Wow. Did the Royals academy really produce 14 big leaguers from non-baseball-players in 3 years? If so, that's an amazing success that should be duplicated.

I like the Cricket idea too. Why not? Should take a look at softball players too. Can an underhanded softball pitcher be moved into baseball?

Imagine the havoc Chanderpaul could wreak on a baseball pitching staff if you converted him to a lead-off hitter who routinely fashioned 100-pitch at-bats.

I appreciate the creative thinking here, but has this writer ever watched a baseball game? Does he know what a baseball bat looks like opposed to a cricket bat? (I'm sure he does. I'm just being a smartass.) And, crikey, if they relly could do this, it would kill the sport. Yes to seeing if cricketers can convert their skills--something I've thought a team should do for a long time and am very intrigued by--but I call shenanigans on everything else. Cricket skills are not going to make a baseball player superhuman.

Better yet, why not convert me from a tee-ball player into a baseball player? I practically never miss in tee-ball!

I thought I read something about MLB undertaking some kind of contest in India to find a cricket player who could perform the best as a baseball pitcher. Anyone recall that article?

Somebody should try to convert me from a middle school teacher to a baseball player. I have good patience, I'm tall, and my arm has suffered very little abuse over the years.

Dear Shooty in 2008!
I have indeed watched hundreds of baseball games. I too pondered the effect the different bats would have. Although the cricket bat is much wider than the baseball bat, it has, like the baseball bat, a very small portion of it that is usable. Most of the cricket bat is useless. Hitting off the side of it would lead to what I believe cricketers refer to as a "nick" which is a little pop-up to one of the fielders surrounding the batsman. The sweet-spot of a cricket bat is thus just as small as that of a baseball bat. In fact, the cricket bat is shorter, making it even harder to hit.
So I think the difference is negligible although I concede that it's easier to control what direction you hit the ball to with a flat hitting surface.
I agree with you that this idea would make baseball unwatchable.
Leander Schaerlaeckens

Anyone who is good at one of the ball-and-bat sports will have a good chance at being good at another. The athletic abilities involved are very similar, even though there are significant differences between a bowling motion and a pitching motion, for instance, which would mean a lot of retraining would be needed.

This suggestion, however, as Shooty notes, makes less sense:

Good cricketers can hit to any direction at will. How easy it would be for them to foul pitches off endlessly, either until they draw a walk or, better yet, until the opposing team runs out of pitchers?

a) amen, it ain't as easy to do with a baseball bat
b) a lot of foul balls in baseball come on bad pitches: the batter is fooled on a high pitch and pops it straight back, or on an outside pitch and slices it, or an inside pitch and pulls it. Obviously you can foul off a strike down the middle, but it's harder to do, and that 90 degrees of fair territory is a killer. The discipline to lay off bad pitches would help a cricketer, but professional pitchers throw mostly good pitches.

And as an afterthought: the bunt-third-strike rule might hamper a cricketer's foul-'em-off-style, as well: a purely defensive spoiling of a pitch would probably be called a bunt third strike.

Cricketers face pitches of roughly the same speed and with even more movement than baseball hitters do. Although there is a mechanical difference which arises from cricketers swinging at pitches that have just bounced and are thus coming up, as opposed to the downward plane of a pitched baseball.

Not really to the first bit. A bowler's speed is measured aggregate from when it leaves the the bowler's hand to when it reaches the crease, not once the ball has bounced, which drops the speed dependent on the pitch. For example, Akhtar, the fastest bowler in the game (or at least he was) may allegedly bowl in the 90mphs, but the ball can reach the batsman somewhere around the 70mph mark on a soft pitch. Pathan, measured on the same pitch (this was last Christmas in the India vs Pakistan) tests, was getting the ball (after bouncing) to the batsman between 60-65mph, although his 'delivery' was overall in the low 80s. Now, that's a very soft pitch, but these are the first over with the new ball - essentially, the fastest ball that met the bat of Dravid that day was 72.1mph, I think. Even on a rock-hard pitch, a looping bounce could still be expected to knock a good chunk off the speed.

But the height of the strike zone is roughly the same, starting from the ground and measuring 28 inches to just below the waste, much like baseball.

This drastically under-plays the difficulty in a normal delivery hitting the wickets. Watch a bowl-off and you'll see what I mean! The bowler is not straight on to the wicket, often throwing across his body and indeed most of the time is not even aiming for the wicket, rather, he is aiming for a ball that swings away or across the batsman to tempt him into playing it. Give a pitcher an unlimited amount of balls within one foot of the strikezone, and watch batting averages fall. While the dimensions of the strikezone may be similar, the location most definetly is not - the mechanics of defending a ball with your bat (then body) at ground level are very different that one at waist-height with a bat a fifth as wide.

This isn't even talking about the mechanics of the swing, which completely seperates the batsman's and the hitter's art - one starting at the toes, going back and then forward; the other starting behind the shoulders, coming round and through. Shots that have a vaguely spherical shape to them are rare enough to still be called 'baseball shots' in cricket (KP plays a couple) but they sure as heck are still far removed from using the entire upper torso - the closest you'd get is a hook shot, which is normally the resolve of those who lack patience.

Criticisms aside, I like this piece, but I think it's just too far to suggest a cricketer's skills could ever translate well to baseball, barring fielding - it would be like suggesting that someone who played field hockey could star at ice hockey, or olympic volleyball at basketball - yes, I'm sure they could play it to a certain level, but not major-league quality. A more sensible suggestion would be that a sporting culture that emphasises good eyesight and hand-eye coordination would be more likely to produce baseball-type prodigies than one that emphasised running and jumping, and thus pre-teen academies could work well in places like India and Pakistan.

Even if a cricketer COULD hit 100 balls in a row, which they can't, we're ignoring the fact that 20 or 30 of those would likely be FAIR balls, and thus outs. You don't have to run on every "hit" in cricket, you just have to be sure you don't fly out.

Shots that have a vaguely spherical shape to them are rare enough to still be called 'baseball shots' in cricket

I'm sorry, what is a 'shot' in this context? A long drive?

I'm sorry, what is a 'shot' in this context? A long drive?

Sorry - by 'cricket shot' I meant the equivalent of 'baseball swing'. Essentially, it's rare for a cricketer to either swing the bat in a way that he would follow through across his body at above knee level - i.e. a swing primarily upon the x-axis. Most cricket shots involve footwork to get the bat behind the ball first.

I can think of at least one cricketer who did try out for a baseball team - Ed Smith, who was in the england team briefly in the mid 1990's, had a spell at the New York Mets, though at what level I don't know. He wrote a book about it called "playing hardball". Anyway, it didn't work out.

I think the author overstates the potential ease with which cricketers could become good selective hitters, but these 2 propositions seem to be true:

1. Truly outstanding cricket batsmen must have a decent chance of showing some sort of good bad control and/or power to major league standards given some training;

2. There's a hell of a lot more money in baseball than football, so perhaps a few can be tempted to try it.

Tangentially, one thing that has always struck me as odd is how MLB has tried to break into China and not India, when operating costs would be the same and people are well used to a bat and ball game - indeed, are obsessed with it - whereas basketball and soccer are King in the PRC. If I was going to set up a Royals type academy abroad, it'd be in Mumbai (or maybe Australia).

At least cricketers aren't afraid of brushing power hitters off the plate.

I can think of at least one cricketer who did try out for a baseball team - Ed Smith, who was in the england team briefly in the mid 1990's, had a spell at the New York Mets, though at what level I don't know. He wrote a book about it called "playing hardball". Anyway, it didn't work out.

I don't think Ed Smith never had a serious trial. He basically took one session of batting practice whilst at the Mets spring training - he had that as a result of being there to research for the book, rather than writing the book as an afterthought.

Ian Pont got the furthest that I know of - he certainly had several trials with MLB teams and I believe started a game in Spring training for someone.

Brett Lee had a trial for the Dbacks - but I have the impression that was a couple of pitches and the odd swing at a scouting session in Oz- not particularly serious.

I seem to remember seeing something about Gilchrist - but again nothing serious.


There's quite a few issues with this - as pointed out, running is optional - the reason why its so infrequent for batsmen to be bowled (equivalent to being struck out) or caught because hitting groundballs is hugely emphasised at the expense of power - a large % of a cricketers shots closest analogy is bunts - full swings are generally reserved for poor deliveries. In terms of Plate approach most cricketers make jason kendall look like dave kingman. There's also not a paricularly great reason for cricketers to have great strike-zone judgement as a result - the consequences of leaving a ball on the stumps mean that players defend pretty much anything borderline - you might get juan pierre's as easily as Reggie Willits.

Another is that baseballers don't have to contend with the ball bouncing. The combinations of this and the above means that a "cricket swing" is in general very different to a baseball swing (golf and baseball swings are closer than baseball and cricket) -in cricket you'll gnerally have the bat vertical and there's no emphasis on torso rotation.

The Tools required for batting in both forms of the game are similar, in termsof demands on raw hand-eye coordination, so there'll be a good correllation- but the techniques involved aren't (there's not a particularly good analogy to a large curveball).

Having said that, if I ran an MLb team i'd consider having scouts in india and bangladesh. Cricket will do a reasonable job of winnowing out those with the most hitting talent and the huge disparity in wages means you chould be able to lure the pick of the talent.

Did anyone other than me read a baseball book when they were younger about the kid who hit 1.000 in the majors because all he did was foul-off balls until he got walked? Honestly, that's all I remember about the book, and I think the title was "The Kid who Hit 1.000".

The original Kid Who Batted 1.000 is from 1951. A kind of cover version appeared in 2002.

Brett Lee worked out for the Diamondbacks a couple years ago, I seem to recall him throwing in the mid-80's, which is pretty good for someone who had never pitched before. He could probably throw in the mid-90's with some training.

Here's an article about it. The picture shows he wouldn't be much of a hitter I reckon.

Well, I've only been able to tolerate a little cricket watching ...

1) I think you'd have a better shot converting bowlers to pitchers than batsmen to batters.

2) #10 hits on the main problem -- it is relatively easy to put some part of the bat on the ball in cricket (the wide bat) ... and since you don't have to run, the little squibbers "back to the mound" don't turn into outs.

3) the defense has a much bigger field to cover which makes it much easier to get "hits". A "grounder to short" is usually a hit -- a hard grounder might make it to the boundary for 4 runs.

4) Basically, you get out in cricket in one of two ways -- fly/pop outs and strikeouts. Given the few fielders covering all that ground (and some pretty crappy fielders near as I can tell ... though some of the most amazing line drive catches you'll ever see), a decent number of those fly balls drop in anyway. Given the width of the bat and that, as noted earlier, there aren't that many pitches actually in danger of hitting the wickets, the batter is not in that much fear of a strikeout.

I can't disagree with the author necessarily. With training, I'm sure the best cricket batsmen and bowlers could translate their talent to reach the majors. But the styles are vastly different and it wouldn't be a quick and easy transition. IMHO, based on limited cricket.

As to softball, I think you'd have better luck converting the hitters. The pitchers aren't generating that much velocity, they're just very close. They're so close that, even at lower velocities, the batters have about the same or less time to react as an ML batter does. If you can find some batters that can pull Lisa Fernandez (OK, whoever the top pitchers are these days), then you might well have someone who can get around on a ML fastball. Then again, I'm not sure anyone ever could pull Lisa Fernandez. (Granted, you might have better luck looking at men's fast-pitch leagues but the ones I used to watch in Chicago, it seemed pretty clear they were all failed baseball players.)

Fox (I think) had Jenny Finch doing little pregame filmed pieces for a while. She made a few ML hitters look like fools.

Finally, along these lines, one of those old Wide World of Sports type shows did this neat thing where they brought together some of the best players in the world at each of the racket sports (including John McEnroe roughly in his prime) and had a round-robin tournament where they played each sport but their own. That was kind of neat because they pretty much all were decent to good at those other sports (not that I would know really). If memory serves, McEnroe did win the thing.

I've always been confused that cricket loving nations haven't adopted baseball. I've watched cricket 5 or 6 times when stuck in Europe with nothing on TV. It seems so close to being a good sport. Problems: the games WAY too long, the fans are too far away, and it's too hard to make an out. Baseball involves the same basic skills, and is just so much more commercially appealing b/c it fixes these problems.

I think you'd have a better shot converting bowlers to pitchers than batsmen to batters.

I'd guess the reverse. There's really very little overlap between bowling and pitching. Movement is generated in a totally different way, selecting better bowlers wouldn't get you better offspeed stuff and outfield arm strength would be a better prediction of fastball velocity than bowling velocity.

With training, I'm sure the best cricket batsmen and bowlers could translate their talent to reach the majors.

A sample of them maybe - the issue being that selecting top batsmen really fails to guarantee having enough power. The leading example here would probably being sachin Tendulkar - one of the top batsmen in the last ~15 years - in baseball he's probably a 5ft4 1st baseman. I can't think of an alltime great batsman over 6ft, in baseball I believe the opposite is fairly true?

Baseball involves the same basic skills, and is just so much more commercially appealing b/c it fixes these problems.

But everyone in England has played rounders and baseball is popularly seen as a kids game dressed up pretending to be something fancy. The big new thing in cricket is Twenty20.

By the way I am not saying *I* feel that way - of course I love baseball which is why I post here.

if they relly could do this, it would kill the sport

I've always figured that a Roy Thomas PA was close to what the author describes. Attempting to get a no risk free base by fouling off anything that wasn't a batting practice fastball. (And taking all balls. A walk is perfect for this style)

And Thomas was about as good as you can be for a zero power player. And I don't see how you can be anything but a zero power player with the no risk style of batting.

I don't think it'd kill the game if there was only one guy doing it -- though it'd get old in a hurry. More than one player doing it successfully, you'd see rule changes. Come to think of it, Roy Thomas version 1.0 drove a fairly important rule change (foul ball strike)

I was reading Spalding's World Tour and they mentioned how some of those players tried their hand at cricket and failed miserably. I would think that a century or so of organized baseball would make the opposite transition very easy. And since their "zone" is pretty narrow, wouldn't pitchers just throw a ton of sliders? Do bowlers have "pitches" that move on the horizontal plane?
It is interesting to think about though.

SI had a piece on Ian Botham a while back. He'd tried a little batting practice and found it pretty easy. Said something like "nothing but full tosses"

And I know there were similar stories of Bradman (who actually liked baseball and had evidently fooled around with it)

And I have little doubt that they could be good in a batting practice setup -- with a little time to adjust.

Just as I have little doubt that Babe Ruth really did put on a show at cricket -- when the bowlers were giving him easy balls to hit.

Doesn't mean they'd actually have been good in a competitive setting.

Here are a couple of interesting articles on cricket and baseball. The first article, in a newspaper in India which covers cricket, discusses a program by MLB aimed at providing baseball clinics in India.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-322761,prtpage-1.cms

The India Times article cites Robin Williams' quip that cricket is baseball on valium.

The other article is a mlb.com piece which discusses the history of exhibitions and cross-overs between cricket and baseball. For instance, I wasn't aware that Sammy Sosa put on a cricket exhibition in 2000, hitting some massive shots in London or that America's top baseball players in the 1880's held their own in cricket matches against some of England's best players.
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20060608&content_id=1495668&vkey=news_mlb&fext;=.jsp&c_id=mlb

I know the Red Sox made an offer to Gilchrist and Tendulkar. Tendulkar said a quiet no.

It has been discussed on this site before, but there is a vast difference in cricket and baseball swings. But the players at the top have the basic tool. Good pitch recognition, good hand eye co-ordination et al, so conversion og a good batsman to good hitter is feasible.

#9 : Lots of bowlers nowadays bowl 90 mph or higher. Baseball speeds are also measured from the hand.

The strike zone is not just the stumps actually. In cricket, there is pressure to score runs, so if you can't get one through the strike zone, you bowl outside tempting the batsman to make an ill advised decision.
Baseball, I think, has better fielders though. Definitely better arms. I don't know the comparison between lateral movement and surehandness as that is fogged by the presence of mitts

Didn't Randall Simon play cricket?

Back in the 1850's and 1860's, there was some overlap between those who played baseball at a high level and those who played cricket. I'm pretty sure that Harry Wright, George Wright, or both, had cricket backgrounds. In those days, it might very well be said that cricket and baseball were competing for a place in American society - and baseball won.

Of topic, and not unknown, but Travis Wilson was a softball player.

Academies in baseball have worked fabulously well and would work equally well in this country except for one thing:

The Amateur Draft

There is no value to a particular team to developing a young player when that player is most likely to be drafted by someone else.

The only way you could do it is by "dark of night." Keeping the identities of your academy players unknown and by keeping them out of high school and club baseball until you can draft them. A tall order.

But Voros that isn't a bug that's a feature (from ownership's point of view). The draft removes the incentive for teams to invest in player development, and so keeps industry-wide costs down.

I know the Red Sox made an offer to Gilchrist and Tendulkar. Tendulkar said a quiet no.

Tendulkar is basically an Indian religious icon - and makes ridiculous money (I think $15-20M per year, primarily endorsement driven). I didn't realize the Red Sox made an offer to him, but I recall they did to Gilchrist.

Cricket with 20/20 now is moving towards baseball territory, I feel.

I've said this a million times but..."Cricket is in my blood, but I prefer baseball"

In saying that you can not beat an entralling test match with India's victory at the WACA the best recent example.

Cricketers who would be good baseballers (just my opinion)

Ricky Ponting, Andrew Symonds, Brett Lee, Kevin Pieterson, Sachin

Andre Rodgers played cricket as a kid and learned to play baseball.

I'm pretty sure that Harry Wright, George Wright, or both, had cricket backgrounds.

Harry Wright played cricket. According to baseball reference, his father was a good cricketer. The family was from Sheffield, England, which was solid cricket playing territory even in those days.

Cricket with 20/20 now is moving towards baseball territory, I feel.

I've said this a million times but..."Cricket is in my blood, but I prefer baseball"

In saying that you can not beat an entralling test match with India's victory at the WACA the best recent example.

Cricketers who would be good baseballers (just my opinion)

Ricky Ponting, Andrew Symonds, Brett Lee, Kevin Pieterson, Sachin

I agree with you - cricket is in my blood, and in terms of peak value, India Australia is just.. spectacular, or the Ashes.

I think Symonds is actually a very good call, because he has the athleticism to be a good fielder as well as a good hitter. Back in his day, I think Jonty Rhodes would have made a great SS, Although he would probably have hit like one.

But Voros that isn't a bug that's a feature (from ownership's point of view).

Yes, but I'm not an owner.

#9 : Lots of bowlers nowadays bowl 90 mph or higher. Baseball speeds are also measured from the hand.

Yeah, baseball speeds are definetly from the hand, but there is a huge difference between throwing a 90mph fastball on a downward plane and bouncing a 90mph cricket-ball off a pitch designed to soak up its impact as to what speed the batsman sees the ball at. As I tried to make clear, when we say Ahktar bowls at 95mph on his top delivery, the ball, after bouncing, reaches the batsman sometimes as low as 70mph.

And while it's true to say that there are quite a few bowlers now that do break the 90mph top speed, there are very few that can do it consistently (like Brett Lee, for example). For example, Steve Harmison has a top-speed around 95mph, but the vast majority of his deliveries are in the 80s, and that's before the ground saps the mph out of the ball. It's not a big point, but it's often implied that cricketers need the same reaction times as a batter because they see balls of the same speed, which really isn't true apart from the occasional yorker. What they do both deal with is a moving ball, either from a bounce or from delivery type.

#16: I well remember that book, which is pretty good considering I read it only once. It was good.

The only MLB player I can recall that anyone said came out of the Royals Academy was Frank White. (And you could hardly hear anyone talk about Frank White without the apparently near-obligatory Royals Academy mention.)

Academies in baseball have worked fabulously well and would work equally well in this country except for one thing: The Amateur Draft

Clearly, then the commissioner's office should do it. Now <u>that</u> would be something for which I think we could all applaud, and would be a crown jewel in Selig's stewardship of that office. It's not like baseball doesn't have the money to do it.

Ricky Ponting, Andrew Symonds, Brett Lee, Kevin Pieterson, Sachin

ponting and symonds would be my bets - Symonds especially. Pietersen I think might hit somewhat, but probably doesn't get past LF on the defensive spectrum (same for Afridi). Just don't see Sachin making the transition at all.

BTW, Ron Washington also went to the Royals Baseball Academy. U.L. Washington did, as well.

this idea is silly. these guys aren't fouling off pitches, they're protecting the wicket, by putting their bodies and bats in front of it. they can do that because they're not required to run when they hit the ball. any batter who stands in front of the plate will be out. it's much easier for them to "tap" the ball with the wide bat. watch the tutorial videos over on wikipedia's cricket article to see what i mean. there is no way to translate that type of batting into baseball skills.

The skill sets don't translate at all, except for fielding, and even there cricketers would have to relearn everything to field balls with the wrong hand in a glove and baseballers would have to get used to hurting their soft little fingers when fielding and catching hard-hit balls.

Batting is completely different, although, as Alou suggested, Twenty20 requires batsmen to hit the ball more in the air, whereas normally the aim is to keep the ball on the ground to avoid being caught. Hand-eye co-ordination sure, but you could say the same about any ball player. Of course, it's more alike than most based on natural talent, but still body positioning is so different everything would have to be relearnt.

Ponting would be good at any sport - and I think he is an expert golfer who plays off scratch or a handicap of one or two. Symonds is a beast who would certainly have the eye, power, fielding skills and arm to succeed at baseball. He also has an aggressive attitude which would translate well. Personally I'd love to see Vlad Guerrero in a Test match.

Bowling/pitching bears no resemblance whatsoever. Bowlers need to keep their arms straight to deliver the ball (with one or two famous exceptions of course). They run in sometimes 40 or 50 yards at a good pace before delivering the ball. Often these guys, who can bowl straight-armed at 90 mph, can't throw to save their lives - their "pitching" may not even make 60 mph. Pont, the guy mentioned above I think was an allrounder (batsman and bowler - not especially good at either IIRC) whose suitability for baseball was that he had a strong throwing arm as a fielder. It was not his ability to bowl fast.

In the old days of Bradman and more recently Benaud (I can remember Richie talking about it on TV), Aussie cricketers used to play a lot of baseball. I don't think that was the case so much in England.

And while it's true to say that there are quite a few bowlers now that do break the 90mph top speed, there are very few that can do it consistently

In the recent Indo-Aus series, Mitchell Johnsonw as bowling at an average of 146ks, and Brett Lee was averaging in the lower 140s. Baseball pitchers also pitch on a downward plane, just that the pitches don't hit the ground. Its akin to facing a swinging full toss from Lee, I guess.

Of course, it's more alike than most based on natural talent, but still body positioning is so different everything would have to be relearnt.


This is true, but you are talking of the top batsmen in the world, and you would expect them to pick up swinging from the hips and weight transfers much more easily than us mortals.

Bowling/pitching bears no resemblance whatsoever.
The mechanics of the lower half of the body are similar. Get a good plant and then pivot around to throw. The upper body and straight arm muddles the issue, but is it something that different?

Just don't see Sachin making the transition at all.

While you may be right, esp now with his advancing years, as an Indian, I refuse to concede that Sachin would be bad at anything!!

Its not just hand eye co-ordination, but hand-eye co-ordination to effect a similar result, which is why I think, that with a cpl of months training, these guys will be able to manage it.

While you may be right, esp now with his advancing years, as an Indian, I refuse to concede that Sachin would be bad at anything!!

We'd have to hear less about David Eckstein if he managed it.

One thing to consider is that being a top batsman will be able to play most or all shots well, whereas in baseball you simply have one swing. A guy like Tendulkar or Lara who's got a low centre of gravity, great hand-eye co-ordination, beautiful technique is probably going to be able to look somewhat respectable but it may be that what you actually want is a much more limited guy who simply smashes the ball incredibly hard. Flintoff, say.

If Ian Botham could play football professionally I'm sure he could have played baseball too. Of all time I think Viv Richards would be the guy you'd want to bet on to make the transition. Fantastic athlete, awesome eyesight and hand-eye co-ordination, big guy, hit the ball ludicrously hard, hit lots of sixes.

The mechanics of the lower half of the body are similar. Get a good plant and then pivot around to throw. The upper body and straight arm muddles the issue, but is it something that different?

I think it is. The best arms in cricket (in terms of getting the ball from the outfield from a standing start) tend to belong to batsmen. Lee and Flintoff have good throws, as will other fast bowlers, but I don't think there's any correlation between being able to throw hard and bowl quickly.

AlouGoodbye,
good call on Viv Richards - I think the beauty of cricket is that a lot of it is simply redirecting force in a way that it isn't applicable quite in baseball - that's why a guy like Sachin, Gower, etc etc were so wonderful to watch, because a great cover drive is far more pleasing that a hoiked 6. In baseball, raw power seems like it would have greater application - which is why a Viv Richards / Kapil Dev / Andrew Flintoff type might transition better.

Anyone care to post or explain in simple terms what the rules of Cricket are?
It would be interesting to see some Cricket players try baseball. Of course they would then have to learn to field. In Cricket can the bowler/pitcher throw a ball at the batters head and then have it curve and be a strike?

vr, Xei

Wikipedia's rules of cricket

It would be interesting to see some Cricket players try baseball. Of course they would then have to learn to field. In Cricket can the bowler/pitcher throw a ball at the batters head and then have it curve and be a strike?

From Wikipedia: "In 1987, [Ian] Pont had trials with six Major League Baseball clubs as a pitcher. Recording speeds of around 100 mph, he gained a one months extended trial with the Philadelphia Phillies. At spring training, he was a starting pitcher for the Phillies in one exhibition game, becoming the first and, to date, only professional cricketer to play in a professional baseball game."

Cricketers have to field. The ball is just as hard, maybe harder, and they field without a glove (except the wicketkeeper - catcher equivalent - and he wears a glove on each hand). The ball is not usually struck as hard however, but it can be.

There is so much depth nowadays in baseball that it's hard to imagine a cricketer being able to make the transition without starting at an early age. It would be easier to go the other way, I suspect.

A bowler can't legally bowl at someone's head, unless the ball bounces first. It is a common and legitimate tactic for a fast bowl to hurl a "bouncer" at a batsman's head, throat or heart. The batsmen wear protective clothing, including a helmet usually with a grille in front of the face. Helmets were only introduced in the 70s and became commonplace in the 80s. If a ball doesn't bounce and is above waist high (known as a beamer), it gets called a no-ball (similar to a ball, but not the same), the batting team is awarded a run and the bowler can receive a warning and possibly a stricter punishment. But that doesn't happen often. A bowler will apologize instantly if he bowls a beamer and it is almost invariably accepted as being an accident. I recall an Indian bowling one or two in anger last year against England and they looked intentional. Can't remember who it was, and such occurrences are rare.

In Cricket can the bowler/pitcher throw a ball at the batters head and then have it curve and be a strike?

Yup. Actually there are 2 distinct class of bowlers.
Ones call fast bowlers, who usually bowl 80 mph or higher can' do this. They can change which way the ball moves in teh air, change how much it bounces, change their speeds, change which way the ball moves off the pitch.
Other general class is "spin bowlers", who bowl around 60 mph and pretty much bowl curveballs. They get the ball high with lot of spin and get it to dip, and then move appreciably either way after pitching. Technically you can move towards the bowler to hit those pitches, but if you miss it, you can be out if the catcher collects it and breaks the stump before you get back.

This idea is ingenious. A key point in MONEYBALL is that effective hitting is in large part a matter of mental discipline. Some people have it ingrained in their heads to lay off bad pitches, or foul them off. The writer says, in effect, look for a good athlete, perhaps from a culture that plays BOTH baseball and cricket; find one, especially, who has a good eye, quick reflexes, and mental discipline; help him perfect a foul-off strategy strategy; and let him lead off. Let's say he develops a certain skill at this. The starting pitcher now knows that his first batter will present him with a weird challenge: everyone stares hard: JUST THROW STRIKES. The pitcher tenses. The batter uses a slight adaptation of his cricket style, having learned to pull or push wide the grounders he would normally bounce up the middle. He takes gets a walk every third at bat, and, in a good outing, forces the starter to throw 12-15 pitches. By the time he gets to the second batter, the pitcher has gone through a mental and physical ordeal. Yes, the cricket swing is not the normal baseball swing. But lots of "punch" hitters have succeeded because they do NOT use the "baseball swing," where the sudden snap of the wrists generates power (and ensures that often ball players will mistime a swing).

The idea is ingenious. Billy Beane should hire this guy!

This is true, but you are talking of the top batsmen in the world, and you would expect them to pick up swinging from the hips and weight transfers much more easily than us mortals.

Based on my basketball coaching experience (hear me out, please!), I wouldn't make this assumption. When I try to teach shooting to grade schoolers (wish me luck), some kids just naturally have the proper form and wonder what I'm going on about when I tell them to have their elbow under the ball ("I can't do it any other way," they say), and some just simply can't do it (at least, not without hundreds of hours more practice that they're not going to get/give). It has to be physiology.

BTW, Ron Washington also went to the Royals Baseball Academy. U.L. Washington did, as well.

Thanks, Shooty, I never heard that.

Yuck.

Ed Smith actually compared *batting* in cricket to *pitching* in baseball. You're in there, in there, in there, until such a point as everything unravels (you get out in cricket, or you give up a lot of runs in pitching).

I've played both and the two games are nothing alike. After a spell playing baseball I developed a couple of new shots in cricket (I got much better extension on my pull shots, but also tended to hit them as baseball line drives, e.g. at chest height, which is a very bad thing in cricket as you'll get caught out doing this before too long) but I can't believe you could really learn plate discipline in baseball from cricketers.

Shiv Chanderpaul is a very dogged little player, but he does this knowing that he can bat all day if possible.

PS

http://www.sportstats.com.au/bloghome.html

Charles Davis has done a load of cricket research, a la early Bill James. Worth a read.

I like this blog for vanilla stat analysis of cricket.

http://blogs.cricinfo.com/itfigures/

Twenty20 Cricket is definitely moving more towards baseball with a total of 120 balls bowled for each side in a match. i watched the recent one in Australia between the hosts and India and it was quite the spectacle with fireworks and a loud crowd of 84,000. Since Twenty20 focuses more on putting as many runs on the board in the shortest time possible, the run rate(average number of runs scored in an over) is more important than in a 5 day test. You also have "power plays", where a certain number of fielders have to be positioned inside the circle. All of this leads to more free swinging batsmen who are more intent on hitting the ball over the heads of the drawn in fielders. But since this form of Cricket is fairly new, with the first Twenty20 match being played only 5 years ago, teams really haven't had time yet to develop a comprehensive strategy to how they should play. Should they go all out for the most runs from the start, or build up momentum before letting it all hang out?

And just to clarify some points in the article, the longest break in test Cricket is called "lunch", which is about 40 minutes long. Tea is later in the day, around the stereotypical time we in America have always seen it, 4 pm, and usually lasts 20 minutes or so.

In any form of cricket, the bowlers are limited to the number of overs they can bowl. In Twenty20 it's a maximum of 4 overs for any one bowler. In a One Day International(usually 50 overs), the limit per bowler is 10 overs. So the rules make it impossible to run out of pitchers, or wear down the opposing team's "staff". Bowlers are rotated over couple of overs to keep them fresh. Typically we see 3 or 4 dedicated bowlers in a "line-up" for Cricket, and 1 or 2 part-time bowlers or "all-arounders" who can bat as well as bowl.

I haven't been following Cricket that long, but I find the strategies employed in the various forms of the game to be fascinating. And if you think that there's controversy about baseball's strike zone, it has nothing on Cricket's LBW(leg before wicket) where the umpire has to decide if the ball had continued on it's projected path, whether it would hit the stumps thus making the batter out. And since the Umpire is standing at the other end of the wicket where he can't see the stumps or get a good view of the trajectory, it makes it very difficult to judge.

The positioning of the fielders brings up a myriad of possibilities. Strategies go all over the map, from bringing more fielders in when you're behind to try and make more catches/wickets, to closing the net around the batsmean to give him few holes to hit the ball through trying to limit the number of runs if you're ahead, plus countless others.

If you're up late at night, tune into www.myP2P.eu to watch some cricket. Right now India, Australia, and Sri Lanka are playing in the double round robin Commonwealth Bank ODI Series. Tonight it's India vs Sri Lanka, although rain is threatening to cance the match. Also there's a New Zealand vs England ODI in New Zealand.

9. OCF Posted: February 06, 2008 at 08:28 PM (#2685339)
Back in the 1850's and 1860's, there was some overlap between those who played baseball at a high level and those who played cricket. I'm pretty sure that Harry Wright, George Wright, or both, had cricket backgrounds. In those days, it might very well be said that cricket and baseball were competing for a place in American society - and baseball won.

36. Richard Posted: February 06, 2008 at 09:54 PM (#2685385)
Harry Wright played cricket. According to baseball reference, his father was a good cricketer. The family was from Sheffield, England, which was solid cricket playing territory even in those days.

Father Sam Wright was a club pro in New York and possibly moved to the United States for the professional opportunity. Father Sam, Harry, and George all played on US sides internationally. It was a professional cricket family. Both sons assisted at the club and Harry moved to Cincinnati in 1866 for the job as club pro at Union Cricket Club. For some more information see
George Wright at wikipedia
and the article by David Sentance listed in the References

replacing the parentheses in that URL, see
George Wright at wikipedia Wikipedia: George Wright (sportsman)

From home now. I didn't quickly find what I was looking for.

Google
flat bat
hits many advertisements for a flat bat as a modern baseball training tool.

Some time 120-144 years ago there were flat bats used in American base ball games. There were some flat on both sides and some standard round bats flattened on one side for bunting. At one time some were marketed in Spalding's Guide (1876 or later) for use in games. All partly-flat bats were outlawed --finally in 1892/93?-- for the reason some have noted above: the improved capability to hit foul balls at will would ruin the game. (Any foul hit with two strikes was just another fouled pitch, not a strike. They might have tried strike three on a foul bunt, or strike three on a foul hit with a flat-side bat. I suppose there were other advantages in using a flat bat, but it was considered unsporting to use one; finally they made it a matter of law.)

Notes.
Called balls were introduced at the annual meeting December 1863. Until that time the pitcher and catcher could play catch forever hoping to put out a runner off base (unlimited pitchouts at no cost). Chadwick counted more than 360 pitches by one pitcher in one game.

I just checked a reproduction Spalding's Guide for 1887 and there is no flat bat advertised.

In any form of cricket, the bowlers are limited to the number of overs they can bowl. In Twenty20 it's a maximum of 4 overs for any one bowler. In a One Day International(usually 50 overs), the limit per bowler is 10 overs. So the rules make it impossible to run out of pitchers

In any form of cricket, the bowlers are limited to the number of overs they can bowl. In Twenty20 it's a maximum of 4 overs for any one bowler. In a One Day International(usually 50 overs), the limit per bowler is 10 overs. So the rules make it impossible to run out of pitchers

Not in test cricket, the same two bowlers could bowl all day if the captain so desired

Not in test cricket, the same two bowlers could bowl all day if the captain so desired

McGrath and Warne pretty much did that on the last day of that Barbados test match which Lara won.

Tangentially, one thing that has always struck me as odd is how MLB has tried to break into China and not India, when operating costs would be the same and people are well used to a bat and ball game - indeed, are obsessed with it - whereas basketball and soccer are King in the PRC.

But it is very popular in Taiwan, and also in Korea, and of course Japan. I wonder if the exposure they get in those places, might not result in at least some curiosity in PRC, or at least in those parts that are close to their neighbors?

Tangentially, one thing that has always struck me as odd is how MLB has tried to break into China and not India, when operating costs would be the same and people are well used to a bat and ball game - indeed, are obsessed with it - whereas basketball and soccer are King in the PRC.

China also has a somewhat respectable national team. I don't believe India has one, or even a baseball league for that matter. I don't think China is as mad about soccer and basketball as India is about cricket, making it harder to conquer a share of the market there. Baseball seems to me to be too similar to cricket to interest India. Furthermore, China might fancy its chances of beating its arch-rivals Japan and Taiwan in the sport the latter two prefer: baseball.
Granted, you're more likely to turn someone from India into a major leaguer than you are someone from China.

I truly wish MLB would invest more overseas, especially in cricket loving countries. The game would catch on eventually and indeed it would be far more likely to grab a major leaguer from an India before it does somewhere like China.

But who knows what their fascination with growing the game in places where there isn't even a close resemblance to anything like baseball.

Heck, it'd be smarter to hit up the English speaking Caribbean. But alas, it seems that the growth of the game internationally has taken a backseat. Or perhaps, the media money that teams now have seem to make it less than important for them to want to find a place and grow and develop talent as they did in the past.

Then, perhaps it takes having someone from that country who knows the lay of the land and who love the game to make it work.

I do believe strongly that Indian would be great, especially considering how many students have come here and surely have come to appreciate baseball, as well as Silicon Valley types who have gone back home and understand the game and would invest in it.

As someone who's just got into baseball at the ripe old age of 55, and just started playing as well for the Brentwood Stags in the UK, and turning into a pretty decent 2nd baser (well for low grade uk baseball :)) but was bigtime into test match cricket for 40 years, I've thought about the comparisons between the two sports a fair bit.

First off the batsmen I reckon would make the transition the best, of present players, Gilchrist, Symonds, Flintoff and maybe Pieterson were the ones I thought of, Gilchrist especially strikes me (OK I'll get my coat) as having the closest to a baseball swing. Bowlers I think would have much less easier a transition, but Wazim Ackram and Waqar Younis seemed the closest in my mind, with their penchant for in-swinging yorkers to having a pitchers delivery, I also had this vision of Shane Warne as a knucklballer, ha ha. But remember bowlers aren't throwing, that they need a stiff arm at delivery gives a completely different body mechanics. If I was looking for fielders or pitchers I think I'd be looking into javelin throwers, they strike me as much closer in action terms.

But I do reckon although they look similar on a superficial level the two sports are actually very different, and everyones leaving out a key fact.

Batsmen in cricket are facing a bowler from slightly further away no? Although you can knock off three feet from the 5.5 foot added length of a cricket pitch, a pitcher off the mound I reckon stretches further forward than any cricket bowler. So not only do they have less speed to contend with because of ground friction, they also have about 8% more time for reaction to the 'pitch' because of pitch length, which probably means combined they have about 15% more time, that is huge, when you also consider how many major league pitchers are capable of pitching close to or over 100 mph, the average speeds are also about 10% more in baseball I reckon. It certainly shocked me in my first at bat, compared to cricket, how little time there was to respond.

And re fielding, throwing wise cricketers are complete amateurs, which is why the Australian test team have baseball coaches in for throwing, and its well noticeable the difference c0ompared to other test teams, but then baseball has a long and active history in Australia.

Good point about distance. Even though superficially they are the same distance, the pitchers in baseball get much closer. Baseball has the version of the backfoot no ball, while cricket has moved to front foot no ball.

Millionaires playing rotiserrie cricket with actual players with the player auctions! I find this interesting :)

Wonder if any other sport does this!

An all-star team of British cricketers will play a baseball game against the British National Baseball Team soon, a team composed, for the vast majority, of American minor leaguers (some as high as AAA) with British grandparents.

http://www.baseballsoftballuk.com/gen_insert.php?from_level3=Articles&db_story=2313&this_page=bsuknews&back=Current++News

Maybe I'm being overly nitpicky, but I'm surprised no one has objected to the mischaracterization in this article of what the book <u>Moneyball</u> was about. It wasn't about OBP or pitches per at bat, it was about maximizing results by taking advantage of market inefficiencies. At the time, batter selectivity was a trait that went mostly unrecognized by baseball front offices, which was why that ability featured prominently in the discussion in the book. But it's erroneous to say that the lesson learned from <u>Moneyball</u> had anything to do with defensive hitting.

Welcome to the board Petunia!
Few if any would disagree with your point, it's been beaten to death elsewhere (the market inefficiencies part, of course) - not that it's not valid here as well. I'm not sure why others hadn't commented on it yet but, oh well.

KC Academy - resurrecting such a thing doesn't make sense because of the draft + lack of incentive for the league to pay to develop prospects outside its jurisdiction. Furthermore, KC didn't find it cost effective (rightly or not). I guess the closest thing we have to it now is the RBI program...

I do believe it would be a good idea for MLB or some other entity to try to make small inroads in India with a baseball academy - though visa limits make me question whether that entity would be a team (the Twins dabble in the Netherlands/Europe, a few teams are poking around South Africa (Dodgers and Brewers mostly, I think), etc...).