For Indian Cricket to improve learn from US Baseball

[FischerTal]

This thread has gone for 15 pages :phehehe:

[Midfielder]

I am still not understanding what you are trying to prove Learning full tosses from baseball how will it help you negotiate a leg spin' date=' off spin . In Cricket full toss is a bad ball. In baseball that is the only ball. Only advantage they have is smaller bat. They don't take stance. They don't have to waste time backlift as the bat is already in up position since they don't have to worry about yorkers. So that significantly helps you react faster. It is hard only because bat is smaller. Someone with cricket bat would meet that baseball 100 out of 100 times. Same way someone batting against cricket ball without technique would not meet the cricket ball with baseball bat 8 out of 10 times. If you give baseball bat to a cricketer and baseball player to play against cricket balls, it is most likely a cricketer will connect significantly higher. Cricketers have much superior reflexes than a baseball players as they are used to playing all different deliveries. Cricketer may not hit like a steriod filled baseball player. But he is most likely to meet the ball on the middle of the bat than a baseball player.[/quote'] All I am saying is that they have far superior hand eye coordination that can be learned from baseball and certain drills. Having a small bat is a significant disadvantage for connection. That forces you toconcentrate more and figure out where the ball is. Cricketer will connect significantly higher because he has a cricket bat. If he a baseball bat no way he is connecting because his concentration is just not their. A raised bat with a strong swing forces to close the gap. You can see lot of cricket player now using a similar stance as Baseball bat so that they can come down faster. Taking the bat up and bringing it down has part of the motion with wasted energy. I was taught that way and it was wrong. Look at the evolution of stance over last 20 years and it is going towards baseball.

[Midfielder]

This thread has gone for 15 pages :phehehe:

As long as you can keep learning.

[vvvslaxman]

All I am saying is that they have far superior hand eye coordination that can be learned from baseball and certain drills. Having a small bat is a significant disadvantage for connection. That forces you toconcentrate more and figure out where the ball is. Cricketer will connect significantly higher because he has a cricket bat. If he a baseball bat no way he is connecting because his concentration is just not their. A raised bat with a strong swing forces to close the gap. You can see lot of cricket player now using a similar stance as Baseball bat so that they can come down faster. Taking the bat up and bringing it down has part of the motion with wasted energy. I was taught that way and it was wrong. Look at the evolution of stance over last 20 years and it is going towards baseball.

Hand eye coordination is all needed in baesball. But in cricket you need something called judgement, late reaction, last minute adjustment, thinking on the feet lot of things go in. In baseball whole thing is a linear process. It is very easy to improve your hand eye coordination.. Pick a b at smaller than baseball bat and practice for hours.. you will eventually get it. Cricket is a bit more complex than you imagine. Baseball can be mastered with enough practice. It is not like they wake up one day and start hitting everything from the middle. Lot of girls in connect the ball effortlessly in these local highschool baseball games albeit the same 25%. It is not that hard to achieve that 25% . Only reason you may not get into MLB is because you can't hit long. That is why. Cricket has a place for someone like Mahela and someone like Hayden as well.

[Silva]

judgement' date= late reaction, last minute adjustment, thinking on the feet lot of things go in.

You need all that in baseball too. Its just different than cricket. Plate discipline is a huge factor in judging hitters. It extremely difficult to judge which pitches are going in the strike zone and which pitches are not especially considering the natural movement that baseballs have with the way that they are stitched up. Batters also intentionally foul good balls away and try and stay at the plate hoping they get a bad pitch that they can punish. Batters also check their swings all the time when they realize that the ball is in going in the strike zone.

[Midfielder]

Hand eye coordination is all needed in baesball. But in cricket you need something called judgement' date=' late reaction, last minute adjustment, thinking on the feet lot of things go in. In baseball whole thing is a linear process. It is very easy to improve your hand eye coordination.. Pick a b at smaller than baseball bat and practice for hours.. you will eventually get it. Cricket is a bit more complex than you imagine. Baseball can be mastered with enough practice. It is not like they wake up one day and start hitting everything from the middle. Lot of girls in connect the ball effortlessly in these local highschool baseball games albeit the same 25%. It is not that hard to achieve that 25% . Only reason you may not get into MLB is because you can't hit long. That is why. Cricket has a place for someone like Mahela and someone like Hayden as well.[/quote'] Baseball need that and lot more. The girl thing you are talking about is softball and those ball barely come at cricket pace around 70 mph are slightly bigger and have underhand action. To the credit of those ladies some of them can outrun few players on Indian teams. There are multiple reason you may not be able to get into mlb and hitting long is just one. I think the problem mlb has is everyone can hit long but there are other factors players fall short on that is why they don't get picked.

[akshayxyz]

From wiki:

Also, especially in Test cricket, it is common for several fielders to be stationed close to the bat (slips, short leg, silly point and similar positions) since the value of dismissing a batsman off a catch is higher. Catching at these positions require exceptional reflexes, skill and courage, associated with bare-handed catching of a hard ball traveling at up to 100 miles per hour (160 km/h), with reaction times of the order of 0.2 seconds

http://www.economist.com/blogs/gametheory/2012/04/decision-making-cricket Some comments from the article: "Although baseball may be comparable in terms of the need for very quick reaction time and super fast decision making, I don't think it comes close to cricket since the number of balls a test batsman has to face can come to hundreds! The level of concentration and the amount of time that said concentration is required far exceeds a typical baseball batter's innings." "A baseball does have contrasting stitching which possibly makes it easier to pick up the spin and the ball is changed as soon as it has any damage to remove the advantage to the pitcher." "Any given pitch will likely be harder to hit fair in baseball (only a 1/4 circle is fair, whereas in cricket the full circle is fair if I understand correctly), but standing out on the pitch for a long time will wear a batter down in cricket while the baseball batter is in and out relatively quickly (about 5 to 10 minutes at most)." " Not only do bowlers control the ball in the air, they control the ball as it bounces off the pitch. The variation in ball movement in cricket is far greater than anything you would see in baseball. We can also agree that the balls are moving approximately at the same speed when released from the bowler's or pitcher's hand. While I concede that the cricket bat is bigger, the range of shots needed in cricket are far greater. Just as the person above mentioned, half of a batter's decision making process is barely to determine whether he should swing or not. There are no 'walks' in cricket. Batsmen in cricket have to worry about far more than whether to swing or not, because very often, the ball is in line to hit them if they don't react. Simply said, the lack of a 4 ball walk and the pure variation in balls faced make it much harder to bat than baseball." " A good MLB batter faces about 2,500 pitches in a season (160matches x 4 at bats x about 4 pitches each on average) A good test batsman may face on average about 600 deliveries in a 5-match Test series (or an average of 60 deliveries an inning), and there may be up to 13 test matches in a year (2 long and 1 short test series), bringing the annual total to about 1600. Major League Baseball is closer to a 20-20 league in terms of the length and number of matches." Don't forget, these days players have ODIs and T20s also to deal with. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fitness of cricket players: Fast bowlers - they are capable of bowling ~50-60 overs in a test match. That is about 300+ deliveries of run-up, delivery jump, and bowling sling. Add to that running/standing around involved in fielding for 5 days! Batsmen - expected to field on field at about 50% of the time, and yet maintain focus to face Mitchell Johnsons and then adjust to spinners and many other types of bowlers that may be thrown at you. Wicket Keeper - .e.g. Dhoni in an ODI. standing behind the wicket for 300 deliveries ~ 3:30 hours, and still be able to play an innings of 100+ deliveries on a good day. When you see someone like Sachin cramping after crossing 120-130 deliveries, it is not because he is a relatively poor athlete. It is because these guys make their bodies go through insane amount of work, pushing the limits of endurance and yet be able to maintain focus to face all kinds of deliveries. Also - since you are too lazy and dishonest to search corresponding cricket numbers yourself.. here are some quick results Reaction times required in cricket. http://www.cns.nyu.edu/events/vjclub/archive/land2000.pdf Kinematics in cricketers. http://www.jssm.org/vol13/n1/18/v13n1-18pdf.pdf Make whatever you want to of these numbers but don't be a fool to judge a cricketer's fitness/skill ( or any other sports-man) on just his ability to run 60yards or hit a baseball (w/o even allowing to adjust!) On Reaction time after the ball pitches - a good length ball pitches at about 3-4 meters in front of batsman. even if the ball slows down to 60mph after pitching ( as you claim) - batsman has only about 200 ms to judge the various variables of movement off the pitch. Baseball requirements are also about same, after that its just about training and conditioning to a particular sport. and for the nth time, just because Usain bolt is fastest sprinter (and can probably jump higher too), does not mean that a marathon runner is a worse athlete.

[akshayxyz]

btw - Jacques Kallis has delivered about 30000 balls in international cricket (Tests +ODIs) and faced about 24000. Show us an equivalent number from amrican gulli-danda.

[Midfielder]

From wiki: http://www.economist.com/blogs/gametheory/2012/04/decision-making-cricket Some comments from the article: "Although baseball may be comparable in terms of the need for very quick reaction time and super fast decision making, I don't think it comes close to cricket since the number of balls a test batsman has to face can come to hundreds! The level of concentration and the amount of time that said concentration is required far exceeds a typical baseball batter's innings." "A baseball does have contrasting stitching which possibly makes it easier to pick up the spin and the ball is changed as soon as it has any damage to remove the advantage to the pitcher." "Any given pitch will likely be harder to hit fair in baseball (only a 1/4 circle is fair, whereas in cricket the full circle is fair if I understand correctly), but standing out on the pitch for a long time will wear a batter down in cricket while the baseball batter is in and out relatively quickly (about 5 to 10 minutes at most)." " Not only do bowlers control the ball in the air, they control the ball as it bounces off the pitch. The variation in ball movement in cricket is far greater than anything you would see in baseball. We can also agree that the balls are moving approximately at the same speed when released from the bowler's or pitcher's hand. While I concede that the cricket bat is bigger, the range of shots needed in cricket are far greater. Just as the person above mentioned, half of a batter's decision making process is barely to determine whether he should swing or not. There are no 'walks' in cricket. Batsmen in cricket have to worry about far more than whether to swing or not, because very often, the ball is in line to hit them if they don't react. Simply said, the lack of a 4 ball walk and the pure variation in balls faced make it much harder to bat than baseball." " A good MLB batter faces about 2,500 pitches in a season (160matches x 4 at bats x about 4 pitches each on average) A good test batsman may face on average about 600 deliveries in a 5-match Test series (or an average of 60 deliveries an inning), and there may be up to 13 test matches in a year (2 long and 1 short test series), bringing the annual total to about 1600. Major League Baseball is closer to a 20-20 league in terms of the length and number of matches." Don't forget, these days players have ODIs and T20s also to deal with. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fitness of cricket players: Fast bowlers - they are capable of bowling ~50-60 overs in a test match. That is about 300+ deliveries of run-up, delivery jump, and bowling sling. Add to that running/standing around involved in fielding for 5 days! Batsmen - expected to field on field at about 50% of the time, and yet maintain focus to face Mitchell Johnsons and then adjust to spinners and many other types of bowlers that may be thrown at you. Wicket Keeper - .e.g. Dhoni in an ODI. standing behind the wicket for 300 deliveries ~ 3:30 hours, and still be able to play an innings of 100+ deliveries on a good day. When you see someone like Sachin cramping after crossing 120-130 deliveries, it is not because he is a relatively poor athlete. It is because these guys make their bodies go through insane amount of work, pushing the limits of endurance and yet be able to maintain focus to face all kinds of deliveries. Also - since you are too lazy and dishonest to search corresponding cricket numbers yourself.. here are some quick results Reaction times required in cricket. http://www.cns.nyu.edu/events/vjclub/archive/land2000.pdf Kinematics in cricketers. http://www.jssm.org/vol13/n1/18/v13n1-18pdf.pdf Make whatever you want to of these numbers but don't be a fool to judge a cricketer's fitness/skill ( or any other sports-man) on just his ability to run 60yards or hit a baseball (w/o even allowing to adjust!) On Reaction time after the ball pitches - a good length ball pitches at about 3-4 meters in front of batsman. even if the ball slows down to 60mph after pitching ( as you claim) - batsman has only about 200 ms to judge the various variables of movement off the pitch. Baseball requirements are also about same, after that its just about training and conditioning to a particular sport. and for the nth time, just because Usain bolt is fastest sprinter (and can probably jump higher too), does not mean that a marathon runner is a worse athlete.

You are dense. where is economist published from? enough said. Quantity does not equate to quality. For n+1 times cricket ball does not come at 100 mph 65 is all it is doing(yorker and full toss faster). Whoever is saying that is a liar. I can list 100s of articles done on reaction times of baseball players. It is not possible to see a baseball for the entire length. It is beyond the limit of human data acquisition skills. If I am a better athlete I will outperform you. Fitness is so important in baseball and it is not stressed enough in cricket. Most of Baseball players are close to Olympic sprinter numbers very few cricket players are. Don't throw dirt all over the place hoping something will stick. It does not work that way. Stick to one point and we can discuss it. BTW thanks for admitting that it is 100-200 msec after the ball is pitched. We wasted four pages to get that admission. Rest is all garbage and I can clinically dissect each and every point.The reaction time paper was informative though.

[Muloghonto]

You are dense. where is economist published from? enough said. Quantity does not equate to quality. For n+1 times cricket ball does not come at 100 mph 65 is all it is doing(yorker and full toss faster). Whoever is saying that is a liar.

That doesn't matter. And you are clearly too dense to see that. For one, cricket does have its fair share of full tosses (yorkers and legal full tosses), so in cricket the ball IS comming at 100mph too. Proverbially speaking. Plus, even if the ball is losing 30% of its energy in bouncing (which is not necessarily so. a cricket ball can lose as little as 20% of its energy after bounce on certain circumstances)it doesn't matter because the cricket ball is spending 70-80% of the distance covered in flight also: incanse you didnt notice, 90% of cricket balls bounce within 70-80% on their way to the batsman, some, 90% of their way to the batsman or more. So, at given speeds, when one ball is going a distance of 18 meters at 95mph versus going 16 meters at 95mph and 4 meters at 70mph, the reaction times difference translates to a negligible difference. if what you are saying ( a cricket ball coming at 70mph over the distance is easier to hit than a baseball comming at 90mph over the distance) is true, it is true for only those long hops bowled by spinners and such, where the ball bounced less than half way down the pitch and dies on the batsmen.

It is not possible to see a baseball for the entire length. It is beyond the limit of human data acquisition skills.

That is flat out incorrect and lies. Pure and simple and I bet you won't be able to find a single article that proclaims it to be humanly impossible to see a baseball its entire length.

If I am a better athlete I will outperform you. Fitness is so important in baseball and it is not stressed enough in cricket.

Incorrect. Unathletic players in cricket are far more athletic than unathletic baseball players. Cricketers have far greater stamina than most baseball players. baseball players are stronger in general than cricketers, especially in the major muscle groups. They do have different fitness criterias but cricket's fitness is harder to acuqire: it is not about strength, its about stamina- which is much harder to increase.

Most of Baseball players are close to Olympic sprinter numbers very few cricket players are.

That is a flat out lie too. There are many people who can run 20 meters in 2 seconds. Does not mean they can run 100 meters in 10.

[Midfielder]

That doesn't matter. And you are clearly too dense to see that. For one, cricket does have its fair share of full tosses (yorkers and legal full tosses), so in cricket the ball IS comming at 100mph too. Proverbially speaking. Plus, even if the ball is losing 30% of its energy in bouncing (which is not necessarily so. a cricket ball can lose as little as 20% of its energy after bounce on certain circumstances)it doesn't matter because the cricket ball is spending 70-80% of the distance covered in flight also: incanse you didnt notice, 90% of cricket balls bounce within 70-80% on their way to the batsman, some, 90% of their way to the batsman or more. So, at given speeds, when one ball is going a distance of 18 meters at 95mph versus going 16 meters at 95mph and 4 meters at 70mph, the reaction times difference translates to a negligible difference. if what you are saying ( a cricket ball coming at 70mph over the distance is easier to hit than a baseball comming at 90mph over the distance) is true, it is true for only those long hops bowled by spinners and such, where the ball bounced less than half way down the pitch and dies on the batsmen. That is flat out incorrect and lies. Pure and simple and I bet you won't be able to find a single article that proclaims it to be humanly impossible to see a baseball its entire length. Incorrect. Unathletic players in cricket are far more athletic than unathletic baseball players. Cricketers have far greater stamina than most baseball players. baseball players are stronger in general than cricketers, especially in the major muscle groups. They do have different fitness criterias but cricket's fitness is harder to acuqire: it is not about strength, its about stamina- which is much harder to increase. That is a flat out lie too. There are many people who can run 20 meters in 2 seconds. Does not mean they can run 100 meters in 10.

I don't know what sport you have played. Very few balls are full tosses not a fair share as you claim. Proverbial speak does not count as facts. Even if a ball is full toss cricket player has lot more surface area to bat with hence less skills are needed. Go fact check your numbers and mine. I will discuss spinners later but no spinner ever bowls half way down the pitch. Maybe you have done that. Cricket players are not for the last time better conditioned than baseball player. I like Rahane but that guy is 30 lb underweight. You never ever see that kind of crap in MLB. I don't know if you know what you are talking about. So I have to take your word that cricket players have that something which is difficult to acquire which you cannot define and they have more of it.

[Reddysahb]

^ oh man this back and forth one up manship is still going on Midfielder's points and logic are all right But IMHO, I feel that cricket is a much better overall and superior game than baseball both in concept and execution. Players have more control over the different aspects in cricket. baseball is more random and hit and run. baseball is a combination of raw power and body mechanics especially batting in baseball is really hard it is exponentially harder to hit a baseball as the bat is thinner than a almost paddle like cricket bat. but definetely cricket is more evolved and more interesting for sure and we love cricket

[vvvslaxman]

You are dense. where is economist published from? enough said. Quantity does not equate to quality. For n+1 times cricket ball does not come at 100 mph 65 is all it is doing(yorker and full toss faster). Whoever is saying that is a liar. I can list 100s of articles done on reaction times of baseball players. It is not possible to see a baseball for the entire length. It is beyond the limit of human data acquisition skills. If I am a better athlete I will outperform you. Fitness is so important in baseball and it is not stressed enough in cricket. Most of Baseball players are close to Olympic sprinter numbers very few cricket players are. Don't throw dirt all over the place hoping something will stick. It does not work that way. Stick to one point and we can discuss it. BTW thanks for admitting that it is 100-200 msec after the ball is pitched. We wasted four pages to get that admission. Rest is all garbage and I can clinically dissect each and every point.The reaction time paper was informative though.

Sure they are :cantstop:

[vvvslaxman]

I don't know what sport you have played. Very few balls are full tosses not a fair share as you claim. Proverbial speak does not count as facts. Even if a ball is full toss cricket player has lot more surface area to bat with hence less skills are needed. Go fact check your numbers and mine. I will discuss spinners later but no spinner ever bowls half way down the pitch. Maybe you have done that. Cricket players are not for the last time better conditioned than baseball player. I like Rahane but that guy is 30 lb underweight. You never ever see that kind of crap in MLB. I don't know if you know what you are talking about. So I have to take your word that cricket players have that something which is difficult to acquire which you cannot define and they have more of it.

Dude you are spouting nonsense by comparing Indians and Americans. It has something to do with ethnicity. You have to compare with guys from South Africa, Australia, West Indies. You are think you are comparing sports. No you are not. you are actually comparing two different races. You think if Indians play baseball they will run 100 meter in 9.93 seconds? :cantstop: If you compare sports you have to compare the best athletes in cricket.

[Muloghonto]

^ oh man this back and forth one up manship is still going on Midfielder's points and logic are all right But IMHO, I feel that cricket is a much better overall and superior game than baseball both in concept and execution. Players have more control over the different aspects in cricket. baseball is more random and hit and run. baseball is a combination of raw power and body mechanics especially batting in baseball is really hard it is exponentially harder to hit a baseball as the bat is thinner than a almost paddle like cricket bat. but definetely cricket is more evolved and more interesting for sure and we love cricket

What you say is true. But its not easier to execute a shot than it is in baseball. Yes, to simply put bat on ball in baseball is harder. But in baseball you are not placing the ball with pin point accuracy. You are aiming an allmighty hoick in front of you. In cricket, you neef more precision control to pierce the gaps. Sent from my GT-S5830D using Tapatalk 2

[vvvslaxman]

What you say is true. But its not easier to execute a shot than it is in baseball. Yes, to simply put bat on ball in baseball is harder. But in baseball you are not placing the ball with pin point accuracy. You are aiming an allmighty hoick in front of you. In cricket, you neef more precision control to pierce the gaps. Sent from my GT-S5830D using Tapatalk 2

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0QJhXD9gtQ]8 impossible short leg catches in cricket - YouTube[/ame] This is a foul in baseball.. Here batsman get bowled in addition to finger get broken :cantstop:

[Midfielder]

^ oh man this back and forth one up manship is still going on Midfielder's points and logic are all right But IMHO, I feel that cricket is a much better overall and superior game than baseball both in concept and execution. Players have more control over the different aspects in cricket. baseball is more random and hit and run. baseball is a combination of raw power and body mechanics especially batting in baseball is really hard it is exponentially harder to hit a baseball as the bat is thinner than a almost paddle like cricket bat. but definetely cricket is more evolved and more interesting for sure and we love cricket

I agree mostly and I do enjoy cricket too but only 20/20. Test cricket to me is boring and stupid. That is a personal preference.

[Midfielder]

Sure they are :cantstop:

Cherry picking data is not fair. The expectation here is different. Some of these guys are pitchers who are pretty much pitching at the extreme limits of human body.They genrerate and transfer energy from their legs, shoulders and transfer it to arms. It is amazing what they do.

[Midfielder]

Dude you are spouting nonsense by comparing Indians and Americans. It has something to do with ethnicity. You have to compare with guys from South Africa' date=' Australia, West Indies. You are think you are comparing sports. No you are not. you are actually comparing two different races. You think if Indians play baseball they will run 100 meter in 9.93 seconds? :cantstop: If you compare sports you have to compare the best athletes in cricket.[/quote'] No I am not. The most important point I am trying to drive home is physical conditioning of indian players which is pathetic. My first coach in tennis told me something very important and that is applicable in all sports. He said that there is nothing wrong in losing a game because of talent but you should never lose game on conditioning. There is no reason minimum physical standards should not be implemented for cricket. Another e.g. is that in High Schools in US for soccer if you cannot run two miles in 12 mnts they would not let you step on the field. Point is Indians can do that too. They need to learn that from US Baseball.

[vvvslaxman]

No I am not. The most important point I am trying to drive home is physical conditioning of indian players which is pathetic. My first coach in tennis told me something very important and that is applicable in all sports. He said that there is nothing wrong in losing a game because of talent but you should never lose game on conditioning. There is no reason minimum physical standards should not be implemented for cricket. Another e.g. is that in High Schools in US for soccer if you cannot run two miles in 12 mnts they would not let you step on the field. Point is Indians can do that too. They need to learn that from US Baseball.

Why not try the methods of Australian cricketers, SA cricketers instead of fat US baseball players or even SOccer teams, Rafa Nadal