Compared to cricket rounders is very much more similar to baseball (but yes, a simplified version of it). At school we did play rounders with balls and strikes and tagging of runners and stealing bases were very much a thing. The only thing I don’t recognise is the “force-play”.
My point being that they are similar enough that most UK kids will get a feeling for the basics of baseball much more readily than a USA kid would have any knowledge of cricket.
But speaking as someone who grew up in a nation saturated with baseball, and who’s only encountered cricket tangentially, I have to say that cricket still seems to make more sense to me.
The most notorious example is the short porch in right field at the old Yankee Stadium, “The House that Ruth Built”, made to inflate the Babe’s home run totals.
Teams that play in small ball parks like Wrigley field in Chicago (which also tends to have a favorable wind) will adopt a power hitting strategy, trying to get home runs often. Teams that play in larger parks will adopt a strategy based on speedy baserunners, as it is hard to hit home runs in their park.
This is less true than it used to be, imho, as it seems all teams have shifted to a power hitting strategy.
In some parks that were notoriously pitcher-friendly, walls have been moved in to enable more crowd-pleasing homers - Detroit and Houston come to mind, and the new version of Yankee Stadium counts too.
Well sometimes it is a problem when the players are trying to get the bat out of the way of the ball and it edges to a fielder. If the bat was thinner it may well miss completely! (and a cricket bat is less than two inches wider than a baseball bat)
But no, making contact in cricket is pretty easy in general (but not always), the real skill is making the choice when to leave, when to hit, how to hit and *where *to hit.