2007-06-23 21:46:50 · 5 answers · asked by jdejioeuri 2 in Sports ➔ Baseball
A player is much more susceptable to an injury while playing baseball. Cricket uses a slightly smaller and significantly lighter ball, therefor gloves are not necessary.
2007-06-23 21:51:20 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The baseball travels much faster. The fastest a baseball gets is over 100 mph, while a cricket ball goes up to about 92 mph. In cricket the wicketkeeper, which is equivalent to a catcher, wears gloves on both hands, but the other 10 players don't. A cricket ball is also a little smaller and lighter than a baseball.
2007-06-23 23:13:16 · answer #2 · answered by baseball_tennis guy 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't know about the rules of Cricket but I've never heard or seen a rule that a baseball player has to wear a glove, but previous posters have given good reasons.
I have one more - if I was paying a player 5-million bucks a year they are going to have all the protection needed.
At one time a catcher didn't wear protective gear, a mask nor use a glove. Needless to say the very early catchers had very short careers - and hands that puffed up like catchers mitts.
It's like in Hockey. Those goalies trying to stop a 100-mile an hour slap shot wouldn't feel very good when one landed up side the head.
2007-06-24 03:08:31 · answer #3 · answered by Jay9ball 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Baseball is not cricket.
Cricket is not baseball.
Muse upon these truths until achieving enlightenment.
2007-06-24 02:32:29 · answer #4 · answered by Chipmaker Authentic 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Baseball travels much faster... try catching a 95mph fastball with your barehands... then get back to me.
2007-06-23 21:50:56 · answer #5 · answered by s;ajf;lakjsd;f 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋