In a recent issue of the Chicago Tribune, baseball writer Phil Rogers noted that San Diego center fielder Mike Cameron missed a recent chance to hit for the cycle when he took a strike on a 3-0 count and then walked on the next pitch in his final at-bat. Cameron almost always takes on 3-0, and he did the same despite needing just a single in the seventh inning of the Padres' 9-1 romp over the Dodgers on June 13. Rogers pointed out that Cameron took a 3-0 pitch for a strike with a chance to hit five home runs in a game while with Seattle in May 2002. He then lined out with a 3-1 count in a 15-4 win over the White Sox. "There is a time and place for everything," Cameron told Rogers. "Swinging 3-0 for the cycle with an eight-run lead is not smart. Just like swinging 3-0 with four home runs and a 10-run lead wasn't smart. It's something you just don't do." Cameron's unwillingness to aggressively pursue a milestone in a lopsided victory is admirable. He abided by one of those unwritten rules between players, even though a single against the Dodgers reportedly would have made him only the fourth player in history -- joining Chuck Klein, Lou Gehrig and Gil Hodges -- with both a cycle and a four-homer game. But why not go for the single? It's just a base hit, arguably less innocuous than stealing an unnecessary base that moves the runner into scoring position. One could argue that no lead is safe in these times of bigger players and smaller ballparks. After all, just last week the Yankees coughed up a 9-2 lead in the latter half of a game and lost to Washington, 11-9. What Cameron did is honorable, but is this one of those unwritten rules that doesn't necessarily apply to today's game? Or is there still a significant difference between pursuing a milestone versus another run in a lopsided affair?