Is it just me, or is there a handful of cycles and no hitters this year already?

[alex96]

Seriously, its like superman is in everybody! 3 cycles (thats a lot considering there was 5 all last year) and no no hitters but an awful lot amount of chances. Whats you guys' thoughts?

[J0nnD0ugh]

Re: Is it just me, or is there a handful of cycles and no hitters this year already?

Who's your grammar teacher? I'd like to send her a sympathy card.

[wwharton]

Re: Is it just me, or is there a handful of cycles and no hitters this year already?

The cycles are kind of crazy but there haven't been any no hitters. Close doesn't get you anything. No way to even measure how many players come "close" every year or what "close" means... 5 innings? 6 innings? 7?

Here's the chicken vs the egg question. What's harder to get? Gammons said the no hitter's harder bc you need so much help from your defenders. Personally I think that's backwards. If you're asking is it harder for a PITCHER to get a no no, then you follow logic like that but the reality is all no hitters are TEAMS getting them. And if you have a dominant pitcher with a great defense behind him then the team has a chance every time he steps on the mound. Meanwhile, a cycle doesn't have as much to do with the quality of hitter at the plate. Getting 4 hits maybe but specifically a triple, let alone a triple AND a home run in the same game requires a lot of luck. Even though we've seen a few so far this year, I think the cycle is the "harder" one to accomplish. I don't know which has been more frequent (someone will bring in some stats).

[ChubbyBanana]

Re: Is it just me, or is there a handful of cycles and no hitters this year already?

Here's the chicken vs the egg question. What's harder to get? Gammons said the no hitter's harder bc you need so much help from your defenders. Personally I think that's backwards. If you're asking is it harder for a PITCHER to get a no no, then you follow logic like that but the reality is all no hitters are TEAMS getting them. And if you have a dominant pitcher with a great defense behind him then the team has a chance every time he steps on the mound. Meanwhile, a cycle doesn't have as much to do with the quality of hitter at the plate. Getting 4 hits maybe but specifically a triple, let alone a triple AND a home run in the same game requires a lot of luck. Even though we've seen a few so far this year, I think the cycle is the "harder" one to accomplish. I don't know which has been more frequent (someone will bring in some stats).

I would agree with this. I would think the Cycle is harder to get, but I wouldn't take anything away from a No Hitter either.

Both are amazing accomplishments...

[alex96]

Re: Is it just me, or is there a handful of cycles and no hitters this year already?

Who's your grammar teacher? I'd like to send her a sympathy card.

Sorry, I don't use grammar well when I talk online

[Chip Douglass]

Re: Is it just me, or is there a handful of cycles and no hitters this year already?

I think the cycle is the "harder" one to accomplish. I don't know which has been more frequent (someone will bring in some stats).

A no-hitter is slightly more rare than a cycle.

Since 1875, there have been 286 cycles in MLB history (an average of about 2.13 per season) and 256 no-hitters have been thrown (an average of about 2.00 per season).

[rsox]

Re: Is it just me, or is there a handful of cycles and no hitters this year already?

Every season you have several pitchers flirt with throwing a no-hitter. I think Gavin Floyd took no-hitters into the eighth inning twice last season, so it's not that unusual to see guys get close but like wwharton said "close doesn't get you anything".

3 cycles in one week is just crazy. With the best having to go to Jason Kubel of the Twins who finished his cycle by hitting a game winning grand slam against the Angels. Give an assist to Mike Scioscia though, if Scioscia used his head and went to Fuentes to close out the eighth there was a good chance Gardenhire would have pinch-hit for Kubel and thus not get the chance for the cycle.

[Ewing]

Re: Is it just me, or is there a handful of cycles and no hitters this year already?

Maybe it's just me, but a 20 strikeout game is far more impressive than a no-hitter.

[Blzer]

Re: Is it just me, or is there a handful of cycles and no hitters this year already?

Maybe it's just me, but a 20 strikeout game is far more impressive than a no-hitter.

Depends on how many walks and hits you gave up also.

And on that same note, I find a no-hitter not so amazing. I mean it's amazing, but not like sports analysts et al perceive it. It's the perfect game that gets me, and that's it for a pitcher (well, 20 strikeouts is amazing too). With a no-hitter, if a player only reached on an error, then okay. But if it's an error, four walks and a hit by pitch, that's not really anything to make mention of.

I find cycles amazing though, especially when the triple is the last one they need and they get it. Who else feels this way? You know it's the last one to get, you look at your numbers for the amount of triples you've hit in the year (or the average number per game), and you need to even consider the possibility that the pitcher may not even throw you a strike. You need to find a gap or an outfielder that will screw up just enough without making an error. I mean, the odds are so slim and so against you in this situation that it just does not even seem fathomable! Yet, when it happens, it is one of the coolest things ever.

Now, this is somewhat of a paradox. Technically, hitting a home run instead of a triple in that at bat says that you have had a more successful game (meaning a single, double, and two home runs). Yet, it is not as great once you get it. Hell, even going for just the single in your last at bat and hitting a home run, while more beneficial toward winning the game and increasing your slugging percentage, isn't as exciting or rewarding on a whole 'nother feat. This is why I like the cycle, and this is what makes it uncommon. It shows your 'multi-talented abilities' at the plate, being able to hit for contact, power, run with speed, etc. all in one game.

But above all of these, a four home run game is most impressive and most difficult IMO, even more so than a perfect game.

[Ewing]

Re: Is it just me, or is there a handful of cycles and no hitters this year already?

But above all of these, a four home run game is most impressive and most difficult IMO, even more so than a perfect game.

Four Home Run Games: 15
Perfect Games: 17
20-Strikeout Games: 4

That's the historical tally. I'm going with 20 strikeouts being the most impressive. It's only been done four times and for a guy to be that "on" and that dominant is astounding.

[Blzer]

Re: Is it just me, or is there a handful of cycles and no hitters this year already?

Four Home Run Games: 15
Perfect Games: 17
20-Strikeout Games: 4

That's the historical tally. I'm going with 20 strikeouts being the most impressive. It's only been done four times and for a guy to be that "on" and that dominant is astounding.

The only reason, and the only reason I would disagree is because we may not be taking into account what he did the other at bats. He could have given up many walks, hits, and runs to achieve that.

What I'm saying is that it is impossible to throw 20 strikeouts without throwing pitches out of the strike zone, hitters aren't that bad at adjusting even if they have an off day. To strike out many hitters is to go out of the zone, and hitters that lay off enough will walk enough.

20 strikeouts is probably near a tie, but it really does depend on how he earned them (like if did he fail miserably everywhere else).

But I see, by the numbers, which is more improbable. I still won't take away the difficulty of hitting four home runs in a game.

[JBH3]

Re: Is it just me, or is there a handful of cycles and no hitters this year already?

Who's your grammar teacher? I'd like to send her a sympathy card.

Sorry, I don't use grammar well when I talk online

Who cares...we all got the just of what you were saying...ugh...grammar police. When a post absolutely atrocious then I can see a raz being raz-worthy...

--------------------------------------------------------------

Cycles vs No-Hitters...I think is a wash, both are extremely hard.

A Perfect Game...

A perfect game has to be the hardest to accomplish.

Edit: 20 Ks...Hard, but the ump has to be factored in too...maybe three or four Ks, or just one was a bad call.

I don't know...There all equally hard in their own right.

[Speedy]

Re: Is it just me, or is there a handful of cycles and no hitters this year already?

Who cares...we all got the just of what you were saying...ugh...grammar police. When a post absolutely atrocious then I can see a raz being raz-worthy...

I care.

Cycles vs No-Hitters...I think is a wash, both are extremely hard.

Some teams have a lot of players who hit for the cycle while some don't...Mark Kotsay had one for the Braves last year and it was only like the 2nd or 3rd in team history. Personally, I find a no-hitter much more impressive than the cycle as it requires focus, near-perfect pitching and great defense for 9 full innings while a cycle sometimes just depends on where the ball drops.

[JBH3]

Re: Is it just me, or is there a handful of cycles and no hitters this year already?

Where does the triple play rank? Extremely luck based?

[Sandman42]

Re: Is it just me, or is there a handful of cycles and no hitters this year already?

Where does the triple play rank? Extremely luck based?

Yes.

I'm with Ewing on the 20 K games being the most impressive individual feat. A no hitter/perfect game is more of a team effort as the pitcher needs good defense behind him along with some luck.