DiMaggio is Now Number One

[Grandstander]

In theory, every player is trying his best with every at bat, is that not the case? Even when trying his best, he comes through with a hit less than a third of the time. The very best players are only a bit better than that and you are a god if you can do it 40 % of the time....which still means you fail 60 % of the time.

That is reflective of talent levels....it's what human beings can do and we have an incredibly massive statistical database to establish this.

Clutch hitting is suggestive of some players being able to alter this formula in specific situations and I cannot accept that as being true. If someone had the abillity to enhance his chances of getting a hit in a clutch situation, then why would this player not turn on that same ability for every at bat? Why use it only in dramatic situations?

The answer is....because it does not actually exist, only the illusion of clutch ability.

Further, as I noted, even the perception of clutch situations is....perception. All runs, all innings, all games....are equal. A run scored in the first counts exactly as much as a run scored in the 9th. A game won in April is just as vital to pennant chances as a game won in September. If a club needs 95 wins to make the post season, all 95 of those wins are of equal importance. The ones won in September seem more valuable because you are a lot closer to knowing the payoff.

Sorry....all this is a hoplessly unromantic way of looking at it, but it does have the virtue of being the accurate way to look at it. You are never going to win a pennant with a roster you selected using "clutch" as the chief criteria if you aren't paying attention to what these players do in non "clutch" situations. It is what they do in those seemingly non clutch moments which establish whether or not the later "clutch" situation will have any meaning.

You gotta be close if you want to be in a position of winning a game with a "clutch" hit...so everything done which places you in that situation is equally critical as what is done in the situation.

Think of it as you would cheerleaders doing one of those human pyramid deals. The person who climbs up to the top and stands with his or her arms out...seems like the most important, or most endangered person, but all are of equal importanance in that removing any member would cause the collapse of the whole.

[jtur88]

Two other relevant considerations come into play on the consecutive game hitting streak.

One is that the "Hit" is an event whose definition is not always clear cut---it can sometimes be arbitrarily applied according to the official scorer.

The second is that, in a game whose outcome is not critical to a pennant race, opponents can retire the batter in his first AB, and then walk him for the remainder of the game, thus ensuring that the streak would be ended (if the opponents chose to do so) in any game in which the streak was not extended in the first plate appearance.

As I recall, there were teams who actually stated that they would do that to Pete Rose, rather than let him dishonor the great Yankee's record.

For this reason, I am inclined to diminish the value of the record, because it is so easy for the opponents and/or the official scorer to manipulate challenges to iit.

Picture this scenario: Manny Ramirez has a hitting streak around 50, and he is playing in Yankee Stadium. He hits a dribbler down the 3B line, ARod tries a bare-hand pickup, but the ball squirts off his fingertips. What are the chances the NY official scorer would give Manny his first hit of the game? Should Manny's eternal "greatness" hinge on that call?

[Grandstander]

Lou Gehrig:
See above. It was not randomness. It involved randomness.

To give this a more specific response, you are not properly differentiating between ability and results. That Dimaggio got 193 hits in 1941 is indeed an ability and it is also obviously a result. That 91 of those 193 hits were collected in a 56 game streak, is only a result and not an ability. It's not even a goal for a ballplayer because the goal is the maximum number of hits at all times, not the even distribution of them.

There have been plenty of ballplayers who have had 193 hits or more in a single season. That only Dimaggio assembled them in the particular pattern we are saluting is the product of flukery, random fortune. Any player who can produce 193 hits in a season, has a chance, based on nothing more than luck, of having a 56 game hitting streak.

It could have happened to any number of good hitters like DiMaggio who get lots of hits. It just happened to have happened to him.

As for the accomplishment itself, can you tell me one thing about it that in any manner, contributed to the Yankees winning more games than they would have won had Dimaggio had the same offensive season but without the streak? Over the course of those 56 games where he got 91 hits, would he have been any less valuable if in one game he had gotten one more hit and in game #30 or so, he had gone hitless? He still winds up with 91 hits in 56 games.

This is why I do not have a great deal of awe for that record. It was a fluke accomplisment, it is not even a goal in terms of winning ballgames, a tiny turn of fortune could have stopped it at any point, and it was not the product of any unique abilty of DiMaggio's.

DiMaggio getting 193 hits was not at all random, those hits arranging themselves as they did....that was what was random.

[LouGehrig]

Originally Posted by Grandstander

Lou Gehrig:
See above. It was not randomness. It involved randomness.


As for the accomplishment itself, can you tell me one thing about it that in any manner, contributed to the Yankees winning more games than they would have won had Dimaggio had the same offensive season but without the streak?

DiMaggio getting 193 hits was not at all random, those hits arranging themselves as they did....that was what was random.

Yes, I can. What effect did the Yankees wins in June and July have on the pennant race? You present your position effectively, but you do not address any other positions.

The Tigers in 1984 won the pennant after the first 40 games. The rest of the American League teams were beaten early.

DiMaggio's streak helped the Yankees win, and that could have (did affect, but since the variables cannot be controlled, definitive statements should not be made) discouraged the other contenders.

I can't stand it when Joe Torre, after a Yankee has failed but done well, such as a pitcher pitching 7 innings, allowing 4 runs, and losing, 4-3, says that "He should feel good about himself." But there is some validity to that. DiMaggio's streak may have helped the other Yankees win a game they might not have otherwise won.


Now, getting hits is NOT random. Players do NOT concentrate all the time. How many times have you heard it said that "He doesn't give at bats away.?"

Well, implicit in that statement is the inference that other players DO give at bats away. You can see it at times when a player's mind is elsewhere. "See that blonde in the first row?"

Baseball is much more than statistics.

[nanwynnfan]

"Baseball is much more than statistics."


This is very true. However, I believe you started this thread alleging Joltin' Joe was king due to theis very statistic - a 56 game hitting streak.

I'll repeat my earlier post, with comps among the greats, that because DiMaggio made authoritative contact [with some element of power], as evidenced by his HR/K % @ 98%, that took his potential for such a record from random possibility
to realized accomplishment.

He had two things going for him: a tendency to prefer free-swinging to walks PLUS an unanny ability to make contact, with authority [more liners, blasts and grass-cutters, than bloops and cans of corn].

[WilsonC]

While there is variance in terms of human traits such as concentration, ability to perform under pressure, and consistency, these are also traits that are pretty much required to compete at the top level, not something unique to DiMaggio. I can't imagine a Tony Gwynn or Wade Boggs or Rod Carew would be in anyway inferior to DiMaggio in the traits needed to establish such a record. While the streak is impressive, and is something that will likely stand for a long time, hitting streaks aren't a true measure of any real skill. The difference between his streak and a handful of other hot-streaks by a variety of great contact hitters is a lot of randomness. A bloop single here and there can extend a streak, and a good defensive play here and there can end one. Is hitting in 56 straight games more impressive than, say, hitting in 78 out of 80 games would be? The first is a record, but the second is arguably as good or better a measure of contact hitting consistency.

If you're looking at an impressive record for someone who still has an iconic reputation, Aaron's total bases record deserves consideration, given the lead he has on everbody else and what it represents. The combination of home run power, extra base power, consistency, durability, longevity, and contact hitting that it takes is still unmatched, and was set while he was still a very productive player, too.

[Grandstander]

LouGehrig:
Yes, I can. What effect did the Yankees wins in June and July have on the pennant race?
Yet you don't.

The effect was exactly the same as wins in any other month. So what?

DiMaggio's streak helped the Yankees win
You still aren't understanding. Dimaggios hitting...all of his hitting, not just his streak hitting, helped the Yankees win. It could have been rearranged so that there was no streak of more than five consecutive games at any point in the year, and that would make no difference at all in terms of helping or hurting the team. It's the total contribution which counts, not any particular section of the contribution. There is no value to a hitting streak which correlates to winning games....there is value to hitting which correlates, but NOT TO THE MANNER IN WHICH THAT HITTING IS ORGANIZED. Sorry for the script theatrics, but I'm having difficulty getting you to grasp this. The rest of your post is reflective of this ongoing miscomprehension, so I could only be repeating myself. I offer my earlier posts for your rereading, but I'm going to retire from this repetition. You get it or you don't, I've given it my best shot.

[LouGehrig]

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

"Baseball is much more than statistics."
I believe you started this thread alleging Joltin' Joe was king due to theis very statistic - a 56 game hitting streak.

No. If you went to the link to my article, I made the point that the home run record for a single season and for a career, and the career hit record have a possible taint. I am not evaluating Bonds or Rose off the field. I am merely stating that both have some questions to answer.

This leaves DiMaggio's record as one of the great records clean. That's all that was stated. Personal lives are not our business. What anyone does on her time is his business.

I agree and have always thought that a hitting streak is a freak record, and you and grandstander make great points, but the fact is that it did happen, and another fact is that players do NOT have the same intensity every game, or every at bat.

[LouGehrig]

How about some of Stan Musial's records?

[LouGehrig]

Originally Posted by Grandstander

LouGehrig:
Yes, I can. What effect did the Yankees wins in June and July have on the pennant race?
Yet you don't.

The effect was exactly the same as wins in any other month. So what?

DiMaggio's streak helped the Yankees win
You still aren't understanding. Dimaggios hitting...all of his hitting, not just his streak hitting, helped the Yankees win. It could have been rearranged so that there was no streak of more than five consecutive games at any point in the year, and that would make no difference at all in terms of helping or hurting the team. It's the total contribution which counts, not any particular section of the contribution. There is no value to a hitting streak which correlates to winning games....there is value to hitting which correlates, but NOT TO THE MANNER IN WHICH THAT HITTING IS ORGANIZED. Sorry for the script theatrics, but I'm having difficulty getting you to grasp this. The rest of your post is reflective of this ongoing miscomprehension, so I could only be repeating myself. I offer my earlier posts for your rereading, but I'm going to retire from this repetition. You get it or you don't, I've given it my best shot.

You are starting to INSULT me. There is a difference between comprehending a concept and ACCEPTING it.

Players do not play with the same intensity at all times. Why don't you respond to the 1984 Tigers, the 1955 Dodgers, or to the fact that players really do bring it up a notch in certain situations. To think that a player's intensity is constant throughout the season is naive and worse, unrealistic.

[nanwynnfan]

WilsonC wrote:

"I can't imagine a Tony Gwynn or Wade Boggs or Rod Carew would be in anyway inferior to DiMaggio in the traits needed to establish such a record. While the streak is impressive, and is something that will likely stand for a long time, hitting streaks aren't a true measure of any real skill."

In looking at DiMaggio's strek and trying to account for it beyond random chance and dumb luck, I've suggested that it is a combination of authoritative contact [with considerable power] and consistency of contact.

Without trying to create yet another statistic, I measured the greats [above] by HR/K ratios, and DiMaggio just jumped off the sheet.

If we take the players you've named and apply the same ratios, we get:

Player Name..............K............HR.............Rati o %

Tony Gwynn.............135........434............. .311
Wade Boggs.............118........745............. .158
Rod Carew................92........1028............ .089

... plus a few other great contact hitters

Pete Rose...............160........1143............ .140
Cecil Travis
[pre WW II]..............25.........220............. .114
*George Sisler...........102.........327............. .312
**Ty Cobb.................117.........500........... .234
Paul Molitor.............234........1244............ .188

*George Sisler, actual numbers, dead ball era
**Ty Cobb, Estimated K's [several years missing]

Now, if those HR/K ratios hold up as a possible predictor of prolonged streaks because of an element of power [authority=hard-hit], then any list of prolonged streaks on record should have Sisler, Gwynn, Cobb, Molitor, Boggs, Rose, Travis and Carew as contenders.

Among leaders short of DiMaggio's 56 are:

Pete Rose 44
George Sisler, twice, best = 41
Ty Cobb, 40
Paul Molitor, 39

Boggs, Travis and Carew not mentioned.

This does nothing to put down those players. It merely suggests that contact hitters with more power may have a better chance of prolonged hitting streaks.

[bedir than average]

Lou, would you really be more impressed by someone getting 56 straight hits than someone batting over .427?

[nanwynnfan]

I did a little more homework on Gwynn, Boggs and Carew and hitting streaks:

Gwynn: 25 games, 1983

Boggs: no streak mentioned

Carew: several: best = 19, 1982; 18, 1980; 18 & 15, 1973; 14. 1969; 15, 1967

[Grandstander]

Originally Posted by LouGehrig

You are starting to INSULT me. There is a difference between comprehending a concept and ACCEPTING it.

Players do not play with the same intensity at all times. Why don't you respond to the 1984 Tigers, the 1955 Dodgers, or to the fact that players really do bring it up a notch in certain situations. To think that a player's intensity is constant throughout the season is naive and worse, unrealistic.

That is assertion on your part and if you have some data to support it I will take a look. I'm assuming that you don't have any scientific backing for players "taking it up notch" and in that absense, I am not going to take such a claim seriously.

You are not thinking this through very clearly. If there was such an ability, if a player did have an on/off switch for going to maximum talent, then it would make zero sense to reserve this only for "clutch" situations. If they could actuallly crank up their ability simply by will power, they would be so damn good that it is likely that they would never face a clutch situation, they would massacre all the opposition all the time.

Things happen in baseball and thanks to the massive amount of stats kept, those things leave tracks and can be counted. If the ability you claim exists, did actually exist, it could not help but leaving tracks. We could study hitters from year to year in clutch and non clutch situations and see if the better year was determined by increased clutch chances, while some other player's poor year may be explained by a coincidental drop in his clutch opportunities.

And of course no one has ever found any such thing.....which leads to the conclusion that it isn't there. Study after study has concluded that "clutch" abilty does not carry over from year to year and no pattern exists which can account for anything but randomness at work. Against these studies we have you simply stating it because....well....why? You are making it up and expecting me to embrace your imagination over science. I will of course not be doing that, and again, if you find that insulting, sorry that I have insulted you.

Finally, and you really do not understand this...even if there was an ability to have a hitting streak (beyond the general qualification of being a hitter who gets lots of hits) ...this is not a desired ability at all. No GM or manager has ever tried to obtain a player because they were confident that this player could string together an impressive hit streak. No one knows in advance exactly which games, which innings or which at bats, are going to be the more important ones. And even if you did know, you still don't know exactly when your streak hitter is going to be on that streak.

Don't you see? 200 hits is great, that really helps a team generate runs. That they come all at once, one at a time, mostly in the first half, mostly in the second half, in wheelbarrow loads in June but thimblefuls in August....IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE if it is still 200 hits. You are not going to know in advance when you will need them the most, so planning a 56 game hitting streak does you no good.

It has no value past being a remarkable oddity. It has nothing to do with intensity, it has nothing to do with the '84 Tigers or any other irrelevancy you have introduced for reasons that elude me.

Stated flatly.....you are indeed not understanding. If you did, you would no longer be arguing these unsupportable things. So, if me saying that to you is insulting to you, then sorry, but I'm insulting you.

So...two points you have to wrap you mind around and recognize as valid:
1) The streak was a fluke.
2) Even if it wasn't a fluke, it added no value to the Yankee's season. If you had removed some hits from the 56 game streak and redistributed them to other games, it would have not changed a thing in terms of offensive value.

Really.

[nanwynnfan]

"Stated flatly.....you are indeed not understanding. If you did, you would no longer be arguing these unsupportable things. So, if me saying that to you is insulting to you, then sorry, but I'm insulting you.

"So...two points you have to wrap you mind around and recognize as valid:
1) The streak was a fluke.
2) Even if it wasn't a fluke, it added no value to the Yankee's season. If you had removed some hits from the 56 game streak and redistributed them to other games, it would have not changed a thing in terms of offensive value.

Really!

There are real skills involved in augmenting statistical performance above mere randomness; and Lou, I and others have tried to identify them, in an attempt to see what in DiMaggio's bag of tricks, made him a prime candidate for the most extended streak so far and we have NOT been rude in exploring it].