Both of them are more regional sports instead of global, but international baseball could support at least as many acceptable teams as cricket without having to resort to tiny nations like Bermuda to beef up numbers (going by the above post about cricket teams). As it stands neither of them are in the olympics and I don't think that will change for the foreseeable future anyway so it doesn't really matter.
I'm not sure how a sport with major participants from every inhabited continent bar South America can be considered regional?
In a T20 tournament at the Olympics, you'd have at least 7 nations who could actually win the gold medal:
Australia, New Zealand, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, England, South Africa.
Bangladesh, Netherlands, Canada, Ireland, the Carribean nations (in international cricket, these countries combine and play under the one banner of the 'West Indies'), Scotland, Zimbabwe, Kenya and Afganistan would be making up the numbers, but could produce an upset (the Netherlands beat England in the 2009 tournament for example).
That's the difference between Cricket and Baseball. In Baseball, how many nations would be legitimate shots at winning the gold, if all the best players were involved?
It's not just a comparison of how many nations play each sport - it's a comparison of how is the talent spread internationally. Cricket has a much, much, much richer history of international competition than baseball. The only sport with an international history and presence like cricket is soccer, but even then the top level of that sport is club based.
If anything, that's probably why the ICC have no desire to put cricket into the Olympics anyway.