The cycle: Am I alone in this opinion?

Here is why a no-hitter is hard to ignore. The cycle has no comparable way of constantly reminding 50,000 fans what's going on:

 

The comparisons of no-hitters to cycles misses one point: each game has two players with a chance to throw a no-hitter and 18 with a chance to hit the cycle.

 

Well said.

So, each season ... there are 4,860 opportunities for a pitcher or team to have a no-hitter. But there are 43,740 positions in the batting order each season.

That makes hitting for the cycle a much more rare feat ... but more rare does not equal more difficult.

 

Actually, because there are so many more opportunities, that's exactly why a cycle is more difficult. A no-hitter happens much more often, percentage-wise.

 

Well, pretty much it does equal more difficult, when talking about performance (as opposed to random acts of God).

It's more rare to hit all 6 numbers on a lotto ticket than it is to hit 5.

It's also more difficult.

It's more rare to throw a perfect game than a regular no-hitter.

It's also more difficult.

Same principle. You would be hard pressed to find something that is easier to do . . . but is also more rare.

 

Hitting for the cycle involves the batter locating the exact spots in the outfield to place the ball. A single is easy enough, just put it up the middle. The double is harder, but there are many of those in a game, you can put it into the gap or down the line. For a player that is not a speedster, the triple is the hardest, and the ball is needed to be put deep into a gap, rarely triples go down the line. Home run is a home run.

 

I guess what I mean is, as an athletic achievement, I see no-hitters as more laudable, despite them being less rare than hitting for the cycle.

For instance, say a golfer has nine birdies on the front and nine bogeys on the back, for an even-par round. While that split may not happen very often (if ever), as a whole, any normal under-par round would be a better athletic achievement. (Although nine straight birdies is pretty chalk).

Same goes with a baseball player with four hits that are not even split as 1B, 2B, 3B and HR. Two doubles, a triple and homer, for instance, are better athletic achievements.

The cycle seems like more of a statistical anomaly than anything. Which is, of course, OK to point out and celebrate. I just see no-hitters as more of an achievement. Guess it's subjective.

 

No-hitters usually end up with the pitcher getting a win. Of course there a few cases of a pitcher throwing a no-hitter and his team losing the game. That is just plain bad luck.

But batters have had cycles in losing efforts (Aubrey Huff) and it gets overshadowed.

 

"You can come to us with 16 quarters, eight dimes and four nickels, we can give you a $5 bill. We can give you five singles, or two singles, eight quarters and 10 dimes. You’d be amazed at the variety of options you have.

We will work with the customer to give that customer the change that he or she needs. …We will work with you.

We have been in this business a long time. With our experience, we’re gonna have ideas for change combinations that probably haven’t occurred to you. If you have a $50 bill, we can give you fifty singles. We can give you 49 singles and 10 dimes. We can give you 25 twos.

Come talk to us. We are not going to give you change that you don’t want. If you come to us with a $100 bill, we’re not going to give you 2,000 nickels -- unless that meets your particular change needs. We will give you the change equal to the amount of money that you want change for!"

 

One of my all-time favorite SNL parodies.

 

I don't consider it a great feat when guys regularly exceed it during the season with other 10+ total base games.

It's as much a coincidence as a feat. Don't get me wrong, 10 TB is a hell of a day, but 11 is better. Every day of the week.

 

Liberals catch and conservatives pitch, not that there's anything wrong with that.