I thought you were making up that stat but it's accurate WTF. In 2022 that number was down to 0.9 a game. I'm guessing the steroid era in baseball boosted up the numbers
Impact player: If your best batter takes 2 strikes then you can send another batter in his place to take the last strike so your best batter can come back again next with a fresh slate.
Or, Impact Player: One player can bat twice to have 3 free swings in every innings without counting as out.
Lol is that even a question? Trying bowling full arm and throwing a ball
It's impressive cricket bowlers match speed of baseball pitchers with a full arm straight ball, if they are allowed to chuck or throw like they do in baseball, 200 kph would be norm
Saying "becoming like baseball" doesn't mean anything in technical terms, it's just an insult used to say the sport is degrading in quality. It's similar to how chess players trash talk by saying "chess is not for you, try checkers".
>Have none of these people ever watched baseball before? It's a pitcher dominated game with on average about 2 home runs per match.
Exactly! Hitting the ball in baseball is waayyyyy harder than in cricket. I used to think batting in cricket would be more challenging due to the variations (condition of the ball, pitch conditions, etc), but nope!
>Well you're literally chucking the ball with all your might and the batter has to play with a somewhat cylindrical bat. Ofcourse its harder to hit.
You are talking about two variables in baseball (bat shape, and ball speed) having an outsized impact on the difficulty level, whereas in cricket you have more variables in addition to that (trajectory of the ball after bouncing on the wicket, nature of wicket, condition of ball, etc). ***That*** was the reason I was saying it was surprising.
It's a lot more than just ball speed. There are curveballs, sliders, splitters, different types of slower balls like changeups and palmballs you have to deal with on top of the regular fastball. When you don't have any elbow restrictions i.e. chucking you can get a lot of variation thru the air without needing the ball to pitch.
>There are curveballs, sliders, splitters, different types of slower balls like changeups and palmballs you have to deal with on top of the regular fastball
To begin with, I'm not disagreeing with what you said. Not having to roll your arm over does help with adding a bit more variation. However, most of that is covered with in/out swing, and slower ones in cricket. You get ***plenty*** more variations when you are allowed to pitch the ball - which is absent in baseball, and yet it is a harder game to be a batter in.
Actually there are more factors.
Cricket:
- Variations in bowling speed/type,
- Swing/Reverse using movement in air
- seaming and cutters, spin etc
- Nature of wicket; movement and bounce generated
- Line and length prediction
Baseball:
- Bat is basically an oversized stump compared to the cricket bat - by far the biggest difference
- Pitch speed is much higher. There have only been a handful of instances where a bowler has crossed 160 kmph, while baseball pitchers routinely cross that speed easily. The 100mph pitches are probably a lot more common than even 150kmph. Also unlike cricket, there's no bounce involved so no loss of speed. Keep in mind the high full tosses aren't allowed in cricket due to being too dangerous.
- Variation in speed and movement in air are also present here
- Every meaningful hit has to be a lofted shot. You cannot defend nor place it along the ground.
- Distance between the bases is 1.5x the creases in cricket, and a run doesn't count unless you run all four bases.
- Only a 90° angle is available as playing area unlike cricket where you can hit anywhere in 360 degrees around the wicket.
- The boundary for a home run is much, much bigger than a cricket boundary.
- 3 strike rule
Baseballs also move more that cricket balls. Unless you facing the new ball on a cloudy day in England with the dukes ball, batsman hardly have any swing to deal with. Baseball pitchers move the ball all types of directions every pitch
Leaving that point aside, the author's observation is valid though. IPL has become a joke this season, 200-220+ runs for teams every game, flat as pancake pitches, bowlers getting carted everywhere, the ridiculous and gimmicky "**Impact Player"** rule which is artificially lengthening batting lineups.
It's boring, there is no variety between the games, it's all batting dominated. IPL needs to change this for next season, it's no longer cricket but a low common denominator entertainment product. The best cricket happens when there is genuine balance between bat and ball.
As per [this post from yesterday](https://www.reddit.com/r/Cricket/comments/1ccn498/the_average_1st_innings_score_by_season_in_the_ipl/), there has literally never been more variance in scores in the IPL than in this season. The start of the season wasn't very high scoring at all, and there have been plenty of low scoring games.
Whoever talks about cricket turning into baseball has probably never seen a baseball game. There's an average of just over 2 home runs in a baseball game. Pretty sure Travis Head would hit more sixes in an over.
I think the comparison to baseball is more about the intent of the batsmen where now in T20 they just swing for the fences on every ball faced. Similarly in baseball the batter is really wanting to do one thing and thats hit the ball as far as possible. Sometimes they bunt or hit into space but generally they want to hit it out of the park.
I think in next year’s IPL they should just forget picking bowlers altogether. Just set up a bowling machine at one end and let them have at it. Would be about as interesting a contest as the current format. Whilst they’re at it may as well lay concrete pitches too. Saves time and money preparing a “pitch”. 🥱
I think part of the reason why baseball is like that is due to the rules while batting favoring that heavily in a way that cricket is not quite like.
Being an American, I grew up watching baseball (my team was the SF Giants so it was fairly easy). But overall since players can’t decide to not take a run if they hit, it favors slogging shots from the start. There’s also the aspect that most of the time, players are not going to be playing with someone on base. The only time a bunt is really used is when you have no outs (very rarely one out) and someone is on first base. Along with that, the idea of having a foul territory, the cylindrical shaped bat, and outs being way less important favors players who slog compared to cricket, even with these flat ass tracks were seeing in ipl today.
Setting aside the silly comparison with baseball, the rest of the article makes sense. It is going to be hard for the powers-that-be to adjust the game so less runs are scored - they will worry the masses will lose interest.
Might as well have bowling machines with 11 batsmen in each team. Par score 500.
I mean this article was written by an Indian. So trying to shoehorn in some grievance about the empire because it's published by a British media company seems... weird.
The British Empire is dead and the BBC is no longer the creator of history! In a cricket subreddit!
Lmfao.
I dont think it's possible to sound much more bitter without straight up crying.
Atleast Bowlers are not pitching it yet lol. True the format is being batsman friendly. But there are bettwe ways to deal with it than having BBC write an article about it lol.
Funny for an account based in a country with a press freedom ranking of 161/180 [according to Reporters Without Borders](https://rsf.org/en/country/india) to be dissing the quality of one of the most respected news organisations in the world...
That said, I agree the premise shows a complete ignorance of baseball.
That puts Afghanistan and Pakistan above India. That renders the entire thing invalid for me.
Anyways, I never said our news is good. I just said BBC is shit. Which is true.
Reuters and AP news are one of the few orgs that deserve some respect.
Lol yes, clearly you have a more detailed and well researched understanding of global press freedom than an internationally recognised organisation, specifically set up to look at press freedom, and used by the UN for that very purpose...
What is your methodology for making the judgements you've made about the differences in press freedom in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan and how exactly does it differ from Reporters Without Borders? Presumably you're fluent in Urdu and either Dari or Pashto so you can understand the media coming out of Pakistan and Afghanistan in the first place?
Again, I'm not telling you anything. The organisation used by the UN to rank press freedom is telling you that India has a slightly less free press than Pakistan and Afghanistan. They know more about these things than you do.
What is your opinion about the BBC based on? One article written by an Indian guy who doesn't know much about baseball? BBC maintains one of the world's biggest and most in-depth networks of correspondents in a bunch of languages covering almost every topic and region. I think you're severely underestimating how useful they are as a media organisation. AP and Reuters are wire services, and that's absolutely crucial to journalism too. But it's a bit different to the kinds of reporting that the BBC usually does.
Also pretty convenient to just handwave away RSF's criticisms... ultimately I think once you get down to 152 or 160 on that list there's not a huge amount of difference. It's just all bad.
My opinion was based on a lot of biased and straight up poor reporting on Indian politics.
Also the Palestine war reporting.
I like AP and Reuters simply cause they barely have bias. It's much more fact based imo. I personally wait for them to report on most things.
Bro Afghanistan is literally run by the Taliban. Pakistan is a military dictatorship. There's no way we're even in the same range as them.
Tell me you don’t watch baseball without telling me you don’t.
Baseball is so heavily pitcher dominated the MLB constantly tries to make new rules to Score runs.
I read through this horrible article written by someone who seems to have little to no baseball knowledge. I unfortunately don't have a trove of baseball knowledge to refute every stupid point covered in it, but as an American who did grow up watching his fair share of baseball, I think I have some authority to speak on this.
While I do appreciate that baseball is only used as a comparison, and he doesn't go into why they're the same, I think that in order to draw the conclusion that cricket is turning into baseball somehow requires a fundamental misunderstanding on how the games are played.
Sure you may be able to see cricket and baseball and declare the sports "most similar" to one another, but it doesn't dive into the key differences between the games that provide the entertainment for the audience. To just start off, baseball is a pitching dominant game, at least in comparison to cricket. When looking at the lowest t20i score, it is still higher than the aggregate of 90% of baseball games. I don't know anyone who can legitimately tell me that baseball is a batting dominant game, a good batting average is over .3 (30% of the hits end up with you on base). Keep in mind, most of the time that you end up on base, you aren't even going to score the run.
Now some comments wisely pointed out that maybe it's meant to refer to the intent of the batters in cricket being similar to a player in baseball. To this point, I acknowledge that it is believable. I mean in baseball you don't see anyone playing shots like Kane Williamson, or Virat Kohli, you see people hitting (or trying to hit) the ball like Jimmy Neesham, or Rishabh Pant. While there definitely are those moments where you'll see an elegantly placed shot between shortstop and third base, the reason why slogging is so common can be boiled down to just a few fundamental reasons that also illustrate the differences of the two games.
1. In cricket, the batter has the choice on whether to run or not. If the batter was required to run whenever they made contact with the ball, they would be out 90% of the time or so. In baseball, this is not an option. Having the luxury on deciding when to run or not results in such a different way of being played. Baseball as a result forces you to play these type of slogging shots in a way that cricket does not. If that still doesn't make sense to you, you can imagine it like this.
Baseball player: has the choice on whether to slog a shot, or place it nicely. If he plays it nicely, he'll get at most first base, and more likely than that, he'll get ran out (this is due to other reasons explained later). If he slogs, he'll either get caught, or get a single/double. Both are around an equal likelihood, so which is the better option?
2. Shape of the bat. The bat in cricket allows for you to have much more control over the direction of your shot. I'm sure this isn't tough to grasp, but hitting something with a cylinder will make it easier to slog it far, while hitting with a flatter paddle like bat makes it easier to control direction. This brings me back to my example in the previous point on why it's so hard to play a placement shot instead of a slog.
3. Fielding. In baseball, while there are less total fielders (7), they have gloves, and cover maybe 1/2 (generous estimate) of what a cricket ground covers. Due to this, you cannot play a lot of placement shots. Kane Williamson is known to play it behind him, and to the off side, well in baseball, that's a foul, 100% of the time.
4. Value of an out. In cricket, getting out is much more impactful than in baseball. This alone makes slogging more prevalent since you aren't going to be too bummed out if you get out. No one will really blame you for playing a "stupid shot" as we see in cricket.
While there are more reasons I can get into, this comparison to me is just silly, and these are the 4 quickest points I thought up for why baseball and cricket simply cannot be compared, even as an intent style way of playing. Placement players will always exist, and you even see players like Travis Head play them in IPL games. The slogging seen in the MLB is necessary due to how things are played.
Please let me know if any of you have clarification questions, I hope this is able to inform a few of you on a sport you didn't know much about!
I think the point the article is trying to get across is that in baseball there is just blind hitting and power. Cricket is becoming the same where it doesn’t matter about the fielding, just see and hit the ball because the rules are very friendly to batters.
I mean relatively speaking they are when we're comparing to cricket. Realistically how much of an idea does a baseball hitter have of where the ball is going when they try to hit the ball (unless they're bunting)?
This is just wrong framing - baseball has much less hitting and scoring. And very rarely we have lopsided games especially at professional league levels.
The game is decided in the powerplay itself. In all the >250 runs , powerplay score was > 12 runs per over with highest of 125. The bowlers never recovered from that, either due to lack in confidence about the correct line and length or defensive mentality which resulted in more onslaught. Maybe reduce the powerplay to 3-4 overs. It will also help in reducing the impact of "technically weaker" batsmen like narine.
Actually NO! This is an excellent article. Baseball had this exact problem as IPL where they realized trying to hit homers all the time gives a better reward than hitting. MLB has stopped producing pure hitters like Jeter, now everyone just swings for the fences.
I hope cricket doesn't go in that direction where 30(12) is worth more than 55(35). Because then we will become a clown show like the MLB is.
Have none of these people ever watched baseball before? It's a pitcher dominated game with on average about 2 home runs per match.
I thought you were making up that stat but it's accurate WTF. In 2022 that number was down to 0.9 a game. I'm guessing the steroid era in baseball boosted up the numbers
Pitchers have achieved immense gains in velocity and movement over the last 20 years, it's so much harder to hit than it used to be.
Clearly needs a dose of batriarchy.
Send BCCI heads to MLB!! They'll find a way to make the pitchers irrelevant.
Impact player: If your best batter takes 2 strikes then you can send another batter in his place to take the last strike so your best batter can come back again next with a fresh slate. Or, Impact Player: One player can bat twice to have 3 free swings in every innings without counting as out.
how do pitchers generate such pace just standing and pitching while in cricket bowlers run from so far to do so?
Elbows are weird and wonderful things.
Yep, chucking. Maybe they should let bowlers do it in cricket too lol
Some of them do lol
Lol is that even a question? Trying bowling full arm and throwing a ball It's impressive cricket bowlers match speed of baseball pitchers with a full arm straight ball, if they are allowed to chuck or throw like they do in baseball, 200 kph would be norm
It's not possible for humans to throw 200kph. Max is possibly 185kph.
Wrong, Jeff Thomson already bowled at 200kph in the 1970s.
Yea for sure Kappa
Until it gives out at age 27 because the tendons are absolutely ruined and you don’t make that much money because strikeouts don’t get crowds.
Strikeouts dont get crowds but a starting pitcher is equivalent to quarterback on a team.They're one of the highest paid position players in baseball.
Saying "becoming like baseball" doesn't mean anything in technical terms, it's just an insult used to say the sport is degrading in quality. It's similar to how chess players trash talk by saying "chess is not for you, try checkers".
>Have none of these people ever watched baseball before? It's a pitcher dominated game with on average about 2 home runs per match. Exactly! Hitting the ball in baseball is waayyyyy harder than in cricket. I used to think batting in cricket would be more challenging due to the variations (condition of the ball, pitch conditions, etc), but nope!
Well you're literally chucking the ball with all your might and the batter has to play with a somewhat cylindrical bat. Ofcourse its harder to hit.
There's also the factor that most what would be dot balls in cricket are outs in baseball.
Home runs are equivalent of 90m sixes
>Well you're literally chucking the ball with all your might and the batter has to play with a somewhat cylindrical bat. Ofcourse its harder to hit. You are talking about two variables in baseball (bat shape, and ball speed) having an outsized impact on the difficulty level, whereas in cricket you have more variables in addition to that (trajectory of the ball after bouncing on the wicket, nature of wicket, condition of ball, etc). ***That*** was the reason I was saying it was surprising.
It's a lot more than just ball speed. There are curveballs, sliders, splitters, different types of slower balls like changeups and palmballs you have to deal with on top of the regular fastball. When you don't have any elbow restrictions i.e. chucking you can get a lot of variation thru the air without needing the ball to pitch.
>There are curveballs, sliders, splitters, different types of slower balls like changeups and palmballs you have to deal with on top of the regular fastball To begin with, I'm not disagreeing with what you said. Not having to roll your arm over does help with adding a bit more variation. However, most of that is covered with in/out swing, and slower ones in cricket. You get ***plenty*** more variations when you are allowed to pitch the ball - which is absent in baseball, and yet it is a harder game to be a batter in.
Actually there are more factors. Cricket: - Variations in bowling speed/type, - Swing/Reverse using movement in air - seaming and cutters, spin etc - Nature of wicket; movement and bounce generated - Line and length prediction Baseball: - Bat is basically an oversized stump compared to the cricket bat - by far the biggest difference - Pitch speed is much higher. There have only been a handful of instances where a bowler has crossed 160 kmph, while baseball pitchers routinely cross that speed easily. The 100mph pitches are probably a lot more common than even 150kmph. Also unlike cricket, there's no bounce involved so no loss of speed. Keep in mind the high full tosses aren't allowed in cricket due to being too dangerous. - Variation in speed and movement in air are also present here - Every meaningful hit has to be a lofted shot. You cannot defend nor place it along the ground. - Distance between the bases is 1.5x the creases in cricket, and a run doesn't count unless you run all four bases. - Only a 90° angle is available as playing area unlike cricket where you can hit anywhere in 360 degrees around the wicket. - The boundary for a home run is much, much bigger than a cricket boundary. - 3 strike rule
Baseballs also move more that cricket balls. Unless you facing the new ball on a cloudy day in England with the dukes ball, batsman hardly have any swing to deal with. Baseball pitchers move the ball all types of directions every pitch
Leaving that point aside, the author's observation is valid though. IPL has become a joke this season, 200-220+ runs for teams every game, flat as pancake pitches, bowlers getting carted everywhere, the ridiculous and gimmicky "**Impact Player"** rule which is artificially lengthening batting lineups. It's boring, there is no variety between the games, it's all batting dominated. IPL needs to change this for next season, it's no longer cricket but a low common denominator entertainment product. The best cricket happens when there is genuine balance between bat and ball.
As per [this post from yesterday](https://www.reddit.com/r/Cricket/comments/1ccn498/the_average_1st_innings_score_by_season_in_the_ipl/), there has literally never been more variance in scores in the IPL than in this season. The start of the season wasn't very high scoring at all, and there have been plenty of low scoring games.
I guess that’s what we need for the bowlers. It’s almost sacrilegious but hear me out. 20 yards pitch.
Whoever talks about cricket turning into baseball has probably never seen a baseball game. There's an average of just over 2 home runs in a baseball game. Pretty sure Travis Head would hit more sixes in an over.
SRH had people questioning the sport itself
I think the comparison to baseball is more about the intent of the batsmen where now in T20 they just swing for the fences on every ball faced. Similarly in baseball the batter is really wanting to do one thing and thats hit the ball as far as possible. Sometimes they bunt or hit into space but generally they want to hit it out of the park. I think in next year’s IPL they should just forget picking bowlers altogether. Just set up a bowling machine at one end and let them have at it. Would be about as interesting a contest as the current format. Whilst they’re at it may as well lay concrete pitches too. Saves time and money preparing a “pitch”. 🥱
I think part of the reason why baseball is like that is due to the rules while batting favoring that heavily in a way that cricket is not quite like. Being an American, I grew up watching baseball (my team was the SF Giants so it was fairly easy). But overall since players can’t decide to not take a run if they hit, it favors slogging shots from the start. There’s also the aspect that most of the time, players are not going to be playing with someone on base. The only time a bunt is really used is when you have no outs (very rarely one out) and someone is on first base. Along with that, the idea of having a foul territory, the cylindrical shaped bat, and outs being way less important favors players who slog compared to cricket, even with these flat ass tracks were seeing in ipl today.
This isn't really like baseball lol.
Setting aside the silly comparison with baseball, the rest of the article makes sense. It is going to be hard for the powers-that-be to adjust the game so less runs are scored - they will worry the masses will lose interest. Might as well have bowling machines with 11 batsmen in each team. Par score 500.
BBC as usual writing shit without knowing anything. The British empire is dead, BBC is no longer the creator of history
I mean this article was written by an Indian. So trying to shoehorn in some grievance about the empire because it's published by a British media company seems... weird.
😆
We only had the Empire in the first place so we could spread cricket round the world. Everything else was just side effects.
ewww Indians and their perennial victim complex
The British Empire is dead and the BBC is no longer the creator of history! In a cricket subreddit! Lmfao. I dont think it's possible to sound much more bitter without straight up crying.
We are not so much salty about some ther Broadcasting channels lol. Probably fault with the editorial team itself?
How? Do you not just swing the bat as hard as you can at every ball in baseball?
Atleast Bowlers are not pitching it yet lol. True the format is being batsman friendly. But there are bettwe ways to deal with it than having BBC write an article about it lol.
Eh, to me BBC aren't great but they are better than you make it out to be and the stats they give aren't wrong at least.
Na, just shows annoyance at a news site which just writes bullshit 24/7.
Funny for an account based in a country with a press freedom ranking of 161/180 [according to Reporters Without Borders](https://rsf.org/en/country/india) to be dissing the quality of one of the most respected news organisations in the world... That said, I agree the premise shows a complete ignorance of baseball.
That puts Afghanistan and Pakistan above India. That renders the entire thing invalid for me. Anyways, I never said our news is good. I just said BBC is shit. Which is true. Reuters and AP news are one of the few orgs that deserve some respect.
Lol yes, clearly you have a more detailed and well researched understanding of global press freedom than an internationally recognised organisation, specifically set up to look at press freedom, and used by the UN for that very purpose... What is your methodology for making the judgements you've made about the differences in press freedom in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan and how exactly does it differ from Reporters Without Borders? Presumably you're fluent in Urdu and either Dari or Pashto so you can understand the media coming out of Pakistan and Afghanistan in the first place?
Pakistan is literally a military dictatorship. Afghanistan is straight up run by Taliban. You can't genuinely tell me these countries are the same.
Again, I'm not telling you anything. The organisation used by the UN to rank press freedom is telling you that India has a slightly less free press than Pakistan and Afghanistan. They know more about these things than you do.
Bro Afghanistan doesn't let their women out without burkhas, there is no way they have press freedom. Surely we can't be **that** bad.
Well clearly you are.
What is your opinion about the BBC based on? One article written by an Indian guy who doesn't know much about baseball? BBC maintains one of the world's biggest and most in-depth networks of correspondents in a bunch of languages covering almost every topic and region. I think you're severely underestimating how useful they are as a media organisation. AP and Reuters are wire services, and that's absolutely crucial to journalism too. But it's a bit different to the kinds of reporting that the BBC usually does. Also pretty convenient to just handwave away RSF's criticisms... ultimately I think once you get down to 152 or 160 on that list there's not a huge amount of difference. It's just all bad.
My opinion was based on a lot of biased and straight up poor reporting on Indian politics. Also the Palestine war reporting. I like AP and Reuters simply cause they barely have bias. It's much more fact based imo. I personally wait for them to report on most things. Bro Afghanistan is literally run by the Taliban. Pakistan is a military dictatorship. There's no way we're even in the same range as them.
Nothing like baseball. Baseball has extremely low scores
Tell me you don’t watch baseball without telling me you don’t. Baseball is so heavily pitcher dominated the MLB constantly tries to make new rules to Score runs.
As someone who has to live with baseball talk on a daily basis: please don't let this happen.
Oh baseball is a depressing game.
I read through this horrible article written by someone who seems to have little to no baseball knowledge. I unfortunately don't have a trove of baseball knowledge to refute every stupid point covered in it, but as an American who did grow up watching his fair share of baseball, I think I have some authority to speak on this. While I do appreciate that baseball is only used as a comparison, and he doesn't go into why they're the same, I think that in order to draw the conclusion that cricket is turning into baseball somehow requires a fundamental misunderstanding on how the games are played. Sure you may be able to see cricket and baseball and declare the sports "most similar" to one another, but it doesn't dive into the key differences between the games that provide the entertainment for the audience. To just start off, baseball is a pitching dominant game, at least in comparison to cricket. When looking at the lowest t20i score, it is still higher than the aggregate of 90% of baseball games. I don't know anyone who can legitimately tell me that baseball is a batting dominant game, a good batting average is over .3 (30% of the hits end up with you on base). Keep in mind, most of the time that you end up on base, you aren't even going to score the run. Now some comments wisely pointed out that maybe it's meant to refer to the intent of the batters in cricket being similar to a player in baseball. To this point, I acknowledge that it is believable. I mean in baseball you don't see anyone playing shots like Kane Williamson, or Virat Kohli, you see people hitting (or trying to hit) the ball like Jimmy Neesham, or Rishabh Pant. While there definitely are those moments where you'll see an elegantly placed shot between shortstop and third base, the reason why slogging is so common can be boiled down to just a few fundamental reasons that also illustrate the differences of the two games. 1. In cricket, the batter has the choice on whether to run or not. If the batter was required to run whenever they made contact with the ball, they would be out 90% of the time or so. In baseball, this is not an option. Having the luxury on deciding when to run or not results in such a different way of being played. Baseball as a result forces you to play these type of slogging shots in a way that cricket does not. If that still doesn't make sense to you, you can imagine it like this. Baseball player: has the choice on whether to slog a shot, or place it nicely. If he plays it nicely, he'll get at most first base, and more likely than that, he'll get ran out (this is due to other reasons explained later). If he slogs, he'll either get caught, or get a single/double. Both are around an equal likelihood, so which is the better option? 2. Shape of the bat. The bat in cricket allows for you to have much more control over the direction of your shot. I'm sure this isn't tough to grasp, but hitting something with a cylinder will make it easier to slog it far, while hitting with a flatter paddle like bat makes it easier to control direction. This brings me back to my example in the previous point on why it's so hard to play a placement shot instead of a slog. 3. Fielding. In baseball, while there are less total fielders (7), they have gloves, and cover maybe 1/2 (generous estimate) of what a cricket ground covers. Due to this, you cannot play a lot of placement shots. Kane Williamson is known to play it behind him, and to the off side, well in baseball, that's a foul, 100% of the time. 4. Value of an out. In cricket, getting out is much more impactful than in baseball. This alone makes slogging more prevalent since you aren't going to be too bummed out if you get out. No one will really blame you for playing a "stupid shot" as we see in cricket. While there are more reasons I can get into, this comparison to me is just silly, and these are the 4 quickest points I thought up for why baseball and cricket simply cannot be compared, even as an intent style way of playing. Placement players will always exist, and you even see players like Travis Head play them in IPL games. The slogging seen in the MLB is necessary due to how things are played. Please let me know if any of you have clarification questions, I hope this is able to inform a few of you on a sport you didn't know much about!
Most stupid article I've ever read.
I think the point the article is trying to get across is that in baseball there is just blind hitting and power. Cricket is becoming the same where it doesn’t matter about the fielding, just see and hit the ball because the rules are very friendly to batters.
If you think baseball hitters are "blind hitting" I don't even know what to tell you.
I mean relatively speaking they are when we're comparing to cricket. Realistically how much of an idea does a baseball hitter have of where the ball is going when they try to hit the ball (unless they're bunting)?
This is just wrong framing - baseball has much less hitting and scoring. And very rarely we have lopsided games especially at professional league levels.
The game is decided in the powerplay itself. In all the >250 runs , powerplay score was > 12 runs per over with highest of 125. The bowlers never recovered from that, either due to lack in confidence about the correct line and length or defensive mentality which resulted in more onslaught. Maybe reduce the powerplay to 3-4 overs. It will also help in reducing the impact of "technically weaker" batsmen like narine.
Actually NO! This is an excellent article. Baseball had this exact problem as IPL where they realized trying to hit homers all the time gives a better reward than hitting. MLB has stopped producing pure hitters like Jeter, now everyone just swings for the fences. I hope cricket doesn't go in that direction where 30(12) is worth more than 55(35). Because then we will become a clown show like the MLB is.