For Indian Cricket to improve learn from US Baseball

[Muloghonto]

You have not played anything ever. If you had played anything you will understand. Your posts smack of ignorance.

Sorry but you are not qualified to tell me what I have done or not done. You have demonstrated your lack of understanding of fitness, inability to guage distance in a picture, analyze basic aerodyamics and basic motions in cricket & baseball with remarkable panache. So, in short, you can shut your hole or keep embarassing yourself.

[vvvslaxman]

Nobody was wearing gloves when baseball was invented. They started dropping a lot. Then it was included. Those days it was considered unmanly lol

[f.b.m]

No he was not. They took a basic assumption that if baseball and cricket ball travel at the same speed they will have the same energy' date=' which is correct but some baseballs are clocked at higher than that and this is the energy imparted as a beamer or full toss. Moreover they never took into account the energy lost at first bounce which probably is now half that of baseball. That is why people have been now arguing with me for several days not understanding the dynamics of baseball.[/quote'] Firstly a baseball is slightly lighter than a cricket ball. Besides you're missing the whole point of batting in cricket which is the unpredictability of the ball bouncing and the larger 'strike zone' that you have makes it difficult to bat.

[Detonator]

Very good posts Muloghonto dood. You nailed it :hatsoff:

[Midfielder]

A 100 million dollar player cannot do it because that 100 million dollar player has 100 million times less experience trying to catch a ball the size of baseball with his bare hands than me. So goes for about millions of people who've spent countless hours playing cricket. You do not know catching, do you ? That is why you come up with 'if it can shatter your skull, what will it do to your hand?' nonsense. First off, catching isnt just plonking your hand in place and not flexing at impact. Second, think for a minute- the same cricket ball that can crack a batsman's cheekbone can be caught on a different line by first slip (cue Steve Harmison). So how does he do it ? Cheekbone is way harder than any bone in your hand too. I am sorry, you expose your complete disregard to logic, science and reason by making apish statements like above. People can catch 100 miles an hour ball with their bare hands. Thats what catching a full blooded pull shot at mid wicket- your freaking name- leads to. If you can do that- catch a Virender Sehwag screamer pull shot off of a patta bowler sitting at midwicket with your bare hands, you can pat yourself on the back because you've just done something 99% baseballers cannot do. Simply dropping the words science, logic or reason doesnt make you one and you are a clinical demonstration of it. Baseball pushes only two limits of the human body: how to swing the bat as hard as one possibly can and how to throw a ball as hard as one possibly can. Every other physical facet of baseball is a sorry excuse for fitness by sporting standards.

More than half the time I see drives by batsman at the bowler which are dropped and the bowler is in pain. Human hand is not designed to catch a ball at 110 mph even by absorbing the impact slowly. You do that and you will have a broken hand and maybe no sensation left in hand with nerve damage. In cricket I see misfields 30% of the time when I watch whereas in baseball they expect to field the balls 99% of time. No way if you have to protect your hand and have that high a percentage you could do without gloves catching balls at that veocity. Either you understand it or dont. Seems like you dont.

[Midfielder]

Firstly a baseball is slightly lighter than a cricket ball. Besides you're missing the whole point of batting in cricket which is the unpredictability of the ball bouncing and the larger 'strike zone' that you have makes it difficult to bat.

You are missing the point completely as the ball hits the ground velocity is down to 60% and energy is a fraction of launch.

[Midfielder]

Nobody was wearing gloves when baseball was invented. They started dropping a lot. Then it was included. Those days it was considered unmanly lol

Pitchers had wicked deliveries and the bats got efficient. The exit velocity of baseball went through the roof and they started protecting themselves. There are few examples of occasional catch but overall outcome is pretty bad.

[Midfielder]

I acknowledged that. I also said that it ONLY does that predictable twice change pattern better than a cricket ball. A cricket ball hangs in the air more' date=' it moves in more, it moves out more through the air. Way more. Thus a cricket ball has a greater range of variable motion through the air than baseball. What part of that do you not understand ?[/quote'] Wicket to wicket movement through the air is never more than baseball. After bowling and with wicketkeeper 20 yards behind it looks nice but at time the distance is more. So no baseball is the hardest thing to hit.

[Midfielder]

A 100 million dollar player cannot do it because that 100 million dollar player has 100 million times less experience trying to catch a ball the size of baseball with his bare hands than me. So goes for about millions of people who've spent countless hours playing cricket. You do not know catching, do you ? That is why you come up with 'if it can shatter your skull, what will it do to your hand?' nonsense. First off, catching isnt just plonking your hand in place and not flexing at impact. Second, think for a minute- the same cricket ball that can crack a batsman's cheekbone can be caught on a different line by first slip (cue Steve Harmison). So how does he do it ? Cheekbone is way harder than any bone in your hand too. I am sorry, you expose your complete disregard to logic, science and reason by making apish statements like above. People can catch 100 miles an hour ball with their bare hands. Thats what catching a full blooded pull shot at mid wicket- your freaking name- leads to. If you can do that- catch a Virender Sehwag screamer pull shot off of a patta bowler sitting at midwicket with your bare hands, you can pat yourself on the back because you've just done something 99% baseballers cannot do. Simply dropping the words science, logic or reason doesnt make you one and you are a clinical demonstration of it. Baseball pushes only two limits of the human body: how to swing the bat as hard as one possibly can and how to throw a ball as hard as one possibly can. Every other physical facet of baseball is a sorry excuse for fitness by sporting standards.

I challenge you to take a catch at 60 feet of a ball with an exit velocity of 110 mph with barehands. If you are fortunate you will have a broken hand and if unfortunate you will have intensive nerve damage and unable to get full function out of that hand for rest of your life.

[Midfielder]

Raman Lamba died in the Post Graduate Hospital in Dhaka in Bangladesh[12] after he was hit on the temple by a cricket ball hit by Mehrab Hossain off left arm spinner Saifullah Khan while fielding at forward short leg Have you heard of this guy. A 20 year old guy smacked a cricket ball from a left arm spinner and kill a fielder. Can you really see that happening in a baseball?

I have watched Raman Lamba play and am fully aware of it. It was unfortunate but he was at short leg where the velocity if hit hard is very high. None of the nicked to slip stuff. That is precisely what I have been telling in my posts that those are the biological limits of human body and that is why baseball players use gloves. Once again baseballs are hit much faster and can you imagine the damage.

[vvvslaxman]

Pitchers had wicked deliveries and the bats got efficient. The exit velocity of baseball went through the roof and they started protecting themselves. There are few examples of occasional catch but overall outcome is pretty bad.

No. They introduced gloves long back even before "demonic bats and balls"

[vvvslaxman]

You are missing the point completely as the ball hits the ground velocity is down to 60% and energy is a fraction of launch.

Are you telling me these balls Kohli smash would feel like 54 mile per hour balls. Trolling of the highest order :cantstop: He walks across uses minimum meat of the bat.. almost like baseballsque size of meat. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY828mXbcTw]Super Over: Virat Kohli 24 runs off Malinga, Commonwealth Bank Series 2012 - YouTube[/ame]

[vvvslaxman]

I have watched Raman Lamba play and am fully aware of it. It was unfortunate but he was at short leg where the velocity if hit hard is very high. None of the nicked to slip stuff. That is precisely what I have been telling in my posts that those are the biological limits of human body and that is why baseball players use gloves. Once again baseballs are hit much faster and can you imagine the damage.

No proof . Y a sure some damage will be there. But not as much as a cricket ball can do even at slower pace.

[Sachinism]

More than half the time I see drives by batsman at the bowler which are dropped and the bowler is in pain. Human hand is not designed to catch a ball at 110 mph even by absorbing the impact slowly. You do that and you will have a broken hand and maybe no sensation left in hand with nerve damage. In cricket I see misfields 30% of the time when I watch whereas in baseball they expect to field the balls 99% of time. No way if you have to protect your hand and have that high a percentage you could do without gloves catching balls at that veocity. Either you understand it or dont. Seems like you dont.

A usually drops those because he is basically running head down into the direction the ball is flying back from, it doesn't allow for enough reaction time as survival instincts kick in

[Muloghonto]

More than half the time I see drives by batsman at the bowler which are dropped and the bowler is in pain. Human hand is not designed to catch a ball at 110 mph even by absorbing the impact slowly. You do that and you will have a broken hand and maybe no sensation left in hand with nerve damage. In cricket I see misfields 30% of the time when I watch whereas in baseball they expect to field the balls 99% of time. No way if you have to protect your hand and have that high a percentage you could do without gloves catching balls at that veocity. Either you understand it or dont. Seems like you dont.

You see bowlers in pain half the time when attempting to catch the ball is because of a simple reason you fool: on the field, the bowler is the one fielder, at all given times when bowling, who is the last ready to catch the ball because his job is focussed on delivery of the ball!. Half the time it comes back to them 1 second after they were busy doing something else. Its not the ball that hurts them, its the lack of time. 95% of bowlers who wince in pain trying to take a return catch, its because they got hit on the fingertips by the ball, not ready enough to get their palm in place in time: a problem that a fielder ready to catch the ball before the ball is delivered, does not have. Again, moron, as i said, if you have any basic math skills, calculate the velocity of the cricket ball arriving at mid-wicket after, say 20% of the hardest slammed pulls. There are plenty fo examples of catches taken at that and if you come up with the ball travelling less than 100 miles an hour, you are simply, a fail at grade 12 math. Ofcourse in baseball there are less misfields. the ball is in play in the field far less! its either out of the park or in people's hands 95% of the time and only 5% of the time it enters the field. When it goes into people's hands, its like catching a ball with a bear's paw, so ofcourse it is easier. Duh! There are more misfields in cricket because there is way more actual fielding in cricket. Not just tossing the ball back to the bowler over and over or fetching it from over the boundary fence. Catching a ball with a glove is pussy. Pure and simple. its so much easier to do than with bare hands. And no, bare hands are better at 'reigning the ball back in' or picking up a ball and returning it thats still in play: which is why your precious baseball players pick up the ball with the ungloved hands, idiot. Its just that they are pussies who prefer catching made easy enough that even the most uncoordinated girl on stillettoes can do it competently.

[Muloghonto]

You are missing the point completely as the ball hits the ground velocity is down to 60% and energy is a fraction of launch.

Where did you get 60% from ?

[vvvslaxman]

Where did you get 60% from ?

That is what i am wodnering. 90 mph ball would feel like 54 mph.. which is slightly lesser than Ramesh powar speed :cantstop:

[Muloghonto]

Wicket to wicket movement through the air is never more than baseball. After bowling and with wicketkeeper 20 yards behind it looks nice but at time the distance is more. So no baseball is the hardest thing to hit.

Absolutely false. The cricket ball moves much, much more through the air before reaching the batsman than a baseball does. A baseball does not curl in nearly as much in one direction or the other in the air over the same horizontal distance it travels in the air. That again, is a fact: both provable by math and observation. baseball is the hardest thing to hit because you are using a round club to hit it. Pitches from baseball are easier to hit than cricket full tosses with a cricket bat. Try it, I have.

[Muloghonto]

I challenge you to take a catch at 60 feet of a ball with an exit velocity of 110 mph with barehands. If you are fortunate you will have a broken hand and if unfortunate you will have intensive nerve damage and unable to get full function out of that hand for rest of your life.

How do you intend me to verify this challenge ? It is something that most people who've played cricket and have caught infield screamers have done. If you've ever caught Greenidge's cut shot or Tendulkar's cut shot from point off of a hansie cronje patta- like Jonty Rhodes has for exmaple, its cactching a ball travelling well over 100mph. Catching a ball and being a 'human wall' to the ball is not the same. If i let myself get hit in the hald repeatedly with 100mph balls while i just held out my hand, it would break. If i tried to catch a 100mph ball it can be done easily. What part of that simple reality do you not get ??

[akshayxyz]

That is what i am wodnering. 90 mph ball would feel like 54 mph.. which is slightly lesser than Ramesh powar speed :cantstop:

exactly. 60% !!!, looks like umrican baseball scientists did that research. that would be an awesome magic slower ball. 95% of batsmen from current lot would fail to connect, trying to swing too soon.