Every single one of your critiques hit home except this one:
> that baseball is transforming the noble art of cricket
> into a meaningless pyjamafest;
Baseball is not based on cricket. Americans had to start over and invent a new game precisely because cricket is so one dimensional and stupid.
Baseball is a game of beautifully precise geometric dimensions, which is something unknown to cricket. E.g., the bases are 90 feet apart to require the fielder the come up with the ball cleanly and make a crisp, accurate throw to first to get the batter as runner. The pitcher's rubber is 60 ft. 6 inches (not 5 inches) from home plate, the mound is a certain height (currently 10 inches), the strike configured in such a way, and the diameter of the bat limited (to no more than 2 3/4") so as to maintain the historic, delicate balance between the skills of the pitcher vis a vis the batter. Baseball stats, which are legion--everything that happens is recorded in some way--are therefore timeless. Currently, in fact, hitters are doing too well by historic standards. Soon the lords of baseball are likely to raise the pitcher's mound back toward the 15 inch height at which it was originally set in 1903 (it was lowered in 1969 when the pitchers were doing too well). Fascinating, no? Nothing like this in cricket, is there? There is, in fact, nothing even interesting about cricket, which, correct me if I'm wrong, doesn't even produce any stats to pour over.
RO