...when the Dodgers lost a game because they were swinging at bad pitches throughout the game. He was particularly mad at Steve Garvey and said: "Garvey needed a fucking oar to hit the fucking ball today, that's how fucking bad he was!! I'll tell ya, he'd have made a fucking great fucking cricket player, hitting them on one fucking bounce!!"
The link between cricket and baseball is indeed a very interesting one - in fact cricket was my avenue to getting into baseball in the first place. Once you recognise that the sports are very similar with just some slight rule changes, the mystique of the sport you are unfamiliar with of the two evaporates quite quickly. For example, my dad (who prior to that point had not seen a game of baseball in his life) and I saw the Mets play in Shea before they tore it down against the Rockies - he had everything down by the bottom of the 2nd once he could relate the rules back to cricket.
Much more than mechanically though, they share the same spaces among sports fans when it comes to both history and mathematics; cricket is the only sport that I can think of the shares the same historical longevity as baseball, along with the reverence amongst fans of 'the good old days'. In much the same way that the dead ball era and the likes of Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig are referenced today, cricket does the same in regards to the Bodyline tours and Don Bradman and Fred Trueman. There has been now for some time a movement towards advanced metrics in cricket, mirroring in many ways the Moneyball/sabermetric movement in baseball.
In fact the only part where the two sports diverge particularly is in their willingness to accept modern technology. You know the Hawkeye system they use now in tennis games to establish if a ball is in or out? That began life as a development for cricket; to determine if a ball that hits a batsman's pads was likely to go on to hit the stumps, had said batsman not been there.