I don't think you play both sports well enough, or you won't say what you did. The speed is 95-98mph BECAUSE of the shorter pitch (about 2 meters shorter); you can't double-count the reason as a result. Cricket has its share of 95 mph bowlers, but speed is only one, and mostly not the key, determinant of the bowling success.
1. The cricket pitch is longer than the baseball pitch, so the ball has to travel longer and has, thus, more chances to do different things. Plain physics.
2.
In baseball, that rectangular box is where you have to aim. I can have my eyes half closed (or be half drunk) and in three strikes, there is a good chance I'll end up hitting the ball, as long as I match up the speed. Alternatively, you replace the pitcher with a machine, and the game won't vary much. (And my prediction is that's where the game will end up in 50 years anyways.)
3. The bat is narrower in baseball, but guess what? You've got a lighter bat, which knows that the ball has to fall within the rectangle, and a bigger ball. Plus, the expectations are not to score a 40 run average.
4. Could you bowl a much slower ball in baseball? Only if you'd like it to cower down on the ground before reaching the bat.
5. In cricket, the ball can travel anywhere, bounce anywhere, and be caught anywhere. There are literally million more potential outcomes.
As a result, baseball has to be made ARTIFICIALLY harder, by requiring you to use a narrower bat and to run upon striking. However, even if you get out, you've got several more chances that same night to make up. In cricket, one mistake and that might be the end of the series for you.
6. And I'm not even going to get into the pitch, field placement, ball conditions, and other sources of variations.
Like I said, baseball isn't about skill, it's about, frankly, a simpler game, which had to be toughened up with rules -- so as to make it professionally competitive.
Let me ask you this. If I ask you to throw a ball at me when I'm standing 20 metres away, what will be your natural throwing action? If you are one of the 5.9MM normal humans, you will throw it to me in a baseball throw (full chuck) because this is the natural way. Your strength is supposed to be in your arms and not shoulders.
Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia's fast bowling entry (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_bowling):
Code:
Bending the elbow and "chucking" the ball would make it too easy
for the bowler to aim accurately at the batsman's wicket and get them out.
Every variation that's available in baseball is also there in cricket. The problem? You cannot throw it, and if you toss it full, you'll get slaughtered.
No one is calling one superior to the other. But, one is definitely harder than the other, or alternatively, the other is simpler than the first. Hence, the expression "a poor man's version".
That's exactly the reason why one is popular among fans who want to see 9 innings in a 3-hour period and a result. Cricket's T20 is the equivalent in that the skills are dumbed down, but crowd friendliness is improved.
Nothing wrong with either, but let's understand which one is really what. I personally feel cricket has too many formats: tests and ODIs need to be combined into one.