By the way, today’s over/under ended up at 16.5. That’s higher than you would see with 2 bad pitchers in Colorado. Also looks to go over that easily after 1.5 innings.
It just isn’t the usual gameplay, and I’m not sure why.
But it’s been worth it just to see tall bearskin B hats. :thumbs up:
To answer the OP:
No, it was not a mistake. If there are baseball fans in England, they won’t be coming from the ranks of the cricket fans. While both sports use a hard ball that is thrown and a bat to hit it, the comparison pretty much ends there. And a cricket oval is nothing like a baseball stadium, and would have much too much extra room. Not sure how they decided to use West Ham’s stadium instead of the usual go-to of Wembley, but I’m not sure it would matter.
I see that a real pitching duel has finally emerged today, after an early 4-2 scoreline. Hope the English love that. 
[quote=“DSYoungEsq, post:43, topic:835682”]
To answer the OP:
Yes, if the intent was simply to market to current fans and create a money-grab, then it was. My premise that the purpose of the series was to attract a new fan base was incorrect.
I don’t agree with this. Generally, sports fans are more open to following new sports. In the case of baseball and cricket, anyone with a sufficiently deep understanding of both will find many many similarities, above the bat and ball aspect. The shape of the grounds differ, but the skills required, gamesmanship, pitching/bowling strategies, batting styles, etc. are very similar.
I think the offenses shut down for a stretch, maybe just due to fatigue, but a 12-8 final at the end. Can’t wait for the Cubs-Cardinals series same time next year… with no cricket World Cup to get in the way!
50 runs over two games likely promoted more interest in baseball then, say, a couple 12 or 13 inning 1-0 games. I can’t believe MLB would somehow rig a game, but they certainly got a couple exciting games.
While I’m happy at the outcome, I don’t find high scoring baseball games exciting. But I know I’m in the minority in that I prefer a game with under 7 total runs.
I have the same concern as Robin Lopez: If we keep introducing MLB to the rest of the world, eventually most people will know who won the World Series and we’ll have lost our most effective means of rooting out spies.
Don’t worry; we’ll still be able to pick them out with the second and third verses of the Star Spangled Banner.
And aren’t cricket and soccer (the most popular sports in the UK) typically even lower-scoring than baseball?
Soccer, yes. Cricket, no. For example, in the cricket match currently taking place at the World Cup, Sri Lanka have scored 338 in one innings - roughly what a devoted baseball fan might see their team score in a whole season :). Admittedly, we do count every dash up or down the pitch as a run, rather than having to do four sprints to score, but even so, cricket is probably one of the highest-scoring games around.
Because a spy would have learned them and an American would have no idea.
OK, I got my misunderstanding about cricket from the notion that (in at least some versions) a game can last multiple days. I was assuming that that was due to whatever their equivalent is of extra innings (which are almost impossible in a high-scoring game), but didn’t consider the possibility of an inning just never ending because the batting team just keeps on scoring instead of getting outs.
And I suppose that the other popular British sport always has a combined score total of at least 150. But that doesn’t really count.
OK, I got my misunderstanding about cricket from the notion that (in at least some versions) a game can last multiple days. I was assuming that that was due to whatever their equivalent is of extra innings (which are almost impossible in a high-scoring game), but didn’t consider the possibility of an inning just never ending because the batting team just keeps on scoring instead of getting outs.
And I suppose that the other popular British sport always has a combined score total of at least 150. But that doesn’t really count.
What sport are you referring to? 
I never understood that particular “solve the mystery” puzzle.
If the whole point is that only spies would realize someone else is a spy because of knowing the other verses of the Star Spangled Banner, then how is any non-spy supposed to realize the solution to the puzzle in the first place, in which case why does it show up in puzzle books for the masses.
Besides, when I first ran across the puzzle, I did know the other verses of the U.S. Anthem, and I was a preteen or a teenager at the time, and certainly not a spy, so I was unable to solve it.
And of course, as more non-spy people see the answer to the puzzle, the puzzle itself becomes less accurate.
Really, the whole puzzle is rather stupid in premise.
Um, I think it’s called a ‘joke’? 
Chronos, you’ve worked it out. Though I too am not sure what other sport you refer to. Darts? Snooker? Croquet?
I thought rugby but 150 total points would be a pretty high-scoring game. Rugby scores don’t seem to get all that much higher than American football scores.
Maybe bowling? As in, ten pin bowling.
The British still haven’t gotten a proper introduction to Major League Baseball.
What they got was a pretty good introduction to when the Cubs play a day game at Wrigley with the wind blowing out.
Quidditch, guys.
If it was, then Donald J. Sobol didn’t get the joke, since he included it as one of the puzzles in Two Minute Mysteries, IIRC.
And it wasn’t an original puzzle by him.
Or Martians in diners.