Hitting for a Cycle..whats the big deal

[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.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

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.

[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.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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