Though, it sounds like he started playing cricket as a teen, and it’s not clear if he was any good as a baseball player. 
I’ve done both and there is no comparison. Cricket bowlers get their velocity from their run-up and shoulder rotation. It’s closer to a softball pitching motion, only reversed. It’s not even a “throw” in the sense that most baseball fans know it. It’s like comparing a bowler’s motion with a curlers. Both are trying to propel an object accurately down a lane, but that’s where the similarities end.
OK, again I’m not trying to put down cricket bowlers as some seem to be thinking upthread. I’m just trying to make clear how ultimately destructive pitcher a baseball overhand is. It’s explosive movement in which the arm is merely a lariat with a baseball on the end. A pitcher throws his arm out as a lever and a guidance tool. The effort comes from the legs and the twist of the back. The motion of the arm…the THROW…is the least relevant part of the act of pitching.
Or, to contrast, a cricket bowler takes many strides to get up to the 90 mph mark. A baseball pitcher has to get there in one step.
This begs the question. The act of throwing, as in throwing a ball around a diamond or a pitch, is an entirely different motion than pitching or bowling. Throwing a ball in from the outfield, for example, when observed seems almost effortless. I’ve seen outfielders throw a ball 300 feet with less effort than I take to get out of bed in the morning. It’s deeply frustrating to me.
A throw? God, I hope not as that would be illegal.
Whether or not you are trying to put down cricketers is irrelevant. The point is that you are wrong. Some fast bowlers get there pace from their rhythm. Many others get it from their shoulder and back. This is known in cricket as “the bowling action”. A cricketer could probably easily get to 90 mph if he was throwing; but the point is he is not permitted to throw by the laws of the game which is why a runup in necessary. While several fast men have a long runup, many others have bowled at 90 mph plus with short runups. Wasim Akram and Craig White come to mind.
I watched cricket my whole life until i was 30, and played cricket all through my school days. I’ve lived the past 10+ years in the United States, i watch baseball avidly, and i have played in a number of softball leagues, some very casual, others more serious.
There’s really very little point comparing the two things. Apart from the fact that the pitcher and the bowler each have the job of putting the ball in play on its way to the hitter, the things they do aren’t comparable in any meaningful way. And it’s not just about the way they wind up or release the ball; it’s also about the rules of the sports, the nature of the game, and the task of the hitters that they are facing.
Jonathan Chance, you keep saying that you’re not trying to put cricket bowlers down, but then say something like “Or, to contrast, a cricket bowler takes many strides to get up to the 90 mph mark. A baseball pitcher has to get there in one step,” is if that somehow makes pitching a more difficult task than bowling.
It’s true that the two actions work differently, and it’s also true that pitching is, on the whole, much harder on the arm (especially the shoulder and the elbow) than bowling. But you seem to be suggesting that this somehow makes pitching harder or better, in some generally measurable, objective sense. It doesn’t.
All it means is that the energy required to get the ball up to those sorts of speeds is created by the body in different ways. And what it ends up meaning is that stamina and endurance and fatigue are measured differently in the two sports. In baseball, a pitcher’s endurance is generally measured by his arm strength. That is, the most obvious signs of fatigue come from the arm itself, and as the pitcher delivers more pitches, his arms begins to tire and he begins to lose speed, control, or sometimes both. This is not to say that pitchers never tire more generally, but with the exception of very hot days, it’s usually the pitching arm that is the key area of concern.
For a bowler in cricket, fatigue is more of a whole-body experience. An opening bowler might perform a 10-over spell, during which he runs the length of his run-up 60 time in just over an hour. At the end of that time, his arm and shoulder probably don’t feel any really bad localized strain or weakness, but his whole body will be increasingly tired from the effort of the run-up and the delivery. Coming down on your front foot as you bowl the ball is also a very stressful experience, similar to (and possibly more intense than) the impact of a pitcher’s stride.
Bear in mind, too, that for a bowler to get a “break” from bowling doesn’t mean that he gets to sit in the dugout. Cricket is a much less specialized game than baseball, and the rules basically don’t allow for substitutions. A bowler who is rested from his bowling duties is still in the field, often for hours at a time, and is expected to contribute to the defense in the same way as every other member of the team. A bowler might bowl a 10-over spell, spend another 15-20 overs “just” fielding, and then be brought back again for another 8 or 10 overs. And there’s no such thing as “warm-up” pitches in cricket. You get the ball in your hand, and you’re expected to bowl at a live batter straight away.
Both cricket bowlers and baseball pitchers have to deal with issues of strategy, but they need to do it in very different ways. For a pitcher, the strategy involves a whole series of mini-battles, with each batter in succession, and his strategy changes not just based on who the batter is, or what the game situation is, but also based on the particular way the at-bat develops. A pitcher will adopt a very different strategy if he’s ahead 1-2 than if he’s down 3-1 in the count.
For a cricket bowler, strategy is often much more long term. He also has to deal with two batters at once. There are two batters on the field at any one time, and when they run, they swap ends. If the batter on strike hits the ball for a single run, the next delivery the bowler makes will be to the other batter. This changing means two sets of strategy at once, for the two batters.
Of course, baseball pitchers also have to change strategy regularly, as they face different hitters in the lineup. Much more importantly, though, in cricket the purpose of the batter is very different from the purpose of the hitter in baseball. For one thing, there is no obligation in cricket to run if you hit the ball, so the batter can be very defensive, just putting his bat in front of the ball and knocking it down (called a “block” in cricket) if he doesn’t want to play a run-scoring shot. This is, of course, made easier by the flat blade of the cricket bat. It’s easier than, say, executing a bunt in baseball.
It’s also harder, in some ways, though, because in place of a strike zone, there are stumps, and if the ball hits the stumps, the batter is out. If a baseball hitter steps up to the plate, and the first pitch he sees is a fantastic slider on the outside corner, he can let it go altogether. The worst thing that can happen to him is that he gets a called first strike. A cricket batter in a similar position can’t afford to let go any ball that he thinks might hit the stumps, because once that happens, he’s out, and the consequences of a single out in cricket are much, much higher than they are in baseball. So borderline deliveries in cricket, ones that may come close to the outside of the stumps, often require the batter to play a stroke when he would, if he could, prefer to simply leave the ball alone.
And this all comes back to the nature of the game itself, and the very different tasks faced by the people who deliver the ball and the people who hit the ball in each sport. In this sense, i think baseball pitchers have it tougher than cricket bowlers, but not because of their arm actions. They have it tougher because of the different pressures they face.
In baseball, the immediate, play-by-play pressure is heavily weighted on the pitcher. That is, in any given at-bat, the pitcher is expected to succeed, and if he doesn’t it can have huge consequences for his team’s chances to win the game. By contrast, the hitter is baseball is, by simple dint of the way the game works, expected to fail. We all know the stats: even the best hitters in the world only get a base hit about once every three tries, and the best get on base less than half the time, on average. I’m not arguing that hitters feel no pressure, or that they don’t expect to succeed when they come to the plate, but they get multiple chances per game, and their performance is judged based on their aggregate performance rather than any single at-bat. If a hitter comes up in a big situation, and gets out, his team and fans are disappointed, but they also realize that this was, statistically, a likely outcome. By contrast, if a pitcher comes into a game and gives up a home run or a series of hit, this is viewed much more negatively because the pitcher is supposed to get the outs.
In cricket, by contrast, the constant pressure is on the batter. In a test match (the longer 5-day version of the game) each batter only gets (at most) two chances. Once you’re out, you don’t get to come back to the plate again in another 45 minutes. Also, the out itself is much more significant because a cricket batter’s opportunities for scoring are open-ended. That is, if he doesn’t get out he can stay out there all day and score tens or hundreds of runs. Even the best hitter in baseball can do no better than a home run on each at-bat; for a cricket player, the range of possibilities run the gamut from a first-ball out to a two-day appearance racking up 200+ runs. But one mistake, and that chance is gone.
Cricket bowlers, by contrast, are not expected to get a batter out on any given delivery. While some weather conditions and pitches do benefit bowlers, the game as a whole is weighted towards the batters. Batters are not expected to fail in any given situation; they are expected to succeed, to stay in and to score runs. And a single mistake by a bowler, while it might allow the other team to hit the ball for 4 or 6 runs, isn’t likely to turn the game. For the bowlers in cricket, like for the hitters in baseball, the evaluation of success is based more on the longer run of the game than on any particular encounter. A bowler who bowls 20-30 overs (120-180 deliveries) and gets 3 or 4 people out might have had a very good day.
This was all summed up quite nicely by English cricketer and author E.T. Smith in his book Playing Hardball, in which he visits the United States and spends time with some MLB oranizations interviewing coaches and players, and taking some batting practice himself. Smith says:
Other aspects of the nature of the two games changes the way that bowlers and pitchers approach their tasks.
One of the most obvious is that, in cricket, the ball does not (unless the bowlers makes a mistake) arrive at the batter on the full. The cricket bowler is expected to make the ball bounce on the pitch, on its way to the batsman. And that bounce is part of the skill of bowling, and is also why sheer speed is not necessarily the main aim of the cricket bowler. In the same way that baseball pitchers vary things like velocity and curve to deceive the hitter, cricket bowlers use the pitch to make the ball move in ways intended to deceive the batter.
Connected with this issue is the question of exactly what the bowler wants to do, in terms of getting the batter out. Like the baseball pitcher, the cricket bowler seeks to deliver the ball in a way that maximizes the chance of an error by the batter, or puts the batter at some sort of disadvantage, especially through indecision. Just like some of the best baseball pitches are the ones on the outside corner, where a hitter might end up waving ineffectually at a pitch or grounding it gently to the infield, some of the best deliveries in cricket are often those that are placed right near the outside edge of the stumps, where it can be hard for a batsman to get properly behind the ball, but where he also feels obliged to try and get the bat in the way to prevent him being bowled out.
And this, in turn, leads us to another issue, which is the placement of the fielders. Field placement is far more flexible and varied in cricket than in baseball. One reason is that, in baseball there are 9 players in the field covering a field that describes an angle of 90 degrees. In cricket, there are 11 players in the field (i.e., two more than baseball), but they must cover a full 360 degree field of play. There is no “foul ground” in cricket, and the main playing area is smack in the middle of a large oval.
One place where it is very common to place fielders in cricket, especially in the early part of a inning, is in an area called the slips, which is essentially behind, and off to the side, of the batter. The bowler then tries to bowl the ball in such a way that the batter will try to hit it, but will not connect properly and will instead nick the ball lightly off the edge of the bat. Essentially, what the bowler is aiming for is similar to what we would call in baseball a “foul tip.” But in cricket, a foul tip does not just result in a strike, as it usually does in baseball; if it is caught by the slips, it results in a wicket, an out. Here’s a good example.
One final difference, alluded to in the previous paragraph when i said that slip fielders are used particularly in the early part of an inning, is that bowlers in cricket have to deal with inconsistencies that baseball pitchers never have to worry about, including in the ball itself. In baseball, the aim is to have the pitcher throw essentially an identical, new, clean, unmarked ball every time he pitches. In cricket, by contrast, the same ball is used for an extended period of time, and can only be replaced under very specific circumstances. In a test match, a ball is used for 80 overs (480 deliveries) before a new ball can be taken, and during that time the ball loses a considerable amount of its hardness and its shine, changing the way that it moves through the air and off the pitch. Bowlers have to adapt to these changes, which can (depending on the pitch, the weather conditions, and the type of bowlers on the team) quite dramatically shift the advantage between the batting and the bowling team.
Anyway, i realize that all that strayed quite a long way from the issue of mechanics, but i think it’s important because, in my opinion, the mechanical differences between the two types of player can only be appreciated and understood if you understand the very different requirements and rules of the two games themselves.
Great summary mhendo, We could’ve been here for some time pulling out the differences one by one. You’ve saved us all a lot of effort.
So in summary…apart from the general throwing action to propel the ball from fielder to fielder (in both sports) and some of the mechanisms for getting an “out”, catching (in both sports) and stumping/tagging (cricket/baseball) they are very different creatures)
Which is of course a good thing, variety being the whatsit of thingummyjig and so on.
I do think the main thing that binds the two sports together is the pace and narrative.
They both unfold over the course of many hours in a somewhat leisurely manner, punctuated by points of excitement (home runs in baseball, wickets falling in cricket). In both cases those incidents have enormous bearing on the outcome of the match.
I think if the USA didn’t have baseball they would have cricket in order to fill that sporting niche, and vice versa for the cricket playing countries. The human brain craves an endeavour that requires extended periods of beer drinking, nibbles and data amenable to statistical analysis
On some of the other points, well, sportsmen are sportsmen regardless. At the top levels of an athletic sport they will push their bodies to the point of physical damage if they think it gives them an advantage. It doesn’t actually matter what that sport is. Which is harder? a meaningless question. At the pinnacle of any sport the activity becomes something far removed from what we mere mortals experience and it becomes so hard that only a rare few can do it brilliantly and they are doing it at the very edge of what the human body can withstand.
I think that last bit can be cut and pasted in any x sports versus y sport thread (which of course was not the OP’s intention)
Of course the fastest bowler ever described his action as: “I just shuffle up and go wang.”
Just wanted to add a couple of things to my earlier post.
As others have noted, cricket’s requirement that the arm not describe a throwing motion (i.e., a straightening of the elbow) during the delivery means that the actions of bowlers and pitchers are, by their very nature, completely different. A baseball pitcher could, if he wanted, use a cricket-style bowling motion, but a cricket bowler cannot, without breaking the rules, use a baseball-style pitching motion. The great Sri Lankan cricketer Muttiah Muralitharan was the subject of a lot of controversy during his career over this issue.
Another key difference in terms of the rules, and one that would make it very unlikely for a baseball pitcher to ever use a cricket-style bowling motion, is that a baseball pitcher cannot, under the rules, use a run-up. Not only does he have to keep his foot on the rubber, but a pitcher is required to bring his body to a complete stop prior to beginning his wind-up. This, by definition, precludes a cricket-style run-up and delivery action.
The rules of cricket also ban underarm deliveries, meaning that the small number of “submarine” pitchers in baseball would not be allowed to transfer their style to cricket, even if cricket allowed a throwing motion.
One area where things are also a little different related to the issue, which i discussed in my previous post, of the ball itself. While ball-tampering is not allowed in either sport, what constitutes ball-tampering is a little more lenient in cricket. Sweat and spit can be used on the ball in cricket, and this, combined with the nature of the ball itself, and the fact that the same ball is used for an extended period of time, means that cricket bowlers can have a considerable effect on the way the ball moves through the air.
Part of this has to do with the red shine on a cricket ball. Dampening one hemisphere of the ball with saliva or sweat, and polishing it by rubbing it on your clothing, allows the polished side to move differently through the air than the unpolished side. This leads to what is called, in cricket parlance, “swing.” Swing appears, in the air, somewhat similar to the curve on a curveball, or the away movement on a nice slider. This swing, when added to the sideways movement that can occur when the ball hits the pitch (sometimes called “cut”) can make things even more difficult for the batsman.
Cricket bowlers sometimes also try to gain an advantage by tampering with the ball in unauthorized ways, such as making nicks in the ball with the fingernail, scuffing it with sand, or picking at the seams on the ball to cause more movement through the air and off the pitch. Even without this, though, a cricket ball looks very different after it has been used for a while, as the shine and the hardness decrease. Here’s a picture showing two cricket balls: a new ball on the left, and a ball that is 21 overs (126 deliveries) old on the right.
I think there’s something to this, although i must say that even a very leisurely baseball game doesn’t have quite the same relaxed pace or protracted experience as a day of text cricket.
Baseball is more like a 50-over one-day game or (spit) a 20/20 game. The multi-day unfolding of a test match really has no equivalent in any sport, as far as i can tell.
And it’s not just the pace of the game itself. Here in the US, most major league baseball grounds—at least, all the ones i’ve been to—feel the need to constantly bombard the fans with various types of noise during breaks in play. There’s music, video presentations, novelty races, competitions, etc., etc. It drives me to distraction. They also never seem willing to allow the crowd to determine for itself when the game is exciting enough to cheer; there are constant attempts to get people to make more noise, to clap, to shout, and it’s annoying as hell.
One thing i love about attending a test match is that, between overs, often all you can hear is the quiet hum of conversation. I love going to baseball games, but i think i’d enjoy it quite a bit more if the announcers and the loudspeakers would just shut the fuck up and let the audience relax.
Agreed, I’m not going to claim that all test matches are exciting, but there can be immense tension generated due to the ebb and flow with the realisation that a momentum swing is only ever a couple of wickets away. When it is good, it is fantastic.
Dinesh Patel didn’t play cricket, he threw javelin.
Well, if the cricket bowler was bowling balls that didn’t hit the ground, full tosses, he would have got the same result against most mediocre cricket batters. Balls that don’t hit the pitch are routinely hit out of the ground even at low level cricket.
This is what surprised me the first time I got into the sport on tv. The pitchers needing to rest for days after a game in which they pitched for any meaningful time.
The evidence suggests both players would be pretty damn poor at each others sport. I don’t believe any have made the crossover. Many sports do make crossovers but cricket and baseball aren’t in that category. Sure, they are mainly played in different cultures but you would have thought some would have attempted it by now. The money in baseball is has been huge for decades; some desperate Englishman, Australian, West Indian or Indian cricketer would have made a successful career move by now. The money in cricket has recently become substantial in certain areas. No 2nd or 3rd rate baseballer has yet made the jump to cricket either.
If the switch from Rugby League to Union is problematic for many rugby players. The switch between cricket and baseball will be vastly more difficult.
Let’s not forgetJ R Richard, one of the most overpowering pitchers ever. Not a broken arm, but a stroke from a blood clot.
I’m not sure I buy that this means a lot.
To use the baseball-to-cricket example, opportunities to switch to cricket are not as easily had, even if you had the skill. For one thing, second rate baseball players already have other baseball leagues they could go to; a ballplayer who doesn’t mind living overseas can play in the Japanese leagues, for instance, and indeed many who could not cut the mustard in the USA have found enormous success there.
For another, a baseball player will usually not be in a position to KNOW they’re second rate until it’s too late. Ballplayers are drafted or signed as amateurs generally between the ages of 18 and 21, and except for ones with shocking amounts of talent it takes years of minor league seasoning to determine if they can hack it in the majors. The minor league ballplayer is scuffling along for years in the hopes of getting at least one MLB contract If they don’t make it it’s usually one of two paths:
- They blow out of pro ball very early and find another career path, or
- They finally give up in their late 20s.
Either way, why would a cricket team even TRY to change such a player into a cricket player? When the Blue Jays finally give up on Kevin Pillar next year, he’ll be 27 years old. I suppose with practice it’s possible Pillar could become a useful cricketer but it’d take at least a year or two at which point you might, if luck goes your way, have a useful player who’s already at or past his athletic peak. It simply is not worth the effort, frankly, as opposed to drawing talent from the available ranks of young cricket talent. There’s little upside to it.
It seems to be that the opposite must also be true. The ranks of aspiring ballplayers are full of talented young men and it’s already a major industry to try to sort through the talent they do have. There’s little benefit is wasting the energy involved if seeing if some 28-year-old cricket washout from Bangalore might have talents more suited to baseball. Most MLB teams are stretched just scouting the world’s collection of actual baseball players.