What would be

[pitchernut]

the batters equivalent to a pitchers no-hitter?

Hitting a home run every at bat in one game with at least 4 at bats?
Has this been done?

Hitting for a cycle?
To common I would think.

What do you think?

[alanu]

Originally Posted by pitchernut

the batters equivalent to a pitchers no-hitter?

Hitting a home run every at bat in one game with at least 4 at bats?
Has this been done?

Hitting for a cycle?
To common I would think.

What do you think?

Historically I think no-hitters are more common than hitting for the cycle so I'd say it's the equivalent.

[pgellis]

According to Wikipedia:

There have been:
293 cycles in MLB History
and
272 no hitters in MLB History.

I would say that the cycle and the no-hitter are equivalent.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by pgellis

According to Wikipedia:

There have been:
293 cycles in MLB History
and
272 no hitters in MLB History.

I would say that the cycle and the no-hitter are equivalent.

I think that's about as close to the equivalency as you're going to get. However, I think the numbers quoted above will continue to grow further apart. Since 2000, there have been 24 no-hitters compared to 28 cycles.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Originally Posted by pgellis

According to Wikipedia:

There have been:
293 cycles in MLB History
and
272 no hitters in MLB History.

I would say that the cycle and the no-hitter are equivalent.

I would think the no hitter is the greater feat, if we are looking for the potential of either at the start of the game. You can see the numbers that they are not really that far apart.

Think of it this way, when they take the field there are only two players with the potential of pitching a no hitter, obvious both starting pitchers.

When they take the field there are [U]18 batters with the potential to hit for the cycle, far bigger pool in the cycle potential then the no hitter.
Can also be viewed another way, cycle more rare, even with more batters than starting pitchers, they are not that far apart in numbers.
Hope that is clear. Hope it makes sense, looking for some feedback.

[tiger8mush]

I would guess that the pitcher's feat of a no-hitter has a MUCH higher impact on the outcome of the game than a hitter hitting for the cycle. So while the occurrence of the feats are similar in numbers, their significants differs greatly.

If I had to guess, probably 90-95% of the time, the team whose pitcher throws the no-hitter wins the game. I would guess the team whose hitter hits for the cycle is probably closer to 65-75%?????

How many times has a hitter hit 3 HRs in a game? I would think that would produce more runs for a team (than hitting for the cycle) and thus give the team better odds of winning the game.

Just a thought!
Rob

[pitchernut]

I'd go along with the notion that a no-no is to a pitcher what hitting the cycle is to a batter.

So a perfect game would be the equivalent of hitting 4 home runs in one game?

[Touch'EmAll]

Ok, guys, I can't resist tossing out the name of my favorite player - also happens to have thrown some no-hitters - Ryan.

[pgellis]

Originally Posted by pitchernut

I'd go along with the notion that a no-no is to a pitcher what hitting the cycle is to a batter.

So a perfect game would be the equivalent of hitting 4 home runs in one game?

Again, according to Wikipedia, there have been:

20 Perfect Games in MLB History
and
15 Players that have hit 4 HRs in a single game.

I'd say that that is pretty equivalent.