In cricket, it’s widely regarded that the shorter forms of the game are slanted more towards batting than the longer, and I think it’s a reasonable position.
From the perspective of an individual batsman, sure. But looking at the game overall, I think it’s clear that batting has the edge over bowling, when compared to baseball. You’ve never heard of a batter getting one hundred runs in a single baseball game, have you?
Getting the baseball definition of “a hit” is next to impossible. But even getting any kind of contact at all against an MLB-level pitcher is exceedingly difficult. Your average shmoe is probably never going to even foul off a 98 mph fastball right down the middle, let alone one with movement.
Again, it really depends on the form of the game. In a test match a 5-fer (a bowler taking 5 wickets in an innings) can be much more important that a batsman getting a century.
The top test wicket takers are every bit as celebrated as the top scoring batsmen.
I’d say that batting and bowling in cricket are much closer to equal weight than in baseball, not that cricket is slanted towards batting.
But baseball doesn’t work like that so you wouldn’t expect it. Are there equivalent batting performances in baseball that get people a little notable asterix next to their names? I bet there are.
Why would this be an amusing baseball name?
It’s pronounced, approximately, “n’Wen” - thus, “When”.
It might be pronounced when.
Often pronounced like ‘win’ also.
I have a number of Vietnamese-American (first, second and third generation) friends. Battles over pronunciation of Vietnamese names are epic.
There are apparently Northern Dialect, Southern Dialect, Anglicized and Francized pronunciations. And differences within Francized for some, Metropolitan France vs Quebec.
Do you like baseball? That’s not snark or a rhetorical question. When I was in New Zealand years ago, I watched a cricket match (the Black Caps vs. Pakistan), and found it sufficiently close to baseball that I could, broadly, understand it and enjoy it. But if baseball bores you, I’d think cricket would, as well.
^^Not really big on baseball, though I played little league as a kid.
There have been around 237,000 games in Major League Baseball.
Only three players have hit a home run in 8 consecutive games.
18 players have hit 4 home runs in a single game. I think there were a few players with more but not in the modern era.
The hitting for the cycle has happened 343 times.
This thread is taking me back.
One of my neighborhood friends in my teen years was of Indian ancestry. His father had played competitive cricket in the vicinity of Amritsar, Punjab. I don’t know if it was amateur cricket or low-level professional cricket.
Anyway, my friend had access to some of his dad’s old cricket equipment. He took a pair of wicketkeeper’s gloves, some ill-fitting helmets, and one cricket bat to my house one day to teach me and a few other kids about cricket. His dad didn’t let him take any of the actual cricket balls – maybe he figured we’d break a window or something.
We ended up playing a heavily bastardized backyard version of cricket. There were nowhere near enough players for a full set of two teams – if we had more than five total we had a lot. And we only had one wicket, not two – we had to fashion our lone wicket out of pieces of a beat-up old lawn chair. The bails were pieces of a pencil-width tree branch that we broke apart. And not having an actual cricket ball, we made do with a bunch of tennis balls.
Whoever bowled did so using a T-shirt on the ground as a reference point instead of a proper second wicket. I do recall that after hitting the ball on the ground – if you wanted to score a point – you had to run to the T-shirt and then back to our lone wicket. Hitting the ball into the backyard’s fence was four points. Hitting it over the fence was six. My backyard was big but not cricket-pitch big … so once we started to get the hang of the batting, we got our share of fours and sixes.
I guess in a way we were really just doing something like cricket batting practice. The bowling & batting area (wicket & T-shirt) were situated up fairly close to the house, not in the center of the yard, and we treated batted balls that went backwards into the house as out-of-play.
I do remember having fun playing backyard cricket. We didn’t play it all that often – maybe four or five times that summer. The wicketkeeper gloves were left behind and were in my parents’ garage for years thereafter. Good memories.
I think a taped-up tennis ball is OK for backyard cricket.
My point would be that a century is something that happens with a certain regularity. Common enough that many have done so but hard enough to be notable and worthy of comment. (with additional interest based on how fast the century is scored, by what means, at what point in the game and in what format of cricket)
I’m sure that there are notable batting performances in baseball that fill that slot.
I have no idea what “hitting for the cycle” means though
A single, a double, a triple and a homerun in the same game. Obviously four home runs is objectively better for the game. It’s more of a fun statistical oddity.
I don’t know what that means (apart from a homerun)
Very similar to cricket. But instead of 1, 2, or 3 runs off a ball, it’s whether a hitter in baseball reaches 1st, 2nd or 3rd base off of a hit. The run only counts if the batter eventually reaches home plate (or 4th base, if you will).
Gotcha, I had a couple of ways of interpreting it.
Is there no notable stat for the number of runs that a specific batsman creates? i.e. with their own homeruns and by allowing batsmen to get back home?
My limited knowledge of cricket statistics looms large here, but:
It’s seems like centuries (100+ run “at-bats”) occur far more often in cricket than, say, four-homerun games occur in baseball.
Centuries might, maybe, be equivalent to two-homerun games. Or maybe to baseball games where a batter gets a hit every time up (say, 4-4 or 5-5). Yet those kinds of performances, solid as they are, aren’t really hallowed in baseball lore the way “hitting for the cycle” is.
Many of baseball “hardly ever happen, so their special” performances are on the pitching side, such as no-hitters (no opposing batter gets a base hit; walks and errors allowed) and and a sub-class of no-hitter known as “perfect games” (27 consecutive outs, no opposing batter reaches base by any method).