawk-Eye? John FitzGerald 13:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

One way to put it might be to say that on average pitches are faster than an average bowl. An average fastball is about 92-93 mph, from what I understand, and fastballs are the staple pitch. --SodiumBenzoate 09:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Only about 3-4 bowlers in history could be said to have bowled balls at 100 MPH (Lee, Akhtar, Thomson, and perhaps Tyson or Roberts); baseball has had far more triple-digits pitchers (Randy Johnson, Ryan, Nen, Mantei, Benitez, Wholers, Koch, Wagner, and, it's reckoned, Paige, Walter Johnson, Dalkowski and many others). The other consideration, as Josh seemed to allude to, is that conventional cricket deliveries bounce, and so lose more speed than conventional baseball pitches which do not. Therefore, if the speeds quoted are speeds "out of the hand", then the actual time taken for a pitch from the fastest baseball pitcher will arrive more quickly than a ball from the fastest cricket bowler. --Thedangerouskitchen 11:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Appeals and breaking the wicket

I thought that a broken wicket was deemed to be an appeal, and so no verbal appeal would be required for dismissals through bowled, run out or stumpings. Am I wrong?

The laws state that there has to be an appeal unless the batsman walks[5]. I guess that a broken wicket is so definate that the player should automaticly walk (barring a no ball).

Just not cricket

It may be on the wane, but many still expect cricketeers to exhibit a higher level of sportsmanship than other sports do. It is not proper to do anything, even if within the rules. Some batsmen still "walk". How does cricket compare in this respect to baseball? Avalon 08:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, I put something about that in the article. In baseball winning is more important than fair play. I was once amazed to see a cricketer field a ball near the boundary and then hold up four fingers. In this year's World Series we saw a batter fail to dispute a call that he'd been hit when he clearly knew he hadn't been. Which is what he's supposed to fail to do. John FitzGerald 16:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
A slightly late comment: You might be right, in principal. But it is a precept of baseball that it is the umpire's job to make the call. Other umpires can help him if he asks for help or if the rules require it in certain circumstances. But it is no more the player's job to help make a call that would go against him than it is the umpire's job to tell a runner that he failed to touch a base, for example. Wahkeenah 12:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Diagram?

How about a diagram of the two fields? Or at lease some pictures. Some people benefit more from images than from lengthy descriptions, other than that, this was a fine article! -Anon 9:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

This is a great idea: anyone with graphical skills? Even better if they were drawn to the same scale. I think one of the key differences between the two sports is how close together the baseball fielders are, and how far apart the cricket fielders are, which a diagram could help to make clear. Stephen Turner (Talk) 07:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I see nobody has volunteered yet. I think this would be a very valuable addition to this article. I'll give it a go. Give me a few days to throw something together. -dmmaus 22:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
This image is great. Well done.
Personally, I think we should lose the "minimum field sizes" though. I realise it potentially imparts information, but I feel it also adds too much clutter, and dilutes the effectiveness of the comparison.
Also, I'm not sure about the field placings on the cricket diagram. Of course, it's much harder to say what "typical positions" look like in cricket than in baseball, because the fielders move to completely different positions according to the state of the game. What you have drawn is a typical position, but I think it's more of a close field than average, if you see the distinction. It might be worth taking one or two of the slips out, and putting some men nearer the boundary, maybe a third man or a deep square leg or a long off or long on, or something.
Just my suggestions. Others may disagree.
Stephen Turner (Talk) 13:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

(Reset tabbing so it doesn't get ridiculous) Thanks for the comments. yeah, I might move the MCG fielders back. As for the minimum size thing, maybe I'll split into two diagrams, one showing minimum sizes, and one comparing two real fields. That'll take me a few days. Another thing I thought would be good for this article is a photo of a baseball and cricket ball side by side. Anyone got one of each? -dmmaus 22:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I've modified the diagram and produced two versions, one showing field placements on the two fields with no other distractions, and one showing the various field size rules, with the example fields overlaid. I think this split works nicely. -dmmaus 00:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that works well. This a great addition to the article. Well done! Stephen Turner (Talk) 06:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

substitutes

There is not enough information about substitutes, and this is one of the surprising differences between the two sports. I think there should be a paragraph in the Strategy section. Anyone want to write it? I'm not sufficiently confident of the baseball rules (how many substitutes does a team have, for example?) to do it myself. Stephen Turner (Talk) 12:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I see no one has taken you up on writing this section. If you or anyone else is interested, I would be happy to collaborate on this. I am American and a big fan of baseball. I know the rules well and the way substitutions are used. On the other hand, what I know about cricket is what I've read in Wikipedia. Would such a collaboration interest you? Shortynj 01:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Team batting first

In baseball, visiting team always bats first.

In cricket, there is the coin toss. Who wins decides whether to bat or to field.

In baseball, there is a fixed lineup, which MUST be followed throughout the game.

In cricket, there is not a fixed lineup. When a wicket falls, the captain decides which batsman goes onto the field.

  • There didn't seem to be much about the all-important issue of who bats first. I added some info. I ask the cricket mavens here to review and revise that and any other comments about cricket that I get wrong, as I am only a very casual follower of the sport. Wahkeenah 13:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Culture

I didn’t put Korea there, ’cause when I was at the World Baseball Classic, these kids behind me confirmed that soccer is more popular than baseball—but I’m pretty sure baseball is a close number two. Also, is cricket not as big in Bangladesh as it is in Pak, India + Sri Lanka? Wiki Wikardo 09:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that cricket is enormous in Bangladesh even though they're not very good at the moment (but improving fast!). Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Mine too, it's one of the reasons they're being given a bit of a break by being declared a Test nation, even though their standard is low. There are something like 40,000,000 cricket players tehre...Stevage 08:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Soccer more popular than cricket? Well, there's no accounting for the popular taste. d:) Wahkeenah 12:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Athletic fielding

Having watched both games, I cannot see how cricket allows for more athletic fielding than baseball, so I have modified that section. I suspect the disagreement here is more apparent than real – a one-handed catch with bare hands is in fact more spectacular than one made with a glove, but in general you see more one-handed catches in baseball. I think I'll go back and clarify that point. Anyway, I added some more examples of athleticism in baseball, and the bit about the fielding of short hops. Cricketers quite naturally have more difficulty with short hops – again, that's not to say they're necessarily worse fielders, but the short hop is more reliably played in baseball. John FitzGerald 03:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I went back and noted in the article that cricket allows scope for the most spectacular fielding. I also added some detail about how athletic fielding is more frequent in baseball. I also added a section about running because I realized basestealing and sliding, which have no counterparts in cricket, had not been mentioned. John FitzGerald 03:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
IMHO, asking which gives more "athletic" fielding is a purely subjective thing. I like the comparison of double-plays to cricket's "return to wicket", high arcs vs short hard throws etc. There is plenty of scope in both games for displays of brilliant fielding. In baseball, you have (as noted) people turning in mid air to throw a ball back to first base. In cricket, you have people taking a catch over the boundary line and throwing it back into play before they touch the ground to save the runs. "Athletic" seems a pretty meaningless and excessively subjective term to use. Stevage 07:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Believe me, I don't consider athletic to be complimentary. The general point I've been trying to make is that baseball offers more scope for fielding prowess while cricket ofers more scope for batting prowess. I've seen play at the top levels of both ganes, and that difference seems obvious to me. I watch the weekly cricket highlights here, and you see balls not caught that are routine in baseball, and they're not caught because it's harder to catch them. You know, hockey players skate better than either baseball players or cricketers, but that doesn't mean they're superior athletes. John FitzGerald 01:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
After discussing this with Stevage I have made some changes to clarify the point and remove the suggestion that baseball fielding is inherently more athletic. I believe the rticle does note already that in certain aspects cricket offers more scope for athletic fielding. John FitzGerald 13:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I took out the bit about short hops, since it doesn't fit with the theme of the section and because it's obvious that someone wearing a glove or mitt is going to be able to make more catches. John FitzGerald 11:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Name of article

Would it be more appropriate to describe this as "Differences between cricket and baseball"? To me, a "comparison" is a constructed thing, like an essay, a report or a summary. Whereas "differences" already exist - and therefore we can write an encyclopaedic article on them. I note that there are other articles in this category, so I wouldn't change it lightly. Stevage 07:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Second base in image

Can someone explain to me what's going on with second base in the picture at the top? I'm not an expert on baseball, but it looks like there's actually no one permanently on base. Is that normal? Do two different players cover the position? Stevage 07:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

When there's no runner on first or second, the second baseman tends to cover the area between first and second base, like a shortstop, but on the other side. And since there's usually no runners there, that's the most common field position for him. At least that's my understanding as a relatively inexperienced baseball watcher. -dmmaus 00:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
That's correct. Actually, even when there are runners on first or second, the second baseman still tends to cover the area between first and second base. For example, with first base occupied and less than two outs the second baseman and shortstop tend to play in what's called "double play depth," a position which strikes the best balance between coverage of the field and ability to reach second base in order to maximize the probability of turning a double play. Also, one of the second baseman and shortstop will be given responsibilities for covering second base (approaching it in order to receive a throw) in case of a steal attempt from first or a pickoff throw to second. Similarly, the first baseman usually plays somewhat "off" the base, since fielding balls in foul territory is relatively unimportant. However, with a man on first and second baseman open the first baseman will play close to the base in order to "hold" the runner and receive pickoff throws. Occasionally the first baseman will play closer to the base in order to "guard the lines"-- balls hit down the line are more likely to go for doubles and triples, and a team can choose to increase the likelihood of giving up singles in exchange for transforming would-be doubles and triples into outs.
  • The confusion arises to the new fan because the infielders often begin play in an "umbrella" format, with the shortstop to the left of second base and the second baseman to the right (from the perspective of the batter, or in the diagram in question). In the early days of baseball, similar diagrams showed the first, second and third basemen essentially "planted" on their bases, with the shortstop essentially a "roving" infielder, somewhere between the second-third base path and the pitcher's mound. That's where the term "shortstop" came from. The evolution of the game compelled the shortstop to move back to the spot shown in the diagram. In 10-person softball, there is a similar situation: there are four outfielders instead of three. Depending on the batting skills of the teams (especially depending on whether the game is being played by men or by women), the roving outfielder may be stationed in shallow left-center field (or elsewhere as appropriate), or the outfielders may elect to play "four around", in a layout similar to the infielders. Wahkeenah 13:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Please expand this helpful article

As an American fan of baseball, I have found this article helpful in demystifying the game of cricket. I feel that I can understand the game better through this comparison than just reading about the rules of cricket. However, I feel what you have here is still not enough for a fan of either sport to achieve true understanding of the counterpart. I don't have any specific requests other than a broad expansion. Regards.

Gloves and mitts

The distinction between gloves and mitts in baseball is important – only catchers and first basemen may wear mitts, while other fielders must wear gloves. Gloves have fingers. SO I have restored the distinction to the article and will shortly go back and clarify it a bitt.

I also don't think it's accurate to say that gloves and mitts allow diving catches, for example, to be easily made, so I change the modifier to more easily. John FitzGerald 19:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

No worries. What real change do you think it makes to the game, though? Perhaps in baseball there is less credit given for taken the catch, and the interest is getting the double play. Whereas in cricket, catching the bloody thing is hard enough. Stevage 20:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

To me the chief difference is one talked about in the article – baseball equipment and other demands of the game encourage the development of skill in fielding to a greater degree than they encourage the development of skill in batting, while the reverse is true of cricket. The importance of the distinction between gloves and mitts to the article is probably largely pedantic, but I figured it didn't hurt to mention it. I suppose in baseball the chief signficance of the difference is that it's easier to trap the ball at first base and easier for the catcher to hang on to pitches, However, the increase in size of outfielders' gloves to the size of jai alai cestas has blurred that distinction a bit. John FitzGerald 14:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

  • That kind of thing is the reason there are specific rules limiting the size, shape and construction of baseball gloves and mitts. However, it is still much easier to make a one-handed catch than it was in the old days of the game, where a baseball glove was intended more for just helping to stop the ball than to make circus catches. Wahkeenah 13:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Is this valid?

Discounting the pitcher/bowler and catcher/wicket-keeper, this means Major League Baseball fielders must cover an average of approximately 16,500 square feet per fielder, while Test cricketers cover 19,500 square feet per fielder. This difference is a factor leading to differences in playing style between the games. This looks like a bit of the old 'original research' to me. That seems like a pretty trivial difference, and barely worth mentioning as is. In reality, baseball fields are much more evenly spread out, meaning some cricket fielders only cover a couple of square metres, and others cover a third of the field or more. It's not unusual to have 6 fields forming the slip cordon, gully and wicketkeeper. That leaves only 4 fielders to take the whole rest of the field. Suggestion: Try and avoid speculation about what "is a factor leading to differences", and simply describe the differences as they are. Stevage 20:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've changed it. The statement that cricket fielders "on average" cover more territory than baseballers is certainly true though, the operational words being "on average". I've also added a statement that the actual area covered varies per fielder. -dmmaus 21:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Btw, sorry for my tone there, bit tired and that came out ruder than meant :) Stevage 21:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Structure & format

Just an idea for a way of formatting this article and others like it, given that every paragraph inevitably starts by describing that part of baseball and of cricket, then proceeds to an analysis of the difference:

Fielding

Baseball

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Cricket

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Result

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. 

Therefore cricket is better.


Or, for a real "side by side" comparison:

Fielding

Result

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. 

Therefore cricket is better.

Opinions anyone? A better name for the "result" section? Consequences? Analysis? Stevage 14:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I prefer:
  • the first format alternative (side-by-side format probably wouldn't improve comprehension here, unless each section could be reduced to point format),
  • Consequences, and
  • "Therefore each game is the opposite of the other."
The content needs to be trimmed a bit, too. As you have mentioned elsewhere it often comes across as a debate. Points are also made more than once. These characteristics are understandable, given the number of contributors to the article, but eliminating them would be helpful. The debate has given me a renewed appreciation of baseball, though. John FitzGerald 13:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah me too, reading all the strategy articles (unassisted triple play is pretty cool) was an eye opener. Definitely a game about fielding. It seems like batting in baseball is about having some freak abilities to actually get bat on ball with sufficient force and control for it not to go straight up. Anything else is a bonus. I'll try and start slowly working in the new cricket-baseball-comparison structure. (ramifications?) Stevage 08:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I have read about studies showing that baseball hitters have far superior eyesight to the rest of us (they can tell which way the ball is spinning, for example, which helps them tell what kind of pitch was thrown)). Their reflexes have to be far superior, too. I find cricket batting much more interesting precisely because, as you imply, it's less reflexive. Thanks for undertaking the revision. If I see a way I can help out I will try to. John FitzGerald 13:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I've read something similar for cricket. They studied the eye movements of rank amateurs, skilled amateurs, and professional cricketers when facing an incoming quick delivery. All did the same thing: glance at the ball, glance at the spot on the ground where they thought it would hit, then back to the ball to follow it through. Surprise surprise, the professionals just did it a hell of a lot better and quicker. Don't kid yourself, there must be a huge reflex factor in whacking a pace delivery. I read that you have 0.3 seconds between when it leaves the hand and when it hits (or misses) your bat. Stevage 14:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Except that when the eyesight of Donald Bradman (whose cricket record so surpasses all others in history that it doesn't seem possible that the bloke was real) was tested, it was found to be no better than average. To give you some context, an extraordinary Test record is a batting average over 50. Almost no-one has surpassed 60 over a career of any length. Bradman famously achieved 99.94 Dweller 14:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I think I was making my point poorly. Certainly cricket requires exceptional reflexes, but a batsman has more options than a batter, who is going to use pretty much the same stroke no matter what (bunts don't count because they usually know ahead of time they're going to try to bunt). John FitzGerald 17:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I see what you're getting at. Baseball batting is purely mechanical - can I hit the bastard where I have already determined I want to hit it. Cricket batting is quick thinking - where the hell am I going to hit this one? Stevage 21:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I find these comments to be alternatingly hilarious, ignorant, and offensive:
  • "baseball batting is purely mechanical ... cricket batting is quick thinking" demonstrates a lack of understanding about baseball. As does the comment that a batter ... is going to use pretty much the same stroke no matter what. To say that baseball is solely "reflexive" and cricket relies on "thinking" sounds somewhat pejorative (though perhaps that's unintentional).
Saying such things makes about as much sense as saying a basketball or football player "always shoots the same way." No, players -- especially skilled professionals -- of baseball (and all sports) adapt all the nuances of their technique to the situation at hand.
I do agree that the cricketer has more shot types in his arsenal: "a batsman has more options than a batter" (previous comment) and "Flat cricket bats permits the development of more batting skills than do round baseball bats (from the article) strike me as correct.
However, it's unclear to me how batting in baseball "is about having some freak abilities to actually get bat on ball with sufficient force and control for it not to go straight up" as millions of 10-year-olds seem to have little problem doing this. This "ability", though difficult to perform at the top level, is no more "freak" than reverse swing or a sweeping shot. Woodshed 11:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
"Freak abilities" may not have been the best expression, but the best baseball players tend to have unusual physical abilities, as do the best players in any sport. Their vision is far better than normal, for example. As for the batting stroke being relatively the same, it certainly is compared to cricket. In baseball you have the swing and the bunt. You might want to add the inside-out as a third stroke, but the great variety of baseball swings use very similar mechanics. Maybe what's missing from the discussion is the need for baseball batter to make decisions very quickly about what kind of pitch he's going to look for, etc. John FitzGerald 23:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Deletion without explanation

I restored a picture and some text about baseball fielding which was deleted without explanation. Maybe there was a good reason for it, but since it wasn't stated there's also the possibility the deletion was an accident, since, although I'm open to arguments for its removal, I don't see any persuasive argument myself. I did leave out the comment about highlight reels, since it probably requires a citation. John FitzGerald 13:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Who's a major sport, then?

im new to this wikipedia thing but anyway. i cannot see how baseball is a major sport for 1 billion people. i really doubt that if u picked 600 people from around the world at random, i doubt that 100 of them would know the rules of baseball. i would suspect that it would only be around the 100-150 (200 million at the most) million mark because the game of baseball is only really played and watched by people in the US and too a lesser extent countries like Japan and Canada. i personally wouldn't call it a "major world sport". just my pov. Pratj 20:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right – a billion may be an overestimate, but that doesn't mean it's not a major sport. Two hundred and eighty million people in the States, a hundred million in Mexico, thirty million in Canada, 130 million in Japan – there's over half a billion for a start. Given the amount of Japanese stadium advertising at major league games featuring Japanese players, I expect "watched to...some extent" translates to "watched a lot" in Japan In Canada baseball and its sister sport softball are the most popular summer sports. In Mexico it's the most popular summer sport. South Korea has fifty million people, but I don't know much about its popularity there. They produce some good players, though, so that suggests people there appreciate good play. The remaining countries are smaller. the figure may be less than a billion, but as we have no definition of major sport I'd hesitate to call it minor.
As for cricket, it probably has more fans because it's popular in India. Luck of the draw, really. A count against either sport being considered a major world sport is that they're both largely relics of colonialism (Canada is one exception, since baseball was adopted as an anti-colonialist gesture, but Canada only has 30 million people). Football is sort of a relic of colonialism, but chiefly it's a relic of British engineering superiority (taken around the world by Britishers building railways).
Since you're new to Wikipedia I'll mention it helps if you identify yourself. Just put four tildes at the end of your post. John FitzGerald 19:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


i suppose, but i think that football (soccer) is more popular in japan than baseball but i will accept it as a national sport. e.g i consider the english national sports to be football, rugby and cricket and the US national sports to be US football, baseball and basketball. i just think a sport without a major international structure cannot be called a major world sport, since there is no "real" international competition. i know there is a baseball world cup but i think they r amateurs and the quality is poor along the lines of not test teams in cricket e.g kenya v holland. cricket has international competition with the 10 test playing nations plus countless other minor teams from around the world. i just think u cannot call a game without international competition a major world sport if only 2 countries (maybe 3 if u count mexico) play baseball remotely seriously.

also i was looking at this talkpage and ppl r saying that baseball fielding is better. i agree seeing someone dive and throw the ball back hard is something u rarely see in cricket, but to say baseball fielders r better somehow i think is false, after all they have an area to catch the ball with which is much larger than a cricketer who only has his hand which he then has to close which is easier said than done. i think a good slip fielder diving full stretch and catching a flying ball one handed is much more spectacular than someone catching a ball with a glove when he is 40, 50 yards away. just my pov.

Pratj 20:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that baseball fielding is better because of the big gloves, but that is the point made in the article. Similarly, cricket batting is better because you bat with a big flat hunk of lumber instead of the little round toothpick you use in baseball (and for other reasons mentioned in the article). I think the article also mentions that players in both sports probably have equal batting and fielding abilities, and that it's the equipment and the fields which create the differences in batting and fielding. For example, last weekend I saw a catcher take a throw barehanded which was as hard as or harder than any throw or drive I've ever seen a cricketer take barehanded (and make the out). It's just the opportunities to demonstrate that skill are fewer. Come to think of it, the first and third base coaches (who are usually former players) occasionally make good catches barehanded just to protect themselves.
I see your point about the international structure of the sport, but your rule would exclude sports played and enjoyed by hundreds of millions of people. And baseball is played seriously in more than two or three coutries. Why would you not count Mexico, by the way? Or Cuba, Colombia, Venezuela, Panama, the Dominican Republic (considered by many to produce the best players in the world), Canada, South Korea, or Taiwan? Etc., including Puerto Rico.
It's also likely that an international championship including professional players will develop out of the World Baseball Classic. I don't see that cricket, though, has any greater claim than baseball to be a major sport, despite its international structure. It's played in former British colonies (and not all of them), and baseball is chiefly played in countries that the U. S. military has occupied. To me that's the major count against weither being considered a major international sport. They are accidents of colonialism which have little appeal outside the former colonies.
But as I said I see your point and maybe we should think about taking assertions about whether either sport is major out of the article. There are good arguments to be made on each side and I doubt there is any objective standard we could use that people could agree on. John FitzGerald 14:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

good points. i will accept that many ppl play probably for leisure ie they place at the weekend in a similar way to a pub football team in england, or a village cricket team in the cricketing nations. i doubt that they r massively popular in most of these countries or have a "league structure" like cricket does in the UK and most of the other test playing nations but i accept that they baseball is popular in its own right.

i think something along the lines of:

Cricket has long been established on the international stage, especially among the "colonies" of the UK. The 10 Test playing nations regularly participate in tours of other nations to play usually both a Test and ODI series. Also twenty20 is becoming more popular. The game in an amateur sense has also been spread further afield by ex-pats from the already test playing nations. Many of these minor nations compete in the Cricket World Cup. Baseball in a similar way has also been spread, particularly around Latin America and the Far East, by US military personel, most notably in Japan. Though baseball has not yet made its mark in terms of professional international competition, its popularity is slowly growing around the world especially with the emergence of competitions like the The World Baseball Classic.

i rushed this so its not very good but i think something like that would be quite good.

also on another page they went as far to say that cricket in the worlds 2nd most popular sport (behind football/ soccer), mostly because it is by far the most followed sport in and around the sub-continent. i think the fact that cricket is huge in India with most of the male (and female i suspect) population in that country know sachin tendulkar as well as the shane warnes and freedy flintoffs of this world bulsters its position in terms of number of spectators.

Pratj 15:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I like your proposed text, but it appears I misled you about baseball spreading through the American military. Other articles here reveal that it was introduced to Japan by a university professor and to the Caribbean by merchant mariners. In Canada, of course, it was a traditional game (perhaps popularized by American immigrants in Ontario), with the standardized rules of American baseball eventually being adopted for it. So I'd recommend leaving out "by U. S. military personnel."
Colonies should not have quotation marks around it, since those countries actually were or are colonies. Anyway, I suggest replacing that with "especially among the countries of the British Commonwealth."
Some people might not like that "most notably in Japan," but I think it's fair in context. I think your description of baseball's international status is very fair. But let's see if anybody else has any comments.
Finally, I would like to emphasize that baseball is a major sport with organized leagues in all the countires I listed. Category:Baseball leagues and Category:Baseball by country provide more information. There are also articles about baseball outside the United States which you can get to from the Baseball article and category.
And I apologize for misleading you about the spread of baseball. At lleast i learned something out of it. John FitzGerald 02:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


fair enough for your critcisms. as i said it was rushed and colonies was the only word i could think of. but i think that my statement that baseball had not yet made its mark in terms of international professional competition, at least not to the same level as cricket has was fair and valid, but this being a democracy im open to other opinions.

Pratj 12:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Well i was bit hasty myself, eh? As I said the description of b-ball's international status is very fair. The WBC has a way to go before it becomes a real championship. It's probably going to be similar to the long process gone through to get a World Cup of Hockey. John FitzGerald 17:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

what do u think we should edit the text too then?

Pratj 19:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd wait a couple of days to see if anyone else has an opinion, although interest in this page seems to have dropped. John FitzGerald 15:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

ok fair enough.

p.s i have also noticed there is no picture showing a cricket batsmen.

Pratj 20:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's my suggestion for the passage. I haven't looked yet at where it would go in the article. I may have translated ODI incorrectly:

Cricket has long been established on the international stage, especially among the colonies and former colonies of the United Kingdom. The ten Test-playing nations regularly participate in tours of other nations to play usually both a Test and One Day International series. Twenty20 is becoming more popular in international competition. The amateur game has also been spread further afield by ex-patriates from the Test-playing nations. Many of these minor nations compete in the Cricket World Cup. Baseball in a similar way has also been spread around the world, most notably in Mexico, the Caribbean, Central America, and the Far East (in Canada it developed as a traditional sport). Though baseball has not yet made its mark in terms of professional international competition, its popularity is slowly growing around the world especially with the emergence of competitions like the the World Baseball Classic.


yeah, im OK with that. any changes i make too it i will make in capital letters. i think we should put it around the baseball ia a major sport for 1 billion ppl.

Pratj 22:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

im adding it now, around that area i said above Pratj 11:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks pretty good to me. I made a couple of minor changes for clarification but I think they're in keeping with your original. John FitzGerald 14:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

thx for your help, now im bored and need something else to do.

Pratj 22:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Good changes all round. The figures of 1 billion and 2 billion were both over estimates by about 500 million IMO. I was thinking, should there not be somethimg on how differant the top level of the two sports are? By this I mean the fact that Cricket relies on international matches for most of its exposure and revenue while Baseball relies on domestic leagues. Something like:

"Nearly all the revenue in Cricket comes from international matches, domestic leagues are seen very much as a development ground for players and little else (with the slight exception of the English county game). By contrast nearly all Baseball revenue comes from domestic leagues, most notably in the US and Japan, with international competition very much an after thought. Though the introduction of the World Baseball Classic and 20/20 Cricket may reverse these trends slightly in the future."

and then maybe if there is space:

"Both these systems have advantages and drawbacks. The international programme in cricket means that weaker nations like Bangladesh still get the chance to play the best in the world and the players have the chance to become national heroes. However the dominance of national teams also means that a great many talented Cricketers in nations such as Australia and India will never receive recognition or prestige unless they make it into the national team"

User:Shane1 22:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

That all seems worth adding to me, and maybe even expanding on. Maybe the cultural section should be sppun off into its own article, too.John FitzGerald 23:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Well I put those two paragraphs in. I won't be offended at any modifications as it's hardly the most flowing prose I've ever written. I think what it said needs to be said in the article though. User:Shane1 22:00, 03 September 2006 (UTC)

do u think there would be enough to spin it off into another article? anyway, i made another small edit regarding Twenty20 and TV.Pratj 12:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I've taken out the bit about county cricket becoming more televised. It has been televised for 30 years if not more. Maybe there are more matches now but they are all on satellite TV rather than free to air as before. I would guess (though don't know) there has been more of a marked increase in South Africa/West Indies due to 20/20.

As for a new article, I personally think this article is specialised enough. If we sub divide it there is a danger no one would read it! User:Shane1 16:00, 05 September 2006 (UTC)

Simple definition of a ball

In the table at the end of the article comparing the definitions of various terms used in both sports, a ball is defined in baseball as an illegitimate delivery. I disagree, and say that an illegitimate delivery is a balk (eg: not stopping before delivery from set position, aka "quick pitch"), or other pitches which will result in the umpire calling "no pitch" such as when the ball has been doctored. However, I can't define a ball in a simple manner that doesn't require the reader to know several other terms, such as "strike", "fair territory", "foul territory", etc. Any ideas? --Thedangerouskitchen 12:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The rules of MLB (section 2.00) say "A BALL is a pitch which does not enter the strike zone in flight and is not struck at by the batter." That requires knowledge of what a strike zone is, but I think people would get the idea. John FitzGerald 15:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
A ball in baseball is analagous to a wide or a bye in cricket, if that's a useful point to make. I agree that a ball is not an "illegitimate delivery". Woodshed 15:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Maybe "a pitch thrown to an illegitimate location"? --SodiumBenzoate 21:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Throwing outside the strike zone is not illegitimate, though, which perhaps distinguishes a ball from a wide. The pitcher's allowed three of them, and uses them strategically. Even the fourth ball will be used strategically when a batter is wlaked intentionally. That may sound like a quibble, but I still think the official definition raises the fewest questions. John FitzGerald 17:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The concept of the "ball" in baseball originated in a way similar to the way the "wide" is called in cricket. The idea was to force the pitcher to throw near the strike zone or pay a penalty for it, i.e. he couldn't throw wide of the plate all day. It's a subtlety. Wahkeenah 02:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
My point is that it's not illegitimate to throw a ball. It's illegitimate to throw four. As a compromise, how about "a pitch which the batter is not considered to have a reasonable chance of hitting"? I still prefer the official definition, though. John FitzGerald 14:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
That's the current accepted concept of a "ball". However, its original point is the same as with cricket, that it was not a "fair" pitch, i.e. not one that the batter had a reasonable chance of hitting... and the base-on-balls is the "penalty" for it. The pitcher is "allowed" to throw three balls on a given batter, and when he throws a fourth ball, the batter is awarded first base. Wahkeenah 17:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Ergo a ball is not illegitimate, which is the point I was addressing. If you're allowed to throw it (as you are – no quotation marks necessary), then it's legitimate. Hitting a batter is illegitimate, throwing the ball where he can't hit it is allowed. As to what was in the minds of the original framers of the rules of baseball, I can claim no knowledge of it. They used to allow a lot more balls, though. John FitzGerald 20:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
It depends on what you mean by "legitimate" and "allowed". If you throw a "wide" in cricket, there's a penalty. If you throw a "ball" in baseball (or, specifically, 4 of them) there's also a "penalty". Wahkeenah 21:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, this is verging on a quibble, and maybe the problem is the word illegitimate. There are things in both sports which are always wrong – hitting a batter with a pitch or blocking the cricket ball with your body in front of the stumps, for example – that is, they are always penalized. Furthermore, saying that a ball is illegitimate gives a misleading view of baseball. One of the things pitchers and catchers try to do is to get batters to swing at pitches out of the strike zone. It's an accepted part of strategy. To go back to my original point, what's wrong with the official definition of a ball? John FitzGerald 01:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
The purpose of the article, as I understand it, is to draw parallels between cricket and baseball where they exist. A ball is called when outside the strike zone because it is an "unfair" pitch, in the original terminology. You're right that the "wide" is presumably a mistake on the part of the bowler, and that maybe a hit batsman is a better analogy... but many called balls are "mistakes" on the part of the pitcher also. Wahkeenah 02:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
If the purpose is to draw comparisons where they exist, then the name given to a ball in the 19th century isn't relevant. Anyway, I won't have a fit if a ball is called illegitimate, even if it's allowed, but I still think the official description is better. The current definition in the article seems fully informative to me. John FitzGerald 13:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
The current article equates a "wide" to a "ball", and the word "illegitimate" does not even appear in the article, so now I'm not sure what we're "arguing" about. Wahkeenah 13:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Look at the table underneath that one. Thedangerouskitchen 14:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
OK, so they are saying the definition of a ball is way too wordy. I might agree. Maybe I'll take a shot at it after work today. Wahkeenah 16:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I did a little bit with it. I don't care for that term "legitimate"; I changed it to "legal" (if that term is never used in cricket, you could change it back) and I changed a few other things that caught mine eye. Wahkeenah 23:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Sources, Original Research, and NPOV

This whole article is seriously lacking in citations. This isn't a problem for basic rules and such (which can be gotten from the linked articles and their references), but for dubious assertions like "individual defensive mistakes are more costly [in baseball]", "The requirements of baseball also make athletic fielding more frequently necessary" (which doesn't even mention slip catching, which has little equivalent in baseball), and others. Many of these statements also seem to be Original Research. There aren't quite as many problems with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view but statements like "Baseball's strategy varies with the game situation" (implying that this is untrue of cricket) seem closer to opinion than fact.

I'm not sure I have time to go through such a long article trying to fix these things up, but would a template like Template:POV and/or Template:Unreferenced be appropriate? Kingdon 03:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I've long thought those things about this article. It's more of a collaborative essay than an encyclopaedia article. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Oddly enough, it looks like today is the second anniversary of that page, which I just ran across recently. It began as a simple factual comparison of terms, easily verifiable, and as you say it has evolved into kind of an essay. Someone who is actually offended by the nature of the article as it stands now, could maybe try to pare down the opinionated stuff (such as the "athleticism" comments, which are highly subjective), and turn it into something more useful; namely, to allow fans of one sport to better understand the other sport. Being interested in the history of sports, I would like to see more emphasis on commonality between the sports, like times in the 1800s when certain aspects of the sports were closer than they are now. I think adding that layer would improve understanding of the sports by casual fans. For example: baseball players originally did not wear gloves; both bowlers and pitchers originally were restricted to underhand deliveries, on flat ground from behind a line; the original box scores - showing outs and runs - were supposedly based on cricket scoring, etc. However, that opens the door to complicating matters. Rounders has a lot more commonality with baseball than cricket does, in certain ways. It's just that cricket and baseball are "major" sports, and rounders really is not. So although one could write an article comparing the three sports (along with the extinct "Massachusetts Game" of baseball, which was very much like rounders), that might defeat the original intent of the article. Wahkeenah 10:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

What facts, exavtly, do you want sources for? Do we really need a source for the contention that defensive mistakes are more costly in baseball? A handful of runs are scored in a baseball game, and hundreds in a cricket match, so is it not obvious that a defensive error is more serious in a baseball game? And where would we find this source? What kind of evidence would you consider acceptable? And if such evidence doesn't exist, does that make the observation any ess true? Just asking – I consider this a serious issue and am open to persuasion.

And how far do we have to take this? Do we need a citation about the shape of bats? Seriously, we could cite the official rules.

As for slip catches, here's a quotation from the article" "Catches in the slips and at mid-on or mid-off also require superior reflexes to those required by any baseball fielders other than the catcher and perhaps the pitcher."

When I came across this article it was an uninformed attempt to ridicule baseball, even making the assertion that baseball is to cricket as cricket is to chess (see what I mean about uninformed?). Perhaps that accounts for the form the article has taken. I'm sorry many people consider athleticism to be some sort of moral quality, but if you take the term objectively I don't think the comparison is unreasonable. Baseball is less athletic than rugby, eh, and so what? It's just a fact, not a statement of the relative merit of the sports.

Anyway, I think this article has come a long way from its beginnings and that the goodwill and spirit of co-operation shown by everyone who's been working on it should help improve it even more. These criticisms are important and I think the people who've been working on this article are capable of coming up with an effective way of dealing with them which will be satisfactory to all. John FitzGerald 14:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

As for "Do we really need a source for the contention that defensive mistakes are more costly in baseball?", yes, we do, and it is not obvious. A catch in cricket means that batter is gone for the whole rest of the match (or half a match). Even aside from the citation issue, I'm still not sure in which sport a missed catch is more costly. You're right about the mention of slip catches, and I think the solution is to reorganize the material so it is mentioned in the same place as the description of athletic fielding in baseball (double plays and such). Having a references section for "obvious" things like the shape of the bat would be a good step (especially since they are so easy to find, and probably just need to be at the end rather than in footnotes for every fact), but it is the subtler things like strategy which really need the cites. Kingdon 02:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

how can we cite sources for stuff like more runs r scored in cricket? Pratj 21:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, you could cite a baseball and cricket score website, or if you wanted to get fancy a list of highest and lower scores. But the cites aren't as important for things like this. Kingdon 02:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, some of the points raised only require some clarification. The point about decisionmaking in baseball, which is mentioned as an example of POV above, was added because the article originally implied that cricket required more decisionmaking than baseball. It's just a matter of finding the balance. Similarly, after consultation with Stevage I tried to moderate the statements about athletic fielding. As I said above, I wasn't aware that being athletic would be seen as a virtue.

Incidentally, Wahkeenah, what is your source for saying the comments about athleticism are highly subjective? Hmmm? Have you counted athletic fielding plays in representative samples of baseball games and cricket matches? Did you do a Spearman-Brown on your inter-rater reliability? It wouldn't matter if you had, of course, because that would be the dreaded original research. From the rules of the games I think we can safely conclude (with proper citations, of course) that bowling is more athletic than pitching. From the rules we could also safely conclude that baseball running is more athletic than cricket running (and not only because cricketers have to wear all that clobber). There could be a way to compare the athleticism of the fielding from the rules. However, i think removing the fundamental points that the big gloves permit more spectacular fielding and the flat bats permit more spectacular batting because there are no references for them would just be silly.

Incidentally, this article has never had a neutral point of view, as the discussion here shows. As long as oit doesn't return to being arrant cricket chauvinism I'll be happy. John FitzGerald 00:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I say that any comments in the article that declare either sport to be either more athletic or more strategic than the other are inherently subjective because they are unprovable, in part because you have to define what is meant by those terms in some neutral way. I'm sure synchronized swimmers think they're pretty athletic too. I did make a few changes to the article. Feel free to mess with them further. I took away the dubious notion that baseball is "derived" from cricket. Both games are "derived" from bat-and-ball games. That's about all you can say about them for sure. You have cricket, you have baseball, and you have rounders which is somewhere in between. And I'm not going to argue that baseball is any more athletic. The gloves are there by necessity. The nature of the equipment makes it harder to hit a baseball, but when it's hit solidly, it really flies. I doubt you would see someone hit a bounced cricket ball 550 feet, for example. Gloves are a necessity of baseball, and fielders do take advantage of them. That doesn't make them any better (or worse) athletes than barehanded cricketers, who I've seen get stung by line drives, so I know it hurts. But if a first baseman tried to catch one of Barry Bonds' screamers barehanded, he'd be out of action for months.Wahkeenah 01:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Cricketers catch screamers barehanded. So do baseball players occasionally. I think I've mentioned an instance on this page. The base coaches often catch foul drives barehanded. The gloves were introduced as an aid for injured players and more widely adopted when their advantages became apparent. In the weekly test match highlights package we get in T. O. I see plenty of cricketers letting balls go through their hands for four. It's hard without a glove.

I'll agree with you that the different compositions of the two balls are important; if that's not mentioned in the article it should be. If a baseball player hits one square it's going a lot farther than a cricket ball. The most impressive display of power hitting I've ever seen consisted of two monster sixes by Doug Walters at Lord's back when Moses was in the fire brigade. Probably would have been home runs in a ball park.

I believe athletic and strategy can be objectively defined. An alternative would be to develop an acceptable list of fielding skills in each sport and just post that and let people make up their own minds. On the other hand there are articles about that. Another alternative is just to note the relative importance of fielding in the two sports.

Thanks for correcting the bit about the origins of baseball. I wasn't aware that had crept in. I suspect that most of the changes which result from this debate will be acceptable to everyone. Your modification of the definition of foul ball seemed great to me, even though we'd disagreed about how it should be done. John FitzGerald 21:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

About a point made above: the variation in strategy in baseball games is not an opinion – consult a few coaching manuals. A comparison of baseball and cricket coaching manuals might help resolve some of the difficulties with these comparisons. John FitzGerald 21:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Another point worth mentioning is that, like cricket, baseball used to play the entire game with a single ball, which would tend to get softer over the course of the game, presumably. That practice changed in 1920, although they were wearing gloves long before then. However, at one time the glove was merely an aid in stopping the ball, it wasn't much good at "trapping" it. The "trap" design of the glove is a rather more recent development. Maybe it comes back to what the purpose of the article really is. If you're comparing factual stuff, like terminology and the way the game progresses, at a high level, it's not much of a problem. Trying to define one as more athletic or more strategic than another is slippery. I'm sure there are those who think soccer is highly strategic, too. To me, it's just a bunch of guys kicking a ball around and not scoring very often. As a lifelong baseball fan with occasional exposure to cricket, I certainly find cricket more interesting than soccer. For that matter, I find Ultimate more interesting than soccer. But unless someone can weigh into this who really knows both baseball and cricket thoroughly (which I don't), it's really difficult when it starts to get into the "which sport is better" area. Wahkeenah 21:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I've read the article through for the first time in a while and it's certainly improved. What we want is an informative article that at the same time dispels the prejudices of one eyed fans from either sport. Afterall the whole reason for this article is that the sports have something in common.

Without wanting to be sensitive, and mindful of what John FitzGerald said about how this article started out, the only part I, as a Cricket fan, have a problem with is the following: "First-class cricket also has a number of strategic elements not found in baseball simply because the maximum time duration of the game is fixed" Not for what it says but the fact there is obviously a lot more to Cricket strategy than that dependent on the time frame! When I'm free tomorrow I will add more(while trying to be concise) on moving the field, changing bowlers etc as the paragrph at the moment is very brief. P.S. I'm aware some of this is covered in other sections and we dont want stuff repeated User:Shane1 20:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • One could make the same argument, that baseball has elements of strategy that cricket lacks. Obviously, they are not the same game. Although there is no baseball equivalent of deciding to end one's innings by declaration, there is the element of getting far enough ahead that you start substituting for your regular players, which I admit is a lame comparison but it speaks to the sense of when one is "far enough" ahead. The largest lead ever overcome in the history of the major leagues is something like 13 runs, so there comes a time when a baseball team (or both of them) effectively "close the refrigerator" on a game. Wahkeenah 22:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Cricket strategy indeed already has articles, for example at Fielding strategy (cricket), Bowling strategy (cricket). No need for this article to describe all the strategies in cricket, or all the strategies in baseball. Kingdon 02:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
You're right about coaching manuals, John FitzGerald. Do you have the titles of a few which can be added to the References section? That would be a big step forward. (I've put one in, but I'm not sure it is the best coaching manual, or most relevant to this article) Kingdon 02:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

My baseball days are long over, but I can look for some. Thanks for taking the initiative. What I suggest is that we stop debating and start editing the article to reduce POV – all of us seem to think it's POV in some way, and changing the article would probably give a clearer idea of its problems than discussion here. John FitzGerald 12:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I checked the references to athletic fielding, and all they say is that baseball gloves provide more opportunity to field atletically. I don't see much POV about that (it's like saying it's easier to fish with a net than with your bare hands), but I strengthened the statement about the relative batting and fielding abilities of baseball players and cricketers. I'll check back later to make sure that neither the fielding abilities of cricketers nor the batting abilities of baseball players are unwittingly disparaged. John FitzGerald 13:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
i can't see why we need references for some of this. isn't it obvious that if u have a big glove it is going to be easier to catch than it would bare-hand. and isn't it obvious that if u have a large _in relative terms) flat piece of willow that it is going to be easier to hit than a thinner rounded piece of wood. Pratj 19:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Bouncing?

Since when are bowlers not required to bounce the ball? Wahkeenah 17:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

See Full toss. If you are really asking a historical question, I suspect it goes back to the 1760's (see Underarm bowling), but that's just a guess. Kingdon 19:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

one of the most lethal deliveries in a bowlers arsenal is the "yorker". this is where the ball pitcheds around the batsmen's feet, but often it ends up hitting the bottom of the stumps without bouncing. also a full toss is a delivery (poor) which arrives around the batsmen's waist/shin height without bouncing. runs r usually scored off this mistake.Pratj 19:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Yes, I had it wrong. I misunderstood. A cricketer in the office set me straight. FYI, a baseball pitcher has to get it over the plate on the fly, or else it's a ball; unless the batter offers at it. Wahkeenah 20:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Just being pernickety, a head-height full toss is not a legal delivery; it is called a Beamer, is penalised by the umpire and (because it is so dangerous) if considered deliberate, it can lead to recriminations, not least unofficial ones between the players. --Dweller 10:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Aha! Another term in common. "Beamer" or "beamball" would be the same thing (and likely the same word origin) as "beanball" in baseball, throwing a pitch too close to the "bean" (i.e. the head). Wahkeenah 10:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I added it. I'm guessing that "beamball" came from "beanball" ("n" preceding "b" having been slurred into "m" over time) and that "beamer" is slang for "beamball" and is now the more common term. However, since that's only a guess, I did not put it in the article. Here's something I don't get. It says "cricketers must bowl with an unnatural motion in which the elbow does not straighten throughout the delivery." My colleague the cricket player says that the ball must be delivered with a straight arm, not bending the elbow. Something in the terminology is eluding me here. Perhaps one of you cricket mavens could explain. Wahkeenah 12:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The Laws of Cricket (can be read in full at [6]) reads (law 24.3 to be precise) "A ball is fairly delivered in respect of the arm if, once the bowler's arm has reached the level of the shoulder in the delivery swing, the elbow joint is not straightened partially or completely from that point until the ball has left the hand. This definition shall not debar a bowler from flexing or rotating the wrist in the delivery swing." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dweller (talk • contribs)

I think children are often taught that you have to keep a straight arm though. Basically, if your arm doesn't start straight, you will straighten it as you throw the ball. So while not technically correct, it's pretty much the same in practice. Stephen Turner (Talk) 12:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Recent controversies, particularly regarding Muttiah Muralitharan and a natural disability in his bowling arm, have led to the cricket authorities permitting up to 15 degrees of flex, but no more. --Dweller 12:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
OK, I still don't get it. Do they deliver with a straight arm, or not? Is the rule simply trying to say that the arm has to have been straightened before rather than after a certain point in the delivery? Is that what it is? If so, it is not at all clear to me, from the wording. But I guess if you know cricket, it is. d:) Wahkeenah 12:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
The law defines the start of the bowling action as being when your arm reaches shoulder height. Before that, you can flap the funky chicken if you like. Thereafter, only 15 degrees of straightening is permitted. Otherwise, it's called "throwing" or "chucking". --Dweller 12:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
But isn't the limit actually 15 degrees of bending the elbow? (or the two parts of the arm forming an angle of 165 degrees, to look at it another way) Wahkeenah 13:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
No, it's 15 degrees of straightening. If you start with your elbow at a right angle, and keep it at a right angle (or at less than 105 degrees, I suppose) until you release the ball, that's theoretically permissible. It's also probably impossible, unless you physically can't straighten your arm any more than that. It's to prevent you imparting extra speed to the ball through an elbow action — the speed must come from the rotation of your arm about your shoulder.
The 15 degrees was introduced because ultra slow motion film showed that all fast bowlers straighten their arm about 10 degrees or so, even though it's not visible to the naked eye, simply because of the mechanical stresses on an arm rotating at that speed. In order to make the law enforceable, they therefore had to introduce a (non-zero) threshold.
Stephen Turner (Talk) 13:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Then I must be seeing things. It looks to me like bowlers throw with a straight arm. I wonder if there is a website that shows a frame-by-frame of a bowler's delivery. Then maybe I'll understand. Wahkeenah 13:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
My recollection is that you have to look at several hundred frames a second, not just the usual 24 frames a second, in order to see any straightening. In practice, if you believe that bowlers have to keep a straight arm, you're not very far wrong. That's just not the official definition. Stephen Turner (Talk) 14:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
But your saying both that they have to have a straight arm and that they are not allowed to straighten the arm. "A" and "not-A" can't both be true! Wahkeenah 14:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I think you're confused between a straight arm, and straightening the arm. Your arm can in principle be as straight or bent as you like, as long as it doesn't straighten any further during the bowling action. In practice, it's impossible to keep a bent arm and not straighten it further, so everyone just keeps a straight arm. Stephen Turner (Talk) 14:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


yes, they do straighten the arm, but this is not intentional and is inevitable. the fact that there arm is rotating so fast means that it would be almost impossible to stop this happening and since they r gaining no advantage i see no problem myself. this video (its long but if u skip the first 1:20 it become relevant relevant) shows slow motion bowling (and batting) so u can see for yourself. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7u0jaHQ2AGY Pratj 15:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
The light bulb finally comes on. You don't have to throw with a straight arm as such, you just can't straighten the arm more than 15 degrees from whatever its angle is as you're starting to deliver it. But as a practical matter, they try to keep the arm fairly straight when they throw it. (And I do understand they don't like the term "throw" for bowling, I'm just speaking of it generically). Am I getting the point of this, finally? d:) Wahkeenah 17:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
no, a throw is illegal, its bowling not throwing. anyway, look at the video and u will see the bowling action. Pratj 21:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Cricket has very specific meanings for the terms "throw" and "bowl", just as baseball has a specific definition of what "pitching" is. In the generic sense of the word, both "pitching" and "bowling" constitute "throwing" a ball. But not in the context of their sports. Wahkeenah 12:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Wahkeenah, you've got it. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
By George! Wahkeenah 12:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't we have culture in England? <g>

From the "Culture" section:

Cricket is an equally strong influence on the culture of many nations, especially Commonwealth nations, including India, Pakistan, Australia, New Zealand, Sri Lanka, South Africa, Bangladesh, Kenya, Zimbabwe and the English-speaking Caribbean.

That's every Test-playing nation except for one: England. (Plus Kenya, who don't play Tests at all.) It's true that cricket isn't the most popular sport in England, but neither is it in Zimbabwe. Any reason for England not to be mentioned (other than as part of "Commonwealth nations") in the list? Loganberry (Talk) 20:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

yes, kenya had escaped my attention. thats like saying in terms of football: argentina, brasil, england, finland, spain, france, italy. finland doesn't deserve to be in that company. its the same with kenya, they r a relatively minor nation, and not a full fledged test team. anyway, as for england, i think it should be included in the list as cricket does have an influence on english culture. after all it is the most english of all sports. Pratj 21:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

My recollection is that this list grew up in the usual Wikipedia way; by everyone adding their own country to it in a "me too" kind of way. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It's just an oversight, not deliberate I would have thought. England (and even maybe Wales) should be in there. Cricket is certainly a strong cultural influence in England, more so than any other sport apart from football.

  • Maybe British "culture" is akin to British "cuisine". Maybe you've heard this one: If your guests are Italian, serve French. If they're French, serve Italian. If they're English, boil anything. A talk show host once asked John Cleese why the British had never developed fine cuisine. His answer was that they had no time for it: "We had an empire to run, you see!" Wahkeenah 12:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Place hitting

If we're worried about sources, there should be a citation for the assertion that place hitting is not so much more difficult in baseball. I am looking for citations for some of my assertions, and am going back now to soften an edit I just made. John FitzGerald 15:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I wouldn't argue that place-hitting in baseball is as "easy" as it is in cricket, and if I worded it that way, it was unintentionally misleading. I would argue that place-hitting in baseball is much easier than "swinging away" is in baseball. I would suspect the same is true within cricket. The point being that once the power game came along, place-hitting dropped significantly as a strategy, and batting averages also dropped. There was a time when some guys went through virtually an entire season with just a handful of strikeouts, for example. Wahkeenah 17:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I tried to improve what I wrote previously and you revised. I think it's too wordy. But it's a start. Wahkeenah 22:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Good edit. Interesting point about the batting averages. The changes in the game in the early years of the twentieth century are truly startling and they often puzzle me. Before the power game developed they used to have high batting averages and low ERAs somehow – your point about the batting averages is at least part of the answer. And pitchers winning 40 games a year. Nowadays they don't even start 35. John FitzGerald 02:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

  • There are a lot of reasons why they switched to the power game, but as with the 1990s, it had mostly to do with simple economics: people liked seeing home runs, and the power game pulled more fans in. Prior to the 1920s, baseball had had a rather narrower audience. I'm no Yankees fan, but over the years I've come to realize that Babe Ruth was the premier ballplayer of all time, for a lengthy list of reasons - one of which was almost singlehandedly changing the nature of the game, from small ball to power ball. No one else comes close to that kind of impact on the game. The concept of pitchers winning 40 games, or even 30, is mind-boggling today; but the nature of the game allowed for it then. They didn't have to throw as hard or with such arm-twisting "stuff" as they do now. As I see it, cricket basically plays "small ball" the way baseball used to... but in cricket, that's an appropriate strategy. In baseball, it once was, but the changing conditions in equipment and rules rendered it, if not obsolete, then at least to the "back burner" of baseball strategy. Once Babe Ruth and the Yankees knocked off the "old school" Giants in the 1923 World Series, that was effectively the end of "small ball" as the predominant strategy... and also the beginning of the end for the Giants in New York, but that's another story. Rogers Hornsby of the St. Louis Cardinals was the Babe Ruth of the National League, putting up some astonishing numbers; and he taught Ted Williams the secret to hitting for power and average ("wait for a good pitch to hit"), and Williams taught another generation, and so on. But small ball still has its place, in the right circumstances. Small ball marked the beginning of the astonishing turnaround of the Red Sox against the Yankees in 2004, after the Yanks had won the first 3 in the best-of-7 League Championship Series: a walk, a stolen base, a run-scoring single... and the Yankees didn't know it, but they were doomed. They were on their way to losing 4 straight. Pardon me for gushing. It has been two years, and I still can't believe they did it. d:) Wahkeenah 03:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

can someone just explin to me why place htting isn't common in baseball? ive watched it before (quite alot) and they always seem to be trying to knock it out of the park instead of just trying to put bat to ball.Pratj 13:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

  • That's the same question my grandfather used to ask. I think the answer is the time-honored saying, "Home run hitters drive Cadillacs, and singles-hitters drive Fords." Wahkeenah 14:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

good answer, it just seems that striking out all the time is a bit pointless when if u at least hit it, u can get to first. if i cricket evry1 started trying to hit 6 instead of going for singles scores would be much lower. Pratj 14:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree about the power game being more popular, so a citation might be useful if that point is going in the article. The game was more popular in the 70s and 80s, when the running game was more widely played (you can verify that last assertion by looking at base-stealing statistics). Having a base stealer on first makes the game more interesting and encourages place hitting, not only because a single to right may pick up an extra base but because the pitcher's repertoire is restricted.
They switched to the power game in the 90s because they thought they'd attract fans back to the park after the strike by hyping the Battle of the Bulked-Up Sluggers. John FitzGerald 17:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
evry1 likes to see big hitting (kevin pietersen is an example) but that at the expense of winning games and scoring runs would not be popular. Pratj 17:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
They switched back to the power game in the 1990s, actually, and it did attract fans back, even if it turns out to have been chemically-enhanced. Wahkeenah 00:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe they're pulling the crowds they did before the strike, but that can be settled empirically. At least they haven't returned to the point-to-point baseball of my youth. John FitzGerald 19:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you all for entirely ignoring the value of slugging percentage. I mean, if you're going to hit a ball, why go for two bases? One oughta be enough. Makes the game better. Woodshed 08:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Matter of taste, I guess. I don't find big guys trotting around the bases all that gripping. Or big guys popping up because their big cut was a bit off. That's not to say slugging can't be interesting. I had the same reaction as all other Torontonians when Joe Carter hit his walk-off home run in 1993. But small ball at the very least increases the action in the game. John FitzGerald 13:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Suggested modifications

I had a stab at shaping the article up and posted the results at User:John FitzGerald/CCB. I did not eliminate everything for which sources need to be provided, but provided fact tags for some of the assertions in the article. Statements for which it was unlikely that any reasonable source could be found I simply removed. I also left some unattested statements without fact tags because it should be easy to find a source for them, which I will try to do.

So if you could look at the parts of the draft that you're most concerned about and see if you think they're closer to what is wanted here we might be able to come to a group decision about what to do with the article. Or maybe my attempt will prove to be completely beside the point but at least that should help establish what needs to be done with the article. John FitzGerald 20:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

US/Commonwealth Spelling

I noticed someone had changed the heading "Fielding/Defense" to "Fielding/Defence". I figured since the "defense" part was referring to baseball, the US spelling was appropriate so I reverted. But when I checked the history I saw that it had been changed the other way by the edit prior to the one I reverted. Rather than continue flipping back and forth, we should decide which spelling to use and put a comment in the article to avoid this recurring. I'll argue in favour of the US spelling in this particular instance, since it is referring to baseball. I think this article is actually a very good case for violating the normal Wikipedia practice of sticking to either US or British spelling throughout the entire article. We're inherently comparing the two cultures, so applying the appropriate and different spellings at the appropriate places seems logical. -dmmaus 00:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

well, i could bring out the whole we invented the language so u spell stuff our way. but im not going too. i (of course) prefer defence (it looks better than defense) and the word defence was there for a long time until someone changed it without a discussion like this. quite frankly, i don't think its too important. Pratj 16:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

You need to cite Noah Webster for violating wikipedia rules. :) Wahkeenah 17:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
It's not the most important issue, but the article should be consistent. I use Canadian government spelling, which is a mixture of American and British spelling: colour, organize, defence, program, cheque, and both licence and license. That might be a useful compromise. Actually, I like Wahkeenah's and dmmaus's suggestion. John FitzGerald 16:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree that cricket words should be spelled the British way, and baseball words the American way. Stephen Turner (Talk) 17:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually I doubt there are very many instances. Which reminds me, why don't we Americans spell it "instanse"? But one could say "baseball favors the power game" and "cricket favours place-hitting" in the same sentence (why isn't it "sentense"?) and that might be excessively cute but I don't have a problem with it. d:) Wahkeenah 17:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
And why don't you write "advertize"? That's always puzzled me. But I'm getting off-topic. Stephen Turner (Talk) 17:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Removing original research and POV

Since no one has commented on my suggestions for revision, I decided to introduce them here a bit at a time and see what people think. I have taken out of the Fielding section those assertions which seem to me not to be obviously true and for which citations are not offered (some were mine). I've been wrong before, but if the rest of you disagree with how I've gone about it we can still by discussing the changes come up with a better idea of how to revise this article. If there are no fundamental objections to the changes I'll continue with other sections next week. The complete draft of my suggested revision is still at User:John FitzGerald/CCB. John FitzGerald 12:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to put anything indisputable back (or to put anything back; I shouldn't be talking as if I were king). Anyway, I probably thought it wasn't germane to a comparison of the sports as they exist today. I've been wrong before, though. John FitzGerald 19:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I think it's useful to illustrate how the games of baseball and cricket diverged from each other in the 1800s, and that's why I bring that info in. Most of the stuff that was in there about one sport being more "athletic" than the other due to the presence or lack of gloves is POV-pushing. But it's fair to say that it changes the nature of fielding. Also, a cricket ball presumably gets "mushier" as the game goes on, just as a baseball used to. The frequent substitution of new baseballs keeps "the" game ball consistently white, but also consistently hard. If I'm wrong about the cricket ball getting (somewhat) softer as the game goes along, let me know before I post something about it. Wahkeenah 19:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
    • No, you're right, the cricket ball does get softer as the game goes on. As I understand it, this makes it travel slightly faster, which makes it harder for the batsman to hit, but also makes it travel faster when he does hit it; so a new ball (which the fielding side can take after 480 deliveries in a Test match) will often result in a batsman getting out, but will also often result in the scoring rate increasing. Stephen Turner (Talk) 20:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Aha. Interesting details. I wonder why it travels faster? My guess would be that it's similar to how they discovered how to make a golf ball fly farther. All the nicks and cuts in the cricket ball probably help "move" the air around it and make it more aerodynamic, just as the dimples in a golf ball do (they discovered that the old leather golf balls flew farther when they were nicked up than when they were new). This discussion may correlate to what happened when baseball switch from "small ball" to the "power game". They talk about how the baseball itself got "livelier" in 1919-1920, but that's only part of the story. Just as important, was substituting a new baseball frequently. That kept it white and easier to see, as well as harder, and batters felt freer to whale away at it. Much of the "small ball" game was necessitated by the somewhat "defensive" posture the batters were forced into, due to the ball being darker and softer. Wahkeenah 20:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

i've been away for 2 weeks and i know this is late but anyway and i hope you read this. i have no "evidence" for this but all my hours laying in front of TV watching cricket the ball gets slower as it gets older. as it gets softer (trust me from personal experience a ball 80 overs old is still very hard, by no means soft) it does not bounce off the pitch as hard, so it is slower. and the knocks in a cricket ball do not increase the speed like a golf ball. the opposite is true. the reason swing occurs is that the clean side travels through the air faster than the battered and bruised side. thats why spin bowlers use the old ball as it will no longer offer anything to a fast bowler Pratj 15:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The pre-1920 bats were also like sections of telephone pole. You couldn't swing them fast and they weren't flexible, so power hitting was much more difficult.

Anyway, I have made the rest of the revisions I intended to. I have also added a lot of fact tags, but not as many as a purist would require. I could have tagged the sections about sportsmanship, but I don't expect there are any scholarly references, and the difference is so obvious that I figure that unless someone can come up with counterexamples it should be left in. By the way I found the addition of the point about individual responsibility in baseball sportsmanship to be valuable. Perhaps it could be amplified by description of how a call is appealed in baseball.

I'll check and see if i have inadvertently removed anything I didn't intend to. I'm sure many people will be pleased I removed the dreaded word athletic, to which some people seem to have almost religious objections. John FitzGerald 12:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Your argument would be that the pre-1920 bats were specifically geared toward small-ball, and the post-1920 bats (eventually) were made with the power game in mind. It's certainly true that bats break a lot more often than they once did. I think bats in the old days were made of hickory, possibly even oak. Now they are mostly ash, which is also a hard wood, but better suited to the power game. I'll see what I can do about elaborating on the appeal process (as well as the protest process, perhaps). Wahkeenah 16:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Good point about the bats – are they the chicken or the egg, eh? If you look at photographs of pre-WWI batters, their bats are like tree trunks, with especially thick handles. If elaborating on protests doesn't seem advisable I'll trust your judgment. I think there is a good chance it would illustrate your general point admirably, though. John FitzGerald 21:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Changes in equipment drive changes in other equipment. Meanwhile, I'm a little hesitant to elaborate much on the appeal process for fear it will get wordy. I'll get back to it later. Wahkeenah 23:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction!

In the Bowling/pitching section, it says "Replaced pitchers cannot return to pitch again in the same game"... then latter it says "moving a pitcher to a fielding position and returning him to pitch later in the game is legal in baseball"

So which is it? Tompw 21:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

  • As long as the pitcher is in the lineup, playing somewhere in the field, he can return to the mound. In fact, any fielder can be cycled to any position as needed, although it's seldom done at the big league level. If anyone is taken out of the lineup, no matter what his position, he is done for the game. It certainly could be worded better. Wahkeenah 22:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Comparison_of_baseball_and_cricket/Archive_1&oldid=1087629320"