Hitting for the cycle, is it in bad taste to....?

Question

Just curious what everyones opinion is, Lets say a player has a Homer, triple , and a double in a game so far. Its the bottom of the eigth and his team is up by a considerable amount (lets say 9 runs) and he hits a shot down the line. Would it be in bad taste for him to just stop at first and not go for the easy no risk at all double? If this is acceptable... how about this, what if he is on the losing side and his team is down ten runs and its the bottom of the ninth with two outs?
so
1. player on winning team with considerable score advantage
and
2.player on losing team down by a whole lot of runs with only one out left

Answer 1

in the first situation i'd stop at first to get the cycle...just because a cycle is a stat that is held onto and people can look up....i mean people can look back 20 yrs and see how many cycles you had....seeing how many HR, 3B, and 2 2B games you had is a whole lot harder.....so for the sake of the stats....i'd stay at first and get the cycle...plus you'd be seen in a better light

now if my team is losing i'd take the no risk double because it would mean more to my team...if my team will win the game then it won't make much of a difference...if my team is losing...then i see it as disrespectful if i blow off the good of my team to get a cycle...i'd show them that i'm about the team and go for second...only if we're losing though....

Answer 2

Really quickly you'll be showing your team and baseball fans what kind of player you are. Either selfish by stopping at first base or a team player by taking an easy double.

August 16th 1987 - Daryl Strawberry had the perfect opportunity to go for the cycle. He had the double, triple, home run and his team was leading nearly 20 to 7 in the 8th. Daryl wasn't know for being a team player and could have easily held up at first for the cycle. Even with comfortable 13 run lead he still legged out another double.

Just something to think about.

Answer 3

I think either way you look at it, you shouldn't assume anything as long as you are on the Field. If you stop at first base as a runner for the winning team, you kind of say "ehhh..we are up by 9 runs, I'm going to stop here. They aren't going to comeback." I've watched enough baseball to see that no matter what the odds are, baseball is never over until the final out is recorded, or the home team scores the winning run in the 9th inning or beyond.

Likewise if you stop at first base as a member of the losing team, you're playing with the mentality that you won't comeback. "I'm just going to stop here and take the cycle for personal gain, it's not like we are going to comeback anyway."

A good player doesn't take anything for granted. Yeah perhaps you don't attempt as many steals if you are up by 9 runs, but also shouldn't assume that the other team won't comeback either. Besides, a 9 run deficit is an outside chance for a comeback, 17 runs might be a different story.

Answer 4

Realistically I doubt if too many players would just stop to get the cycle, but someone might. If it did into hurt the team vis a vis the outcome of the game and/or if it is a nothing game at the end of the season and standings make no difference then maybe it would not be "wrong." I was at a game when Kirby Puckett hit for the cycle and it was a late season game which had no meaning in the standings. It was quite a feat to see live. Puck did it the same night the Bert Blyleven struck out 15 including his 3000th strike out.

Answer 5

I wouldn't say it's wrong but it's kind of dumb. You would be considered to have a better night if you had a HR, trip, and two Doubs then a HR, trip, doub and a single. I would rather have an another extra base hit on my stats than a cycle (considering that's not a stat you"ll find on the back of a baseball card). As for If on the losing end, that would be very bad taste, you should always put the team before yourself. Baseball is after all a team game. If MLB players were always out for themselves and there own stats Major league Baseball would suck like the NBA!

Answer 6

I dont know if you remember, but I seem to remember a player whos name I think is Jeff Frye, not sure, who had a homer, triple, double and hit a ball down the line and stopped at first before the right fielder even picked up the ball. No one really had a problem with it, but I dont remember the exact situation there, I know he was on the Blue Jays. Anyway in either situation I would not have a problem with it because the game has pretty much been decided.

Answer 7

I think it's bad sportsmanship in both situations because in any sport, the player should give 100% no matter what the score is. Hitting for the cycle isn't a stat that a player will be remembered for. A player won't suddenly be recognized as a good player just because of the cycle. Brad Wilkerson and Chad Moeller did it...those aren't exactly solid players. So why jeopardize your reputation for it. Also in my mind, getting a double is better than a measly single so why would you purposely get something worse.

Answer 8

To me, players should never stop at a base at any time in order to hit for the cycle, no matter what the score. I'd rather have a HR, a triple, and 2 doubles than to hit for the cycle.

Answer 9

If it is a situation where the game is out of hand one way or the other, I don't see why it would be such a problem. It would be a major no-no in a close game, though. Individual accomplishments should be secondary to helping the team win.

Answer 10

I thinks its ok cause hitting for the cycle is one of the most rare things in baseball. you wouldnt pull a pitcher who had a no hitter or perfect game through 8 innings and 110 pitch count if his team was up by 10 or up by 1 you would let him go until he gave up a hit or finished the game.