ben wrote:

[top posting corrected]

> > I'm fairly sure,
> > however, that a typical cricket ball in use in a game is softer than a
> > basebal lin use in a game.  Baseballs are regularly removed from play as
> > soon as they've been damaged in any way, so players never encounter one
> > that's softened from use.  In major league baseball, for instance, umpires
> > are required to ready six dozen balls before each game, and they routinely
> > use most of them.
> >
> > --
> > Roger Moore  |  Master of Meaningless Trivia  |  (raj@alumni.caltech.edu)
> > There's no point in questioning authority if you don't listen to the
> > answers.

> LOL. Cricket ball softer than a baseball in a typical game. This would have
> to be the funniest thing I have heard in a while. May be you should have a
> look at  a cricket ball after it has been used for 80 overs and see exactly
> how soft it is compared to a baseball.

I'm trying to understand your assertion.  Roger claimed that a baseball
and a cricket ball are, when new, of roughly equal hardness, and that
since baseballs are replaced frequently over the course of the game
while cricket balls are not, the net effect is that cricket balls are
on average softer than baseballs.  While you find this argument
hilarious, you haven't actually refuted it.  What part of Roger's
argument is incorrect?  Please be specific.

Richard R. Hershberger