Tuesday, August 11, 2009
HITTING FOR THE CYCLE IS OVERRATED, AND SOMETIMES STUPID
First things first: That was not a triple that Colorado's Troy Tulowitzki hit last night at Coors Field in Denver to complete a cycle.
The Cubs' Alfonso Soriano, for the briefest of moments, bobbled the ball near the left field wall, giving Tulowitzki the slight window he needed to advance to third, or at least to make an attempt to. That is what is known as an error in Major League Baseball. Of course, with a "cycle" pending, the official scorer wouldn't dare make such a ruling.
The official scorer -- employed by the home team -- also wouldn't dare give Cubs' shortstop Ryan Theriot an error for throwing the relay past third baseman Jake Fox, even though with a good throw Tulo would have been out by a country mile. That is also what is known as an error in Major League Baseball. Two errors were not scored as such, and T.T. was consequently awarded his desired triple and his cycle -- a single, double, triple and home run in the same game. But anyone who saw the play knows: It wasn't a triple, and he shouldn't have gotten credit for a cycle.
But never mind all this. Getting four hits in a game is a nice achievement. It's a strong performance. Ten total bases in a single game? Also, a very strong night for any player. However, "hitting for the cycle" is not so much a great achievement as it is merely a statistical oddity. If you hit two home runs, a double and a single, technically you have had a better offensive game than you would have if you traded one of the dingers for a three-bagger. But your offensive outburst is lost in the annals of the game simply because you didn't go 1, 2, 3, 4, but instead you went a statistically more impressive 1, 2, 4, 4.
I have heard of players giving up an easy double and instead stopping at first after a clean hit because they were lacking only the single; last night is a case of the opposite: risking an out to get an extra base. The cycle inspires players to take risks they normally wouldn't, all in pursuit of a meaningless statistical anomaly. Tulowitzki himself said, "We were sitting on the bench together and he was telling me, 'If you get anywhere close to getting a triple you better go'...I honestly think if it weren't for him I would have stopped at second."
The Rockies were leading the Cubs 8-1 in the bottom of the seventh inning when Tulowitzki completed his cycle, so it isn't exactly as though he were putting his team's victory in danger. But you can't tell me no player has ever thought about stretching a double into a triple -- or shrinking a double into a single -- in a close game, thereby acting out of tune with what should be done in those situations, all to get a single, a double, a triple and a home run into his line of one game's boxscore. Sometimes -- sometimes -- hitting for the cycle is stupid.
But Tulo didn't really hit for the cycle, now, did he?...
The Cubs' Alfonso Soriano, for the briefest of moments, bobbled the ball near the left field wall, giving Tulowitzki the slight window he needed to advance to third, or at least to make an attempt to. That is what is known as an error in Major League Baseball. Of course, with a "cycle" pending, the official scorer wouldn't dare make such a ruling.
The official scorer -- employed by the home team -- also wouldn't dare give Cubs' shortstop Ryan Theriot an error for throwing the relay past third baseman Jake Fox, even though with a good throw Tulo would have been out by a country mile. That is also what is known as an error in Major League Baseball. Two errors were not scored as such, and T.T. was consequently awarded his desired triple and his cycle -- a single, double, triple and home run in the same game. But anyone who saw the play knows: It wasn't a triple, and he shouldn't have gotten credit for a cycle.
But never mind all this. Getting four hits in a game is a nice achievement. It's a strong performance. Ten total bases in a single game? Also, a very strong night for any player. However, "hitting for the cycle" is not so much a great achievement as it is merely a statistical oddity. If you hit two home runs, a double and a single, technically you have had a better offensive game than you would have if you traded one of the dingers for a three-bagger. But your offensive outburst is lost in the annals of the game simply because you didn't go 1, 2, 3, 4, but instead you went a statistically more impressive 1, 2, 4, 4.
I have heard of players giving up an easy double and instead stopping at first after a clean hit because they were lacking only the single; last night is a case of the opposite: risking an out to get an extra base. The cycle inspires players to take risks they normally wouldn't, all in pursuit of a meaningless statistical anomaly. Tulowitzki himself said, "We were sitting on the bench together and he was telling me, 'If you get anywhere close to getting a triple you better go'...I honestly think if it weren't for him I would have stopped at second."
The Rockies were leading the Cubs 8-1 in the bottom of the seventh inning when Tulowitzki completed his cycle, so it isn't exactly as though he were putting his team's victory in danger. But you can't tell me no player has ever thought about stretching a double into a triple -- or shrinking a double into a single -- in a close game, thereby acting out of tune with what should be done in those situations, all to get a single, a double, a triple and a home run into his line of one game's boxscore. Sometimes -- sometimes -- hitting for the cycle is stupid.
But Tulo didn't really hit for the cycle, now, did he?...
