A question about balls...

[Rachel]

i have been wondering, are cricket balls and baseball balls made very differently? as how come a baseball player needs a mit to catch the ball but cricket players dont?

Last edited by Rachel on Sat Jul 29, 2006 8:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[Anoohilator]

Tennis balls? They're wayy soft but cricket balls I think they are actually harder than baseballs. I've never closely examined the baseballs but I've never heard of a baseball-related incident...

[Rachel]

sorry, word dyslexia there, i meant cricket balls and baseballs.

my friend, wikipedia tells me that:

Baseball
~ Circumference: approx 9 inches (23 cm)
~ Weight: 5oz (142 g)
~ Composed of: Cork/Rubber core, yarn/twine/wool, leather cover

Cricket Ball
~ Circumference: approx 9 inches (23cm)
~ Weight: 5.5 - 5.75 oz (156 - 163g)
~ Composed of: Cork core, string, leather case

The only difference i've been able to determine is that the seam on a baseball is flat, but on a cricket ball its raised.

So why do baseball players need mits?

[Anoohilator]

I guess we'll need an experienced sportsperson who has handled both balls before...

[Paul]

'Cause they're lazy and need a hand the size of a large tennis racquet to catch anything that small.

Which is actually kinda true. In the beginning, mitts were never worn, until Charles Waitt, a St. Louis outfielder started wearing gloves. However, these were only normal gloves (to have the same mobility of a barehand but with extra padding) with the fingers cut off. It was generally considered "sissy" but it caught on regardless.

In 1920, Bill Doak, a pitcher for St. Louis Cardinals suggested that a web be placed between the forefinger and the thumber to act as a pocket. This design soon became the norm. Since then, well, baseball mitts have gotten bigger and bigger and evolved for different uses: Catcher, Pitcher, Outfielder, Infielder, First Basemen etc.

I don't actually know why baseball players need mitts and why cricket players don't. But I stand by my first statement.

[Igg]

In my experience cricket balls are harder than baseballs- having played games with both, and having been hit in the head with both.

Not much harder though. i just concluded that as with American football/Rugby comparison; Americans are wussies

[coming2atvnearu]

I guess we'll need an experienced sportsperson who has handled both balls before...

*snicker*

[theonlysaneone]

In my experience cricket balls are harder than baseballs- having played games with both, and having been hit in the head with both.

Not much harder though. i just concluded that as with American football/Rugby comparison; Americans are wussies

I think it's more due to the distance the ball needs to be thrown than anything else. In baseball, catchers need mitts because they're catching 90 mph balls being thrown, and it also makes it easier to catch balls way up in the air. In cricket, you toss underhanded.

[Carson]

In my experience cricket balls are harder than baseballs- having played games with both, and having been hit in the head with both.

Not much harder though. i just concluded that as with American football/Rugby comparison; Americans are wussies

I think it's more due to the distance the ball needs to be thrown than anything else. In baseball, catchers need mitts because they're catching 90 mph balls being thrown, and it also makes it easier to catch balls way up in the air. In cricket, you toss underhanded.

No in Cricket you do not throw underarmed actually. I'm not sure of the speed of a cricket ball when thrown but it's bloody fast. What you say is essentially true I guess, and the reason I can think of why it's not needed in cricket is that it's rare that the cricket ball is passed from player to player, normally it goes to the wicket keeper who wears gloves. I think that's right...ish. But Igg is definetly right, especially about the Rugby part.

[Paul]

In my experience cricket balls are harder than baseballs- having played games with both, and having been hit in the head with both.

Not much harder though. i just concluded that as with American football/Rugby comparison; Americans are wussies

I think it's more due to the distance the ball needs to be thrown than anything else. In baseball, catchers need mitts because they're catching 90 mph balls being thrown, and it also makes it easier to catch balls way up in the air. In cricket, you toss underhanded.

As Mat pointed out, you don't throw under-arm. The speed of a typical fast bowl is 85-95mph, and the fastest deliverly ever recorded was clocked at 100.2 mph by a Pakistani bowler against England's Nick Knight in the 2003 World Cup. (His wicket remained intact, however.)

[Christopher]

In my experience cricket balls are harder than baseballs- having played games with both, and having been hit in the head with both.

Not much harder though. i just concluded that as with American football/Rugby comparison; Americans are wussies

I think it's more due to the distance the ball needs to be thrown than anything else. In baseball, catchers need mitts because they're catching 90 mph balls being thrown, and it also makes it easier to catch balls way up in the air. In cricket, you toss underhanded.

Only Australians toss underhanded.

[Shoyru_Lover]

They just are... it's a known fact. Accept it.

[Igg]

In my experience cricket balls are harder than baseballs- having played games with both, and having been hit in the head with both.

Not much harder though. i just concluded that as with American football/Rugby comparison; Americans are wussies

I think it's more due to the distance the ball needs to be thrown than anything else. In baseball, catchers need mitts because they're catching 90 mph balls being thrown, and it also makes it easier to catch balls way up in the air. In cricket, you toss underhanded.

Only Australians toss underhanded.

Or, you know, roll it across the ground towards the wicket because they;re *that* petty.

People tend not to through underarm in cricket, unless they are throwing the ball very short distances, e.g. wicket keeper to bowler. Although even then it's often overarm.
When fielding the ball is also often thrown pretty far and fast- for example someone retrieving a ball from a boundary and then throwing it back to wicket keeper to try and have the batsman run out.

And we can always rely on Paul's wikipedia skills to find us some statistics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_bowling even if he did re-word it

Cricket balls go fast. Or rather, can go fast. If you're a finger spiner like Monty Panesar you're not throwing the ball particularly hard or fast, and you barely need a run up. Whereas pace bowlers like Steve Harmison are bowling up in the 90mph area.

[Shoyru_Lover]

Baseballs are larger and rounder. Cricken balls usually have that line running through the middle of it, and are hard as rocks!

This thread title makes me laugh.

[Doozer]

The title of this thread alone is misleading.... especially since it's in the Locker Room board.

Anyway!

I'm trying to invision what a cricket ball is like. So the seams on a baseball are flat and such, but not a cricket ball? So is it like a hurling ball, where it's pretty much an inside-out baseball... and can bounce a bit more?