Three Cycles, One Month. Wat?

[AmScray 354]

Orlando Hudson, Ian Kinsler and Jason Kubel, all in April. Nucking futs. Pretty sure that there hasn't ever been one month that has seen three cycles.There have been *about* as many cycles (284) as there have been no hitters (256), for comparison and to comprehend how scarce they are.

[Oziumrules 0]

And Freddy Sanchez just missed one last night vs the Marlins.

[fryer98 30]

There have been *about* as many cycles (284) as there have been no hitters (256), for comparison and to comprehend how scarce they are.

Interesting. It seems to me that no hitters get A LOT more coverage and baseball people seem A LOT more impressed by them.Agree?

[CobaltBlue 662]

Interesting. It seems to me that no hitters get A LOT more coverage and baseball people seem A LOT more impressed by them.

I think that's related to the fact that the cycle is more statistical "aberration" than a no-hitter. If you had the choice between 4 home runs or a single, double, triple, and home run, which would you take? Also, when you cycle, your team probably wins more often than not, but when you get a no-hitter, it's much more of certainty that your team wins (certainly, there are exceptions).All that said, I like cycles.

[AmScray 354]

Cobalt pretty much nailed it. Cycles are significant because they represent "one of each" (in that there's cohesion to them) and are generally quite rare, but don't embody the theoretical apex of achievement that a no hitter does.Still, I'm pretty sure that every single MLB hitter wants to notch at least one in their lifetimes yet very few will. If I had a choice between a 3 HR game and a cycle, I'd probably pick the cycle. If it were between a 4HR game and a cycle, I'd go 4 HR game. That decision is largely arbitrary, but it seems to make sense.Another thing about cycles- they don't have a grand, orgasm-like culminative finale ala a NH or a 4HR game. It's usually the announcer coming over the loud speaker and telling everyone what happened, save for the box score wonks who are aware.Still, they're a pretty sick showcase of baserunning and power, so they're very underrated IMO.

[CobaltBlue 662]

Cycles are significant because they represent "one of each" (in that there's cohesion to them) and are generally quite rare, but don't embody the theoretical apex of achievement that a no hitter does.Still, I'm pretty sure that every single MLB hitter wants to notch at least one in their lifetimes yet very few will. If I had a choice between a 3 HR game and a cycle, I'd probably pick the cycle. If it were between a 4HR game and a cycle, I'd go 4 HR game. That decision is largely arbitrary, but it seems to make sense.

What about 4 triples or a cycle? (I wonder what the record for triples in a game is...my gut says a lot of people are tied at 3.)AS, you like Jayson Stark's articles? I usually find his exploration of random happenings and statistics really interesting - not particularly useful, mind you, but entertaining nonetheless. In fact, he discusses the recent cycles here: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?...me=stark_jayson

[El Guapo 10]

What about 4 triples or a cycle? (I wonder what the record for triples in a game is...my gut says a lot of people are tied at 3.)

Quick google search with no verification shows two guys tied at 4 from the late 1800's early 1900's

[timwakefield 69]

Quick google search with no verification shows two guys tied at 4 from the late 1800's early 1900's

Yeah baseball almanac lists two people, but they are both 19th century. George Strief had 4 triples on June 25, 1885 for the Philadelphia Athletics, and Bill Joyce matched him on May 18, 1897 for the New York Giants. So that would be a helluva record to tie, even. Just tying it would be almost like setting a new record. It says there are 'too many to list' who have 3 in a game.Interestingly, nobody has ever hit 5 doubles in a game. 4 is the record, done 49 times by 47 different players. And 14 times a player has hit 6 singles in a 9-inning game. And even though it's probably the most famous single-game batting record, I'll list this one anyways: most homeruns in a game is 4, done 15 times. The first person in the 20th century to do it was Lou Gehrig, but apparently 2 people did it in the 19th century. The first one ever was Bobby Lowe in 1894 for the Boston Beaneaters.

[Speed Limit 0]

Yeah baseball almanac lists two people, but they are both 19th century. George Strief had 4 triples on June 25, 1885 for the Philadelphia Athletics, and Bill Joyce matched him on May 18, 1897 for the New York Giants. So that would be a helluva record to tie, even. Just tying it would be almost like setting a new record. It says there are 'too many to list' who have 3 in a game.Interestingly, nobody has ever hit 5 doubles in a game. 4 is the record, done 49 times by 47 different players. And 14 times a player has hit 6 singles in a 9-inning game. And even though it's probably the most famous single-game batting record, I'll list this one anyways: most homeruns in a game is 4, done 15 times. The first person in the 20th century to do it was Lou Gehrig, but apparently 2 people did it in the 19th century. The first one ever was Bobby Lowe in 1894 for the Boston Beaneaters.

When can we get those throwbacks?!

[timwakefield 69]

When can we get those throwbacks?!

I dunno man, they're kind of terrifying.I do however think that Tito should consider rocking a mustache like their manager had. I actually can't tell if it's the same guy or not in both pictures, but clearly mustaches were an important managerial tool.

[CobaltBlue 662]

When can we get those throwbacks?!

Well, technically that team turned into the Braves.

[fryer98 30]

I think that's related to the fact that the cycle is more statistical "aberration" than a no-hitter. If you had the choice between 4 home runs or a single, double, triple, and home run, which would you take? Also, when you cycle, your team probably wins more often than not, but when you get a no-hitter, it's much more of certainty that your team wins (certainly, there are exceptions).All that said, I like cycles.

Cobalt pretty much nailed it. Cycles are significant because they represent "one of each" (in that there's cohesion to them) and are generally quite rare, but don't embody the theoretical apex of achievement that a no hitter does.Still, I'm pretty sure that every single MLB hitter wants to notch at least one in their lifetimes yet very few will. If I had a choice between a 3 HR game and a cycle, I'd probably pick the cycle. If it were between a 4HR game and a cycle, I'd go 4 HR game. That decision is largely arbitrary, but it seems to make sense.Another thing about cycles- they don't have a grand, orgasm-like culminative finale ala a NH or a 4HR game. It's usually the announcer coming over the loud speaker and telling everyone what happened, save for the box score wonks who are aware.Still, they're a pretty sick showcase of baserunning and power, so they're very underrated IMO.

Very good points. Thanks you two.