The Cycle Paradox

From The Rogue's Baseball Index

Hitting for the cycle is the pinnacle of cool, satisfying one's urge to see disparate objects align unexpectedly, like the planets into a prophecy-fulfilling doom machine or a poker hand into a straight flush. But unlike, say, a straight flush, hitting for the cycle is not actually the best possible outcome. It would be far more fortuitous for a slugger to hit four home runs. Or four triples, or four doubles, or three home runs and a triple, or two home runs and a triple, et cetera. Nonetheless, despite the extensive room for improvement, the cycle maintains its place in lore, and the most modest fan still finds his palms sweaty when Kevin Kouzmanoff strides to the plate with a homer, a single, and a double under his belt.

Hence The Cycle Paradox, when something emotionally rewarding is not actually the best way to win a baseball game. The Cycle Paradox can apply to many of the golden rules from the pre-sabermetric golden age of baseball, including:

• the sacrifice bunt
• the intentional walk
• slap-hitting
• making a diving play on ball that a better player would have been standing in front of
• David Eckstein