Pink Poogle Toy Forum

The official community of Pink Poogle Toy
Main Site
NeoDex
It is currently Sat May 11, 2024 8:31 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 18 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: A question about balls...
PostPosted: Sat Jul 29, 2006 6:54 pm 
Honorary Member
Honorary Member

Posts: 4363
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2004 2:40 am
Location: Down Under
Gender: Female
i have been wondering, are cricket balls and baseball balls made very differently? as how come a baseball player needs a mit to catch the ball but cricket players dont?


Last edited by Rachel on Sat Jul 29, 2006 8:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 29, 2006 7:00 pm 
Beyond Godly
Beyond Godly
User avatar

Posts: 4460
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 1:23 pm
Location: Essex, UK "'"Set by WIS"'"
Tennis balls? They're wayy soft but cricket balls I think they are actually harder than baseballs. I've never closely examined the baseballs but I've never heard of a baseball-related incident...


ImageImage

Boom-shaka-laka! Rawr come and join us in the Randomness
Sig Halloween'd by Tom!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 29, 2006 8:38 pm 
Honorary Member
Honorary Member

Posts: 4363
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2004 2:40 am
Location: Down Under
Gender: Female
sorry, word dyslexia there, i meant cricket balls and baseballs.

my friend, wikipedia tells me that:

Baseball
~ Circumference: approx 9 inches (23 cm)
~ Weight: 5oz (142 g)
~ Composed of: Cork/Rubber core, yarn/twine/wool, leather cover

Cricket Ball
~ Circumference: approx 9 inches (23cm)
~ Weight: 5.5 - 5.75 oz (156 - 163g)
~ Composed of: Cork core, string, leather case

The only difference i've been able to determine is that the seam on a baseball is flat, but on a cricket ball its raised.

So why do baseball players need mits?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 30, 2006 10:57 am 
Beyond Godly
Beyond Godly
User avatar

Posts: 4460
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 1:23 pm
Location: Essex, UK "'"Set by WIS"'"
I guess we'll need an experienced sportsperson who has handled both balls before...


ImageImage

Boom-shaka-laka! Rawr come and join us in the Randomness
Sig Halloween'd by Tom!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 30, 2006 11:49 am 
Beyond Godly
Beyond Godly
User avatar

Posts: 3703
Joined: Mon May 31, 2004 10:11 pm
Location: 51°23' 0°30
'Cause they're lazy and need a hand the size of a large tennis racquet to catch anything that small.

Which is actually kinda true. In the beginning, mitts were never worn, until Charles Waitt, a St. Louis outfielder started wearing gloves. However, these were only normal gloves (to have the same mobility of a barehand but with extra padding) with the fingers cut off. It was generally considered "sissy" but it caught on regardless.

In 1920, Bill Doak, a pitcher for St. Louis Cardinals suggested that a web be placed between the forefinger and the thumber to act as a pocket. This design soon became the norm. Since then, well, baseball mitts have gotten bigger and bigger and evolved for different uses: Catcher, Pitcher, Outfielder, Infielder, First Basemen etc.

I don't actually know why baseball players need mitts and why cricket players don't. But I stand by my first statement.


Image
kudos sasha+gregory // PPT's Unofficial President


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 30, 2006 5:52 pm 
Honorary Member
Honorary Member
User avatar

Posts: 6288
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 5:47 pm
In my experience cricket balls are harder than baseballs- having played games with both, and having been hit in the head with both.

Not much harder though. i just concluded that as with American football/Rugby comparison; Americans are wussies ;)


Image
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 5:07 am 
PPT God
PPT God
User avatar

Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon May 31, 2004 10:09 am
Location: Politically Sanitized, Non-Jim-Slappable Location. La Button par _jaye_
Anoohilator wrote:
I guess we'll need an experienced sportsperson who has handled both balls before...


*snicker*


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 7:02 am 
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Posts: 2898
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2005 7:21 am
Location: Hakazura Temple
Igg wrote:
In my experience cricket balls are harder than baseballs- having played games with both, and having been hit in the head with both.

Not much harder though. i just concluded that as with American football/Rugby comparison; Americans are wussies ;)


I think it's more due to the distance the ball needs to be thrown than anything else. In baseball, catchers need mitts because they're catching 90 mph balls being thrown, and it also makes it easier to catch balls way up in the air. In cricket, you toss underhanded.


Image

IDB Rater, Pink Inker


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 8:16 am 
PPT Trainee
PPT Trainee
User avatar

Posts: 599
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 8:24 am
Location: My Lair of evil
theonlysaneone wrote:
Igg wrote:
In my experience cricket balls are harder than baseballs- having played games with both, and having been hit in the head with both.

Not much harder though. i just concluded that as with American football/Rugby comparison; Americans are wussies ;)


I think it's more due to the distance the ball needs to be thrown than anything else. In baseball, catchers need mitts because they're catching 90 mph balls being thrown, and it also makes it easier to catch balls way up in the air. In cricket, you toss underhanded.


No in Cricket you do not throw underarmed actually. I'm not sure of the speed of a cricket ball when thrown but it's bloody fast. What you say is essentially true I guess, and the reason I can think of why it's not needed in cricket is that it's rare that the cricket ball is passed from player to player, normally it goes to the wicket keeper who wears gloves. I think that's right...ish. But Igg is definetly right, especially about the Rugby part.


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 9:09 am 
Beyond Godly
Beyond Godly
User avatar

Posts: 3703
Joined: Mon May 31, 2004 10:11 pm
Location: 51°23' 0°30
theonlysaneone wrote:
Igg wrote:
In my experience cricket balls are harder than baseballs- having played games with both, and having been hit in the head with both.

Not much harder though. i just concluded that as with American football/Rugby comparison; Americans are wussies ;)


I think it's more due to the distance the ball needs to be thrown than anything else. In baseball, catchers need mitts because they're catching 90 mph balls being thrown, and it also makes it easier to catch balls way up in the air. In cricket, you toss underhanded.



As Mat pointed out, you don't throw under-arm. The speed of a typical fast bowl is 85-95mph, and the fastest deliverly ever recorded was clocked at 100.2 mph by a Pakistani bowler against England's Nick Knight in the 2003 World Cup. (His wicket remained intact, however.)


Image
kudos sasha+gregory // PPT's Unofficial President


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 7:40 pm 
Way Beyond Godly
Way Beyond Godly
User avatar

Posts: 8491
Joined: Mon May 31, 2004 6:44 am
Location: New Zealand Weapon: HaaH Sword Species: Human Alignment: Chaotic Neutral
theonlysaneone wrote:
Igg wrote:
In my experience cricket balls are harder than baseballs- having played games with both, and having been hit in the head with both.

Not much harder though. i just concluded that as with American football/Rugby comparison; Americans are wussies ;)


I think it's more due to the distance the ball needs to be thrown than anything else. In baseball, catchers need mitts because they're catching 90 mph balls being thrown, and it also makes it easier to catch balls way up in the air. In cricket, you toss underhanded.


Only Australians toss underhanded.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 3:31 am 
Administrator
Administrator
User avatar

Posts: 7229
Joined: Mon May 31, 2004 3:56 am
Location: Faster than a speeding IM! Stronger than an ox on steroids! Pinker than a bottle of Pepto-Bismol!
Gender: Male
They just are... it's a known fact. Accept it.


Hold onto your seats people... the SL is back.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 10:15 am 
Honorary Member
Honorary Member
User avatar

Posts: 6288
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 5:47 pm
Christopher wrote:
theonlysaneone wrote:
Igg wrote:
In my experience cricket balls are harder than baseballs- having played games with both, and having been hit in the head with both.

Not much harder though. i just concluded that as with American football/Rugby comparison; Americans are wussies ;)


I think it's more due to the distance the ball needs to be thrown than anything else. In baseball, catchers need mitts because they're catching 90 mph balls being thrown, and it also makes it easier to catch balls way up in the air. In cricket, you toss underhanded.


Only Australians toss underhanded.


Or, you know, roll it across the ground towards the wicket because they;re *that* petty.

People tend not to through underarm in cricket, unless they are throwing the ball very short distances, e.g. wicket keeper to bowler. Although even then it's often overarm.
When fielding the ball is also often thrown pretty far and fast- for example someone retrieving a ball from a boundary and then throwing it back to wicket keeper to try and have the batsman run out.

And we can always rely on Paul's wikipedia skills to find us some statistics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_bowling even if he did re-word it :P

Cricket balls go fast. Or rather, can go fast. If you're a finger spiner like Monty Panesar you're not throwing the ball particularly hard or fast, and you barely need a run up. Whereas pace bowlers like Steve Harmison are bowling up in the 90mph area.


Image
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 3:22 pm 
Administrator
Administrator
User avatar

Posts: 7229
Joined: Mon May 31, 2004 3:56 am
Location: Faster than a speeding IM! Stronger than an ox on steroids! Pinker than a bottle of Pepto-Bismol!
Gender: Male
Baseballs are larger and rounder. Cricken balls usually have that line running through the middle of it, and are hard as rocks!

This thread title makes me laugh.


Hold onto your seats people... the SL is back.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 3:28 pm 
PPT Toddler
PPT Toddler
User avatar

Posts: 113
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 5:22 am
Location: Chicago, IL
The title of this thread alone is misleading.... especially since it's in the Locker Room board.

Anyway!

I'm trying to invision what a cricket ball is like. So the seams on a baseball are flat and such, but not a cricket ball? So is it like a hurling ball, where it's pretty much an inside-out baseball... and can bounce a bit more?


Image
Augustine: It began as one man's dream; it became his empire.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 18 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group