Hitting for a Cycle..whats the big deal

[1952boyntoncollector]

I know its a statistical oddity. but does it really matter. I rather have my player shoot for 4 homers than homer/triple/double/single......

never heard of a record celebrated where you are aiming lower ....so If you have a homer triple and double...and your 4th AB you are penalized on a base hit that you stretched into a second double....because now no cycle? guess you should slow down and take the easy single instead of the sure double to preserve the cycle....

who really cares about filling each category...to me a true cycle is homer triple double single, walk and hit by pitch....lets see that happen...

but oh what a pitty if a guy hits 3 homers and a single....not as good as a cycle......

[bnorth]

You have a very interesting view on baseball and collecting in general.

[Orioles1954]

I know its a statistical oddity. but does it really matter. I rather have my player shoot for 4 homers than homer/triple/double/single......

never heard of a record celebrated where you are aiming lower ....so If you have a homer triple and double...and your 4th AB you are penalized on a base hit that you stretched into a second double....because now no cycle? guess you should slow down and take the easy single instead of the sure double to preserve the cycle....

who really cares about filling each category...to me a true cycle is homer triple double single, walk and hit by pitch....lets see that happen...

but oh what a pitty if a guy hits 3 homers and a single....not as good as a cycle......

-1

[packs]

There are four different hits you can collect in a game: a single, a double, a triple, and a home run. So if you can collect every possible hit in a single game, that is a big deal.

When you hit for the cycle you accomplish every base hit you can have in a game. That's why people are impressed.

[1952boyntoncollector]

There are four different hits you can collect in a game: a single, a double, a triple, and a home run. So if you can collect every possible hit in a single game, that is a big deal.

When you hit for the cycle you accomplish every base hit you can have in a game. That's why people are impressed.

still that's 10 total bases..and maybe only 1 or 2 rbis.....isn't 2 homers and double and a single more impressive....a bigger deal? its 11 bases..and probably a chance for more rbis and runs etc...

id rather collect 3 homers and single than a homer triple double and single......isn't that a bigger deal?

[1952boyntoncollector]

-1


-2

[packs]

Dude, think about things logically. How often do you hear about some guy hitting 2 homers and a triple? Never. The cycle is accomplished on rare occasions. That's why it's news.

[Runscott]

Sort of switching topics - have any of you watched 'Idiot Abroad'? The guy's brain works in really weird way, and he is often amazingly funny. It gave me a lot of insight into some of the stuff I reads in discussion forums.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Dude, think about things logically. How often do you hear about some guy hitting 2 homers and a triple? Never. The cycle is accomplished on rare occasions. That's why it's news.

fine 2 homers and a double......what has Duda on the Mets done the past 2 weeks..how many 2 homer games? Some of those involve 3 or more hits..some of them have to be doubles such as on August 1...so took me a whopping 3 days ago to find an example .... and that's just one player..there have been many many games where the player gets more total bases than the player getting a cycle.....2 homers and a double and a single is less worthy than a cycle..?....

you are asking about how often someone hits 2 homer and a triple and the fact it never happens to support your argument on why a cycle is better than that situation...now im giving you an example that does happen every year but is very rare...the total bases are the same or even more than hitting for a cycle....yet everyone is up in arms defending how great a cycle is...where basically in my examples..my players could get a cycle if they wanted too if they just didn't take the extra base and are penalized for getting too many bases like Duda...heck what Neueheis with 3 homers..


so basically to get the cycle you should not touch home on a second home run..? just stay at third for a chance of a cycle? Again we seem to be celebrating a lesser feat.....not sure what the big deal...

[packs]

No man what I'm saying is you don't HEAR about someone hitting 2 homers and a triple because it's not news. You HEAR about the cycle because it is news. I've already explained why.

You're looking at things from some kind of pseudo fantasy sports perspective re: total bases or whatever. You need to look at the coverage from a logical perspective of why something is rare and why people are more likely to want to hear about rare feats.

[Runscott]

Jake is obviously correct that it's better to hit 2 hr's a triple and a double, than to hit for the cycle - after all, baseball is a team sport. The 'cycle' is one of those strange stats that is celebrated because of it's rarity, not because of its value to the team. It's actually more rare than a no-hitter. But surely Jake knows all of this.

http://www.traveloninspiration.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/The-Best-Karl-Pilkington-An-Idiot-Abroad-Quotes-5.jpg

[1952boyntoncollector]

Packs- I understand your argument about rarity and fantasy sports perspective....but its really just a stats perspective thing you talking about for a cycle..not a team sport thing.....whether stats or fantasy sports thing they both really are cheesy reasons to be into both our arguments.

lots of things are rare...im sure hitting 4 hits in a row all off the wall for singles is rare..but not celebrated......lots of statistical and fantasy sports anomalies im sure you can find are more rare than hitting for the cycle but not celebrated..so the fact a cycle is more rare than a no hitter means nothing..

also you said 2 homers and triple is not news..implying it doesn't happen a lot.....I think there will be more cycles this year than 2 homers and a triple by a hitter...so not sure where you are going with that argument ...

no hitters are getting less and less celebrated now actually...maybe should happen with cycles now......not sure why getting one of each category is better than total bases ...if talking about helping your team..i would rather have a player with more total bases in a game which includes one to be a home run then a cycle ..so team sport the cycle is meaningless.

just like cards...rarity isn't the only factor.....

[1952boyntoncollector]

[QUOTE=Runscott;1438302]Jake is obviously correct that it's better to hit 2 hr's a triple and a double, than to hit for the cycle - after all, baseball is a team sport. The 'cycle' is one of those strange stats that is celebrated because of it's rarity, not because of its value to the team. It's actually more rare than a no-hitter. But surely Jake knows all of this.



im sure you know that lots of things that happen are more strange and rare then the cycle.. ..3 cycles last year though its not so rare...I think there were 4 no-hitters that no one cares about..

[Runscott]

im sure you know that lots of things that happen are more strange and rare then the cycle.. ..3 cycles last year though its not so rare...I think there were 4 no-hitters that no one cares about..

That's true, but we're talking about the cycle - remember, you brought it up.

Also, the guys at the sports bureau actually track stats, so cycle rarity isn't debatable.

And, my final point...I apologize to the rest of the board for entering this thread, but it had me scratching my head (which I am still doing), and I took a liking to Karl Pilkington, so why not Jake? He's very amusing and his logic is very, very interesting.

http://i.imgur.com/H4ANQT9.jpg

[freakhappy]

A cycle is celebrated because of its rarity, not because it's better than hitting two homers and a double in the same game, but because every at-bat has to be so specific in what happens. Most guys don't hit more than two to three triples a year...take all of those guys and on the two or three days that they hit a triple, that's when they have a shot at a cycle. All they have to do is get four hits and they have to be a homer, double and single in the other at-bats...easy enough, eh? Now take the guys that do indeed hit ten to twelve triples a year...most of them fail to hit more than five to eight homers all year! Again...it's all about the rarity of the accomplishment.

But I get what you're saying, Jake...in the grand scheme of things there are a lot of better hitting days each year than what a cycle brings.

[1952boyntoncollector]

A cycle is celebrated because of its rarity, not because it's better than hitting two homers and a double in the same game, but because every at-bat has to be so specific in what happens. Most guys don't hit more than two to three triples a year...take all of those guys and on the two or three days that they hit a triple, that's when they have a shot at a cycle. All they have to do is get four hits and they have to be a homer, double and single in the other at-bats...easy enough, eh? Now take the guys that do indeed hit ten to twelve triples a year...most of them fail to hit more than five to eight homers all year! Again...it's all about the rarity of the accomplishment.

But I get what you're saying, Jake...in the grand scheme of things there are a lot of better hitting days each year than what a cycle brings.

right my point is lots of things are rare but not celebrated.....a guy can hit a homer and just stop at third for the 'triple' so he can get the cycle.......pitchers that throw a complete game or no hitter aren't purposely doing something 'less' to get that feat...they have to get everyone out that they can, ...but if you have a single, homer and double and hit a ball over the wall, you can just stay at third for the 'cycle' ..or if just a single is needed you can turn a sure double into a 'single'.....and I think we will all agree, there must one of those 'cycles' out there where the player didn't go for that extra base...so its not theory I am arguing it has to have happened especially if the cycle was a big deal...why get that extra base to help the team?


and you said it - ..there aren't a lot of better pitching days in a year when someone pitches a no-hitter......but there are a LOT of better hitting days in a year versus someone hitting for the cycle...yet the no-hotter means less and less ...so should the cycle...

[D. Bergin]

In what world is the cycle celebrated more then a no-hitter? I must have missed that trend. :confused:

It's a statistical anomaly. I think most people understand that. It's like a triple double in basketball, that players like to get because it's a bit of an accomplishment to them, though there's plenty of triple-double lines that can be completely unimpressive compared to what another player in the same game is putting up.

Difference is, in Basketball, some players have been known to manufacture a triple double from time to time, to the detriment of their team, a teammate, or the framework of the game. They generally catch a lot of flack for it. I don't know of any baseball players who hit a home run and stopped at 3rd base just so they could hit for a cycle. I imagine he would get ripped to shreds by anybody having anything to do with the game if he did (if it was even allowed).

BTW, good call on Karl Pilkington. First ran across him in the Ricky Gervais podcasts. I would watch him eat breakfast every morning just for the entertainment value alone.

:D

[mrmopar]

We have been conditioned to want to see the cycle, rather than a less magical "odd" combination of multiple hits. At some point in history, someone decided it was newsworthy to hit for the cycle. We (people) generally like things that are neat and complete rather than messy and incomplete. The cycle is special, one of each type of hit recorded, COMPLETION.

The cycle is not a team award, nor may it necessarily help contribute to a teams overall performance. A no hitter could be looked at the same way. It is definitely an individual accomplishment. Although the team helps preserve the no hitter, the pitcher gets the credit. The team probably still wins with a 1 or 2 hit shutout, but we want that pitcher to have no hits, the clean image of the 0 0 0 line on the scoreboard looks much better than 0 1 0.

[1952boyntoncollector]

We have been conditioned to want to see the cycle, rather than a less magical "odd" combination of multiple hits. At some point in history, someone decided it was newsworthy to hit for the cycle. We (people) generally like things that are neat and complete rather than messy and incomplete. The cycle is special, one of each type of hit recorded, COMPLETION.

The cycle is not a team award, nor may it necessarily help contribute to a teams overall performance. A no hitter could be looked at the same way. It is definitely an individual accomplishment. Although the team helps preserve the no hitter, the pitcher gets the credit. The team probably still wins with a 1 or 2 hit shutout, but we want that pitcher to have no hits, the clean image of the 0 0 0 line on the scoreboard looks much better than 0 1 0.


eh...guys have lost games and pitched a 9 inning 'no-hitter'...no hitter is more of a team accomplishment for hitting for the cycle...

to address the last 2 posts as well-

someone said a cycle is more impressive than a no hitter on this thread if I am not mistaken or at least said as so much..

someone made a point about hoops players getting cheap triple doubles and taking flack for it..and no one has stopped for a triple instead of a homerun...that maybe so but im sure there are guys that may of stopped at first instead of trying to leg out a double to get the precious 'cycle....

I think everyone gets my point now...its just statistical thing....which is why I don't make a big deal of it..

also as for no-hitters...more and more baseball people really see the importance of a no hitter going down as well...or do I have to make 'whats the big deal about a no hitter' thread

[Runscott]

We got your point that it is not as important to the team as other feats, but your questioning why it is celebrated is still a head-scratcher.

But I also question why Karl would want to throw his old furniture in a volcano. It is normal to not understand everyone, and in some cases desirable.

[frankbmd]

We got your point that it is not as important to the team as other feats, but your questioning why it is celebrated is still a head-scratcher.

But I also question why Karl would want to throw his old furniture in a volcano. It is normal to not understand everyone, and in some cases desirable.


If i understood everyone on this forum, I would be seeing a shrink in the morning.;)

[Econteachert205]

Would it be similar to say what is so great about a hat trick in hockey... From the perspective of if I score two goals and assist on two then technically I was involved in four scores versus just a hat trick with no assist? It's not a perfect comparison. There is no comparable for football or basketball, but what has always set baseball apart in my mind is the statistical obsession, which I like. That was what was so terrible about steroids, baseball is a stat guys dream.

[Runscott]

Well-said, Dennis.

[bn2cardz]

A cycle is celebrated because of its rarity, not because it's better than hitting two homers and a double in the same game, but because every at-bat has to be so specific in what happens. Most guys don't hit more than two to three triples a year...take all of those guys and on the two or three days that they hit a triple, that's when they have a shot at a cycle. All they have to do is get four hits and they have to be a homer, double and single in the other at-bats...easy enough, eh? Now take the guys that do indeed hit ten to twelve triples a year...most of them fail to hit more than five to eight homers all year! Again...it's all about the rarity of the accomplishment.

But I get what you're saying, Jake...in the grand scheme of things there are a lot of better hitting days each year than what a cycle brings.

I think this touches on why a Cycle is interesting. A cycle shows the "all around" abilities of a hitter. Some guys can hit the ball over the wall, but seldom can get a triple or double because they aren't fast enough. Others are fast and can stretch out bunts for a single or routine line drives for a double, but still can't get a home run. For someone to hit for the cycle, typically they have to be able to run and hit for power.

[Runscott]

Would anyone here hold up at 1st on a sure double if they needed the single to complete the cycle? I wouldn't, even if my manager told me in advance that he would not mind.

[D. Bergin]

Would anyone here hold up at 1st on a sure double if they needed the single to complete the cycle? I wouldn't, even if my manager told me in advance that he would not mind.

There have been 260 cycles hit in major league baseball history. I'd like to know how many of those required a single as the last hit to complete the cycle.

I'm guessing it's not very many. Also the idea of not stretching a double into a triple is even more ridiculous. Triples are usually risky base running plays to begin with. It assumes you've already hit a triple in that game, and two triple games are not exactly commonplace either (at least beyond the deadball era)

If there's anything to look out for, it's a batter trying to stretch an easy double into a not so easy triple, while chasing a cycle. Once again, this is probably not going to come into play until the last at bat and the opportunity presents itself.

[packs]

I really like this thread.

[Runscott]

There have been 260 cycles hit in major league baseball history. I'd like to know how many of those required a single as the last hit to complete the cycle.

I'm guessing it's not very many. Also the idea of not stretching a double into a triple is even more ridiculous. Triples are usually risky base running plays to begin with. It assumes you've already hit a triple in that game, and two triple games are not exactly commonplace either (at least beyond the deadball era)

If there's anything to look out for, it's a batter trying to stretch an easy double into a not so easy triple, while chasing a cycle. Once again, this is probably not going to come into play until the last at bat and the opportunity presents itself.

I thought you were going to answer the question. It had nothing to do with stats or any particular situation being "ridiculous" - I just wanted to see if we could address one of Jake's concerns about the cycle.

[Eric72]

...but if you have a single, homer and double and hit a ball over the wall, you can just stay at third for the 'cycle'...
So, you obviously don’t know the game of baseball. Runners cannot simply stop at third and “pass” on the homer.

I think everyone gets my point now...its just statistical thing....which is why I don't make a big deal of it..

Except, of course, within this thread, where you do make a big deal of it, right? Oh, by the way, statistics are fairly important to baseball fans. However, I don’t really expect you to get that.

[Runscott]

So, you obviously don’t know the game of baseball. Runners cannot simply stop at third and “pass” on the homer.

Some people have difficulty with things that other people never even think about...and shouldn't.

https://41.media.tumblr.com/1b8e1f94d7813909d3f25bf67bedb070/tumblr_n02ixh9ZlR1r00y5xo1_500.png

[CW]

Actually, they don't make that big of a deal out of hitting for the cycle. Sure, you might get a brief standing ovation and maybe a mention on Sportscenter, but it's not like they give you a trophy or carve it into your headstone.

Here lies Curry Foley -- hit for the cycle.

Hmmmm, this could make for a neat "show me" thread (www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?p=1440731)! :)

[packs]

Beltre is one of 4 players in major league history to hit for the cycle three times. That's not that big of a deal though in the grand scheme of things. He could have just hit a triple.

[Runscott]

I was at Andre Dawson's cycle and Ryan's final no-hitter. No comparison in terms of fan response, but we certainly gave Dawson his due.

[digdugdig]

Would it be similar to say what is so great about a hat trick in hockey... From the perspective of if I score two goals and assist on two then technically I was involved in four scores versus just a hat trick with no assist? It's not a perfect comparison. There is no comparable for football or basketball, but what has always set baseball apart in my mind is the statistical obsession, which I like. That was what was so terrible about steroids, baseball is a stat guys dream.

Mario Lemieux once had a 5 goal game in which he scored 1 goal in each of the 5 ways you can score (statistically) ... even strength, powerplay, shorthanded, penalty shot, and empty net. I can't remember his personal best for goals scored in one game but I do remember that.
It's an individual accomplishment that's just plain and simply "kinda cool".
Like an unassisted triple play as opposed to one with multiple players involved ... "kinda cool".

Evidently, the players think so as well. Read where Brock Holt was told by his teammates (needing a 3B in his last AB) ... you hit one in the gap, you just keep running.

[drcy]

While not unimpressive, a cycle as a particularly special event is a human cognitive bias. Two doubles, a triple and a home run is a better game. Two home runs and two doubles is a better game.

While getting those cycle hits makes for an impressive game, its perceived specialness is akin to numerology. I remember it was said that one player going for a cycle and needing just the double, purposely slowed down to make a triple into a double-- which says all you need to know. He made what in reality would be a more productive game (higher slugging percentage) into a less productive one in order to hit the numerology eye candy mark.

[Runscott]

While not unimpressive, a cycle as a particularly special event is a human cognitive bias. Two doubles, a triple and a home run is a better game. Two home runs and two doubles is a better game.

While getting those cycle hits makes for an impressive game, its perceived specialness is akin to numerology. I remember it was said that one player going for a cycle and needing just the double, purposely slowed down to make a triple into a double-- which says all you need to know. He made what in reality would be a more productive game (higher slugging percentage) into a less productive one in order to hit the numerology eye candy mark.

If you already have two Yahtzees and need a straight...

[drcy]

A home run is a home run is a home run, but when a ball goes over the fence via bouncing off of Jose Canseco's head, now that's special.

[Runscott]

After last year's debacle regarding what constituted a 'catch', and the debacle years back where they tried to call high strikes accurately...oh yes, and the 'designated hitter' debacle, here's what I propose for MLB's next major rule screw-up:


if the ball hits any part of a player or his glove while any part of the player's body is touching the field, then the ball is treated as if it hit the field.
if the ball touches any part of the player or his glove, and NO part of his body is in contact with the field, then the ball is treated as if it is still in the air.


Under this proposed new rule, the ball off Jose's head would only be a HR if he were in the air when it hit his head; otherwise it would be a ground rule double.

[packs]

If we're going to mess with rules we might as well try to make the game more like it was when we were kids. I say we institute the three fouls and you're out rule and remove the catcher entirely.

While we're at it, I'd be in favor of the peg equaling an out.

[1952boyntoncollector]

If we're going to mess with rules we might as well try to make the game more like it was when we were kids. I say we institute the three fouls and you're out rule and remove the catcher entirely.

While we're at it, I'd be in favor of the peg equaling an out.

Yeah baseball never changes the rules.., pitcher can fake throw to third and then throw to first now....baseball didn't change the way plays at the plate pertaining how catcher is positioned, ., instant replay wasn't started to overturned calls on the field.....I guess they not mess with the rules already...

there was a no hitter yesterday, no big deal

[1952boyntoncollector]

While not unimpressive, a cycle as a particularly special event is a human cognitive bias. Two doubles, a triple and a home run is a better game. Two home runs and two doubles is a better game.

While getting those cycle hits makes for an impressive game, its perceived specialness is akin to numerology. I remember it was said that one player going for a cycle and needing just the double, purposely slowed down to make a triple into a double-- which says all you need to know. He made what in reality would be a more productive game (higher slugging percentage) into a less productive one in order to hit the numerology eye candy mark.

yeah you said that better than I was trying to say it..people been attacking my example of staying on third if hit a home run for the cycle..but the issue of staying for a single versus a double must of happened I thought, and it appears there was an issue of that in reality...not hard to think that that would happen.......and as far has numerology, they need a HBP and a walk as well for a full cycle...heck maybe getting on base on a K and on a catcher interference.(which may mean by error)..that's 7 ways to get on base...any other ways?


Also Kelly Gruber said this when all he needed was a singe for the cycle April 16, 1989...to even consider this shows you how silly the cycle is and how hitting 2 homers and 2 doubles is much better

“That was the toughest at bat I can remember having. Anytime you have to come up there looking for a single, there’s extra pressure. Do I go for two if I have the chance? Or do I stay on first and look silly?”

[packs]

I never understood the allure of the perfect game. The fans want to see homers and doubles. Not fly outs and grounders. So why don't the pitchers stop being so selfish and let a guy get some licks? It's what people want and it's good for everyone's stats.

[1952boyntoncollector]

I never understood the allure of the perfect game. The fans want to see homers and doubles. Not fly outs and grounders. So why don't the pitchers stop being so selfish and let a guy get some licks? It's what people want and it's good for everyone's stats.

Right but its not like the Pitcher can do 'something less' to get a perfect game.....even for a 'no-hitter' the pitcher can throw wildly un purpose on a close play at first to maybe get an 'error' and preserve the no-hitter...they can also on a 3-0 count just throw ball 4 to not let the hitter get some good swings in that are more likely to get a hit..... a Perfect game is light years better than a no hitter...plus its more of a team stat cause other players on defense cant commit an error...

[packs]

Yeah but they're so annoying. I don't want to sit through a game where no one gets a hit. And for the money I'm paying, I want more than just 27 guys coming up to the plate. Plus I gotta read about it the next day.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Yeah but they're so annoying. I don't want to sit through a game where no one gets a hit. And for the money I'm paying, I want more than just 27 guys coming up to the plate. Plus I gotta read about it the next day.

the other team can score 15 runs..that would take care of the scoring issue...it not like its 0-0 both pitchers pitch a perfect game..


In addition Perfect games in the NL since the advent of the DH really a lesser feat than a perfect game in the AL that has A--Rod etc as a hitter instead of a pitcher hitting .040

[packs]

Is a perfect game really perfect if the other team makes an error? I say NO. History is wrong.

[digdugdig]

Actually, now that I think of it ... I think I'd rather hit for a Uzit.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Kemp hit an elusive very rare cycle yesterday..its so hard to do that it also happened last week (yet no 2 homer, double and single hasn't happened in that time).....luckily for him what he thought was a homer turned into something much better. a TRIPLE..he was so happy

triples are better than homers...a triple drives in one less run and score one less run..and are three bases instead of 4......sounds to me you should stop on third if the ball went over the wall..

I started a new thread where you can see Kemp's quote about how happy he was he got the triple versus the home run.... ..and that would of been his choice if could choose...

[the 'stache]

I started a new thread where you can see Kemp's quote about how happy he was he got the triple versus the home run.... ..and that would of been his choice if could choose...

Why?

If we have a thread already discussing hitting for the cycle, why did you feel the need to start another where....you're basically saying the exact same thing.

Hitting for the cycle is one of the rarest things in baseball. Period. It's newsworthy in this instance because no San Diego Padres hitter had ever done it.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Why?

If we have a thread already discussing hitting for the cycle, why did you feel the need to start another where....you're basically saying the exact same thing.

Hitting for the cycle is one of the rarest things in baseball. Period. It's newsworthy in this instance because no San Diego Padres hitter had ever done it.

it happened twice in the past two weeks (luckily no homer by kemp in his last AB which would of ruined the 'accomplishment)....there are teams that havent had a no hitter as well and no hitters are very diminished now as an accomplishment...so should cycles...

Jackie Bradley destroyed today on 8/16/15 what a cycle is...yet cycles are celebrated more

Bradley had 2 homers which were part of 5 extra base hits...also had 7 rbis and 5 runs.... .only been done 2 other times in history of baseball....so 25+ teams have never had one of their players do that..yet we will remember the silly cycle of kemp more than what bradley did yesterday..because there isnt a name for and its not a '1' in four categories....

[CW]

sigh... I'm bored.

[CW]

:cool:

[CW]

:p

[CW]

:o

[CW]

:rolleyes:

[1952boyntoncollector]

:rolleyes:

hahaha..i couldnt agree for more..... Matt Kemp agrees too


Jackie Bradley yesterday > than Matt Kemp 2 days ago... noone will remember that :(