Kemp's silly cycle and quote yesterday

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

.....and so what, he didn't hit a homer, he hit a triple. I don't see them throwing parades in the street for him. He's a trivia question, that most people will forget the answer to in a years time.

I'll be shocked if there's a single incidence in history where a player actually hurt their team by "going" for a cycle. BTW, nobody, absolutely nobody, hits a triple "on purpose".

nobody hits a double on purpose either...........easy to say you would be shocked theres a single incidence in history where a player actually hurt their team going for a cycle....we will never know either way as many cycles were never achieved.......however there have been players that said they would rather have a triple than a homerun..such as YESTERDAY......they aren't throwing parades..but its celebrated enough that a player said hed rather have a triple than a homerun..looks like means more than nothing...

[CW]

...

[steve B]

The single season doubles leader may have done just that, held up on sure triples, and made a few outs trying for more doubles, although there's some doubt about that being true.



Certainly not MLB level, but I have played some sports........

Aside from a couple years of LL baseball where I did nearly nothing - Three seasons of modified pitch and one of co-ed slow pitch.

I don't have huge power and run like.......lets just say there's people on wheels that are faster.

In all of that I have a total of 2 extra base hits. Both triples!

Each would have been a HR if hit on a different field. First was the one ball I've ever REALLY hit hard. Maybe 300? maybe not but for sure past the fence on any of the fenced fields we used. No outfield wall, and all I could manage was a triple.....

Second was hard, but on a line and made it all the way to the fence at about 250 or so. Hard enough to bounce back past the outfielders. Somehow got a triple but not enough speed to make it a HR.

Would I have liked a couple home runs instead? sure! But I'm pretty happy with the triples.
I'm happier with the couple singles + extra base due to poor defense (Yes, if you're just tossing it back in the really slow guy just might take second )


Steve B

[Runscott]

So Jake reads an opinion on the cycle straight from a MLB player who just did it, answering some of the questions Jake asked in his last cycle thread, and he STILL starts another thread bashing the cycle? This is incredulous. Is Jake trying to draw attention to the failing's of his own thought processes?

Jake - do you really think that your opinion on this is more respected here that Kemp's?

[DaClyde]

In this particular instance, "helping the team" would have just meant a score of 10-5 instead of 9-5. Given that both scores only grant the team a single win, how does that extra run, from a HR instead of a 3B, really help the team?

[freakhappy]

Originally Posted by DaClyde

In this particular instance, "helping the team" would have just meant a score of 10-5 instead of 9-5. Given that both scores only grant the team a single win, how does that extra run, from a HR instead of a 3B, really help the team?

That's kind of an unfair assessment, don't ya think? I mean, we can always look back at any given final score and make these sort of assumptions. The goal is and always has been to score as many runs as possible. So, yes, ten runs would have definitely been better than nine runs because it would have improved their score. What if the home team would have reached nine runs and tied the ball game? Kemp and the Padres would have been glad that they got that extra run to help them win the game. Never leave anything on the table or take any team for granted.

It's been said many times over on this board...a cycle is celebrated because it's a statistical anomaly and it usually occurs less than a no hitter does each and every year....just very tough to achieve. But in the grand scheme of things, a two homer, two double game is definitely better than a cycle as it should produce more runs.

[DaClyde]

Originally Posted by freakhappy

That's kind of an unfair assessment, don't ya think? I mean, we can always look back at any given final score and make these sort of assumptions. The goal is and always has been to score as many runs as possible. So, yes, ten runs would have definitely been better than nine runs because it would have improved their score. What if the home team would have reached nine runs and tied the ball game? Kemp and the Padres would have been glad that they got that extra run to help them win the game. Never leave anything on the table or take any team for granted.

I get where you're coming from, and agree for the most part. I've never understood the "running up the score" complaint sometimes heard in a clear blowout. As far as I'm concerned, if one team is playing so poorly that their opponent can score at will, why not go ahead and do that? Bring your A game or go home. Still, more people will remember the cycle than a random 10-5 win. But as was said earlier, it's not like Kemp actually chose the triple over a homerun.