A Hypothetical Played Out

[Fishercat]

OK, pretend you're an MLB player. You're good with the potential to be great, but more for your batting ability than your speed or defense. It's late in the game, and you've had a great offensive game. You've hit a bomb and a triple off of Maddux (the triple's great, since you get one a year), as well as a single. By all accounts it's a great night. You come up in the eighth inning, and Maddux is laboring on the mound and he throws you a pretty fat pitch that you nail over the outfielder's head. You round first, the OF isn't really close and it drops. You get to second and look out, and see that you can easily make third...do you go for it? Or, being in your home park, do you stay at second and get the cycle?

Conor Jackson played this out tonight. It was the sixth inning, his team was up by seven, and he took third on a triple that scored Eric Byrnes to make the game 8-0, and he scored on a sac fly that made it 9-0, the score the Diamondbacks eventually won by. He GIDPed in his last AB.

My questions are

A) Do you take third? Is it a definite yes or no, or is it situational?
B) If it is situational, in what way? The point in the game (if it were the 8th, yes, if it's the 4th, no), the score, the hit needed to complete?

It's an interesting question with divided camps on another board. There are currently three teams without a cycle (Tampa, Florida, and SD) while every other team has at least two. The hitters span from the great (Ted Williams) to Scott Cooper.

So...do you take third?

[love_that_reefer]

I take third. You never know what is going to happen and you always have to get in the best position to score. Plus you don't want to look like a dick by staying to keep the cycle.

[DirtyKash]

If you can easily take third base, you should always take third base regardless of game situation. Stopping at second base just to achieve statistical recognition is stupid. You play to win the game, and there's just about no reason that stopping at second base helps you win more than going for third base.

It is a different situation if you're 50/50 on making it to third base safely. Then, it would depend on game situation (score, inning, hitters behind you, how your pitching is doing, etc.)

[love_that_reefer]

With the lead they had, even 50/50 is good enough to go for the triple. If you get thrown out, you still have a good lead.

[realmofotalk]

If I were Conor Jackson in that situation, knowing that my team is up by 7 in the 6th inning and the anemic Padres offense, I'm going to say that I would stop at 2nd base and complete the cycle and then joke to the reporters that the mercy rule was in effect. But I agree that in most other situations I would make a run for 3rd base.

[Halladay_is_God]

I would have stopped at 2nd and get credit for a cycle

[HollywoodLeo]

The scenario here is the main reason I think the cycle is overrated.

I'm taking third base.

My 2.75 SLG is better than your 2.5 SLG if you stay at 2nd.

[Kingdom]

Since the cycle doesn't really justify much (sure it's a nice little single game nugget, but it seems like 75% of them are achieved by irrelevant players nowadays), go for third. In fact, be awesome and go for home. Run white guy run.

[NYgiantsfan5689]

I go for third, just for the fact that if i get thrown out, it counts as a double and an out, and therefore I get the cycle. if i make it, i look like i helped the team, and nobody remembers a cycle for more than a week at most anyways. it's not like it's a perfect game or a no-hitter. people are still talking about mark buerhle's no hitter. nobody's talking about any cycles from last year. nobody.

[GiantsFanatic]

I'm with Mofo on this, if we are ahead by 5+ runs, I would stop at second and get the cycle, and if it was a close game I wouldn't even hesitate and go to third.

[HollywoodLeo]

The cycle is overrated.

A guy who hits 2 3 run HRs and strikes out twice has a better day than a guy who hits for the cycle.

The cycle is only over-hyped because of the silly concept of getting one of each type of hit.

[GiantsFanatic]

Guys hitting multiple homeruns in a game is common and happens almost everyday, hitting for a cycle rarely ever happens. I think you can can compare it to a quadruple double in the NBA.

[HollywoodLeo]

People almost never strike out 5 times in a game, either.

Being rare doesn't necessarily make it better.

[GiantsFanatic]

Well last time I checked, getting four hits is better than striking out 5 times.

And I'm not saying that that hitting a cycle is better than hitting 2 3 run HRs.

[HollywoodLeo]

Well last time I checked, getting four hits is better than striking out 5 times.

I don't think I said striking out 5 times was better than getting four hits.

I was simply making a point to explain why the cycle isn't necessarily better than the 2 HR, 6 RBI game just because it's rarer.

Striking out 5 times is also very rare....but something I never want to see a Padres player do.

And I'm not saying that that hitting a cycle is better than hitting 2 3 run HRs.

Then what's the point of striving to achieve it?

For the sake of the scenario in question, a 1 HR, 1 Single, 2 triple day is better than a 1 HR, 1 Single, 1 Double, and 1 Triple day.

But I suppose if my goal is to be highlighted on ESPN I'd stop at 2nd for the cycle.