Red Mosquito

not much of a streak guy myself..the only ones impressive to me as Lament said is Orel's scoreless streak..Not baseball related but Tiger winning 4 straight majors is mind boggling

Simple Torture wrote:Just to stir the pot, here are DiMaggio's stats from 5/15/41-7/16/41 (the length of his streak) compared to Ted Williams' stats from the same stretch (T. Ballgame had 55 games compared to Joe's 56 during the stretch):

BA/OBP/SLG/OPS
DiMaggio: .408/.463/.717/1.181
Williams: .412/.540/.684/1.224

HR/RBI/BB
DiMaggio: 15/55/21
Williams: 12/50/50

So, I mean, I think I agree with chud: if a guy hits in 40 straight games but goes 1 for 5 in most of them...I think it's impressive, but not mind boggling. But the kind of numbers that both of these guys put up for a two-month stretch are out of this world; I don't think what DiMaggio did is any better than Williams just because he hit safely in every game; in fact, considering Williams had more than twice as many walks as DiMaggio (and scored twice as many runs--61 to 29), I dunno if you can really argue who had the better stretch.

That's exactly it. It's not the fact that he didn't go hitless that makes those stretches impressive, it's the fact that they were offensive machines for long stretches of time that was impressive. I'm much more impressed with a guy that hits over 400 for a couple months straight even if it means a hitless game every now and then than a guy who simply hits .200-.250 for 50 straight games.

Fuzzy_Dunlop wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:The reason it's not as impressive as it may seem is because you can go 1/5 for 40 straight games and you're still only hitting .200.

Congratulations on your hitting streak, now can you help us win instead?

That's a really weak argument considering:

There have been 129 single-season streaks of 25 games or more. The lowest batting average ever recorded during a hitting streak of 25 games or more was .304 by Bruce Campbell in 1938. The highest was .486 during Chuck Klein's streak in 1930. Joe DiMaggio hit .408 during his record-holding 56 game streak.

And what all those guys did was impressive. But not because they didn't go hitless for a single game, but because they were hitting between .304 and .486 for extended periods of time, and presumably helping their teams win ballgames.

@SkitchP wrote:

Simple Torture wrote:Just to stir the pot, here are DiMaggio's stats from 5/15/41-7/16/41 (the length of his streak) compared to Ted Williams' stats from the same stretch (T. Ballgame had 55 games compared to Joe's 56 during the stretch):

BA/OBP/SLG/OPS
DiMaggio: .408/.463/.717/1.181
Williams: .412/.540/.684/1.224

HR/RBI/BB
DiMaggio: 15/55/21
Williams: 12/50/50

So, I mean, I think I agree with chud: if a guy hits in 40 straight games but goes 1 for 5 in most of them...I think it's impressive, but not mind boggling. But the kind of numbers that both of these guys put up for a two-month stretch are out of this world; I don't think what DiMaggio did is any better than Williams just because he hit safely in every game; in fact, considering Williams had more than twice as many walks as DiMaggio (and scored twice as many runs--61 to 29), I dunno if you can really argue who had the better stretch.

I agree with this. Hitting Streaks are fun to follow but really don't cover much more than a lot of luck. Obviously a good hitter is going to have a better chance, but the consecutive games is just fluky and fun- not proof of greatness.

Skitch gets it.

cutuphalfdead wrote:

Fuzzy_Dunlop wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:The reason it's not as impressive as it may seem is because you can go 1/5 for 40 straight games and you're still only hitting .200.

Congratulations on your hitting streak, now can you help us win instead?

That's a really weak argument considering:

There have been 129 single-season streaks of 25 games or more. The lowest batting average ever recorded during a hitting streak of 25 games or more was .304 by Bruce Campbell in 1938. The highest was .486 during Chuck Klein's streak in 1930. Joe DiMaggio hit .408 during his record-holding 56 game streak.

And what all those guys did was impressive. But not because they didn't go hitless for a single game, but because they were hitting between .304 and .486 for extended periods of time, and presumably helping their teams win ballgames.

ya but pitchers threw under handed in the 30s didnt they?

Lament wrote:

Fuzzy_Dunlop wrote:That's a really weak argument considering:

There have been 129 single-season streaks of 25 games or more. The lowest batting average ever recorded during a hitting streak of 25 games or more was .304 by Bruce Campbell in 1938. The highest was .486 during Chuck Klein's streak in 1930. Joe DiMaggio hit .408 during his record-holding 56 game streak.

That doesn't make the "consecutive games hit in" the remarkable part. Hitting over .400 for a thirty-plus game period is a great accomplishment regardless of whether or not there was a hit in every single game. An 0-4 in the middle of those thirty-plus games doesn't make the achievement any less fantastic.

I total agree with that. I still think it's weak to say a hitting streak isn't impressive b/c someone could hit .200 while having one. Especially when it's never happened.

Fuzzy_Dunlop wrote:

Lament wrote:

Fuzzy_Dunlop wrote:That's a really weak argument considering:

There have been 129 single-season streaks of 25 games or more. The lowest batting average ever recorded during a hitting streak of 25 games or more was .304 by Bruce Campbell in 1938. The highest was .486 during Chuck Klein's streak in 1930. Joe DiMaggio hit .408 during his record-holding 56 game streak.

That doesn't make the "consecutive games hit in" the remarkable part. Hitting over .400 for a thirty-plus game period is a great accomplishment regardless of whether or not there was a hit in every single game. An 0-4 in the middle of those thirty-plus games doesn't make the achievement any less fantastic.

I total agree with that. I still think it's weak to say a hitting streak isn't impressive b/c someone could hit .200 while having one. Especially when it's never happened.

I know it never happens. My point was simply to illustrate that a streak in and of itself can't be that impressive when the streak record can technically be broken by someone hitting under the mendoza line.

cutuphalfdead wrote:

Simple Torture wrote:Just to stir the pot, here are DiMaggio's stats from 5/15/41-7/16/41 (the length of his streak) compared to Ted Williams' stats from the same stretch (T. Ballgame had 55 games compared to Joe's 56 during the stretch):

BA/OBP/SLG/OPS
DiMaggio: .408/.463/.717/1.181
Williams: .412/.540/.684/1.224

HR/RBI/BB
DiMaggio: 15/55/21
Williams: 12/50/50

So, I mean, I think I agree with chud: if a guy hits in 40 straight games but goes 1 for 5 in most of them...I think it's impressive, but not mind boggling. But the kind of numbers that both of these guys put up for a two-month stretch are out of this world; I don't think what DiMaggio did is any better than Williams just because he hit safely in every game; in fact, considering Williams had more than twice as many walks as DiMaggio (and scored twice as many runs--61 to 29), I dunno if you can really argue who had the better stretch.

That's exactly it. It's not the fact that he didn't go hitless that makes those stretches impressive, it's the fact that they were offensive machines for long stretches of times that were impressive. I'm much more impressed with a guy that hits over 400 for a couple months straight even if it means a hitless game every now and then than a guy who simply hits .200-.250 for 50 straight games.

I think we can all agree that it was a fucking travesty that DiMaggio got the MVP in '41 and not Williams, and that it was the streak that did it.

Simple Torture wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

Simple Torture wrote:Just to stir the pot, here are DiMaggio's stats from 5/15/41-7/16/41 (the length of his streak) compared to Ted Williams' stats from the same stretch (T. Ballgame had 55 games compared to Joe's 56 during the stretch):

BA/OBP/SLG/OPS
DiMaggio: .408/.463/.717/1.181
Williams: .412/.540/.684/1.224

HR/RBI/BB
DiMaggio: 15/55/21
Williams: 12/50/50

So, I mean, I think I agree with chud: if a guy hits in 40 straight games but goes 1 for 5 in most of them...I think it's impressive, but not mind boggling. But the kind of numbers that both of these guys put up for a two-month stretch are out of this world; I don't think what DiMaggio did is any better than Williams just because he hit safely in every game; in fact, considering Williams had more than twice as many walks as DiMaggio (and scored twice as many runs--61 to 29), I dunno if you can really argue who had the better stretch.

That's exactly it. It's not the fact that he didn't go hitless that makes those stretches impressive, it's the fact that they were offensive machines for long stretches of times that were impressive. I'm much more impressed with a guy that hits over 400 for a couple months straight even if it means a hitless game every now and then than a guy who simply hits .200-.250 for 50 straight games.

I think we can all agree that it was a fucking travesty that DiMaggio got the MVP in '41 and not Williams, and that it was the streak that did it.

Hear, hear.

Simple Torture wrote:I think we can all agree that it was a fucking travesty that DiMaggio got the MVP in '41 and not Williams, and that it was the streak that did it.

It was probably a combination of the streak and the Yankees finishing like 200 games ahead of everyone else in the AL that year. But yeah, there's no doubt that Williams had the far more impressive individual season. It's not even close.

is Ted still in 2 pieces at a cryogenics lab?

Ted's dead, baby.

I think hitting 400 is more impressive, but I think we've got a better chance of seeing that again than a 56 game hitting streak.

Simple Torture wrote:Just to stir the pot, here are DiMaggio's stats from 5/15/41-7/16/41 (the length of his streak) compared to Ted Williams' stats from the same stretch (T. Ballgame had 55 games compared to Joe's 56 during the stretch):

BA/OBP/SLG/OPS
DiMaggio: .408/.463/.717/1.181
Williams: .412/.540/.684/1.224

HR/RBI/BB
DiMaggio: 15/55/21
Williams: 12/50/50

So, I mean, I think I agree with chud: if a guy hits in 40 straight games but goes 1 for 5 in most of them...I think it's impressive, but not mind boggling. But the kind of numbers that both of these guys put up for a two-month stretch are out of this world; I don't think what DiMaggio did is any better than Williams just because he hit safely in every game; in fact, considering Williams had more than twice as many walks as DiMaggio (and scored twice as many runs--61 to 29), I dunno if you can really argue who had the better stretch.

Surprising that DiMaggio had more HR's than Teddy during the streak, esp since Williams wasnt exactly slumping.

Other Ted Williams things I find way more interesting than Joe DiMaggio's hitting streak!

9/17-9/23/57 - 1.000/1.000/3.000 (BA/OBP/SLG) - Williams reaches base in 16 consecutive plate appearances, a ML record. That's 6 hits (4 of them HR), 9 BB (1 of them intentional), and 1 HBP.

Don't look at the MVP voting from '41, '42, and '47 unless you really want to get angry. From '41-'49 (which were only 6 seasons for him due to military service), Williams won 2 MVP awards, but he really should've won 5. If he hadn't been drafted and if DiMaggio hadn't been playing in New York (even if he had the same numbers), Williams easily could've won 8 MVP awards in a 9-year span, and I think the conversation about GOAT would be quite different. Although I don't think I'm telling any of you something you don't already know (just wanted to vent).

Fuck You Jobu wrote:

Simple Torture wrote:Just to stir the pot, here are DiMaggio's stats from 5/15/41-7/16/41 (the length of his streak) compared to Ted Williams' stats from the same stretch (T. Ballgame had 55 games compared to Joe's 56 during the stretch):

BA/OBP/SLG/OPS
DiMaggio: .408/.463/.717/1.181
Williams: .412/.540/.684/1.224

HR/RBI/BB
DiMaggio: 15/55/21
Williams: 12/50/50

So, I mean, I think I agree with chud: if a guy hits in 40 straight games but goes 1 for 5 in most of them...I think it's impressive, but not mind boggling. But the kind of numbers that both of these guys put up for a two-month stretch are out of this world; I don't think what DiMaggio did is any better than Williams just because he hit safely in every game; in fact, considering Williams had more than twice as many walks as DiMaggio (and scored twice as many runs--61 to 29), I dunno if you can really argue who had the better stretch.

Surprising that DiMaggio had more HR's than Teddy during the streak, esp since Williams wasnt exactly slumping.

Those 5 extra RBI also kept Williams from winning the triple crown, which would probably have swung the MVP vote.

cutuphalfdead wrote:My point was simply to illustrate that a streak in and of itself can't be that impressive when the streak record can technically be broken by someone hitting under the mendoza line.

It really shouldnt be called the Mendoza line, his career avg was .215
it should be the Uecker line, as not only has Bob made a career out of making fun of his lack of hitting, but his career batting average is, .200 on the nose! (ive actually heard Uecker joke that hes upset its NOT the Uecker line, anyone can hit .215 it takes skill to hit .200 on the nose baby)

and, I get what your saying, you COULD have a hitting streak of 50 games where ya go 1/4 nightly
but as someone else said, every streak over 25 the lowest avg was .325, so to get a hit in that many games in a row, generally youre getting hits / helping the team win.


I too think well see .400 before 57, Molitor says it best, the media pressure was crushing him in 1987, no one has gotten to his 39 since then, and the media coverage today is 100X more intense.

but man would it be must watch TV if someone got up into the 40s

MadTIGERmaN wrote:and, I get what your saying, you COULD have a hitting streak of 50 games where ya go 1/4 nightly
but as someone else said, every streak over 25 the lowest avg was .325, so to get a hit in that many games in a row, generally youre getting hits / helping the team win.

So let's celebrate the slash line instead of the streak.

MadTIGERmaN wrote:but man would it be must watch TV if someone got up into the 40s

Absolutely. Like Skitch said, streaks are fun to watch but that's about it.

Doing a little reading on Joe's streak, something I didn't realize...

The Yankees were 14-14, 5.5 games back going into the streak. After game #56 they were 55-27 (they had a few suspended games), up 6 games (that lead proceeded to grow to 20 before ending up at 17). I was unaware that his streak pretty much completely coincided with the Yankees going from the middle of the pack to running away with the pennant in a laughable fashion. For some reason I always thought they were one of those teams that just steamrolled the world right out of the gate.

MadTIGERmaN wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:My point was simply to illustrate that a streak in and of itself can't be that impressive when the streak record can technically be broken by someone hitting under the mendoza line.

It really shouldnt be called the Mendoza line, his career avg was .215
it should be the Uecker line, as not only has Bob made a career out of making fun of his lack of hitting, but his career batting average is, .200 on the nose! (ive actually heard Uecker joke that hes upset its NOT the Uecker line, anyone can hit .215 it takes skill to hit .200 on the nose baby)

and, I get what your saying, you COULD have a hitting streak of 50 games where ya go 1/4 nightly
but as someone else said, every streak over 25 the lowest avg was .325, so to get a hit in that many games in a row, generally youre getting hits / helping the team win.


I too think well see .400 before 57, Molitor says it best, the media pressure was crushing him in 1987, no one has gotten to his 39 since then, and the media coverage today is 100X more intense.

but man would it be must watch TV if someone got up into the 40s

Agreed. I thought Ichiro had the best shot. Lots of hits and lines drives. He batted 1st, so more appearences and didn't like to walk. Was very fast to get the infield hit. And throw in the fact that he had an interpreter, he could have handled the press better than most.