DiMaggio is Now Number One

[LouGehrig]

Consider the other record holders.

DiMaggio is Now Number One: Joe's 56-Game Hitting Streak is the Greatest, Clearest of All

[jtur88]

This is complete BS. If DiMaggio had played for Cincinnati, there isn't a sports writer on earth who would call it the "greatest record" of all time. And if Rose had broken Joe's record, nobody would call that a great record, either. Furthermore, sabermetricians don't even pay any attention to hits anymore---players are judged by their on-base percentage and slugging percentage. And, quick, who holds the record for getting on base the most consecutive games?

Isn't it funny how all the great records are held by Yankees, and if the record is not held by a Yankee, well, then, it's not such a great record then, is it? Isn't it funny how all the sportswriters who get national attention live in New York City?

[Grandstander]

In baseball, what counts is how many per opportunity over the course of a year. How these happen to get arranged within any particular number of games is utterly unimportant. If you divide the season into three 54 game segments and Player A gets 220 hits while player B gets 200 hits, but player B happened to have gotten at least one hit in each game of one of those 54 game segments, that in no manner boosts his value past player A.

For 1941, Dimaggio hit .357 in 541 at bats. During the streak he was 91 for 223, .408. That means that in the other games, he was 102 for 315, .321.

What it all actually means is that he hit .357 in 1941. That is exactly as valuable as any other player who has hit .357 with the same secondary stats. That a large portion of his total contribution was concentrated in a 56 game segment....means zip.

DiMaggio hit .408 during a 56 game stretch. That same year, Ted Williams hit .406 for the whole season. Unable to grasp that the streak meant nothing in terms of boosting the Yankees fortunes, the writers voted DiMaggio the MVP. A ridiculous award for a fluke accomplishment.

[bedir than average]

Taking Grandstander's point just a bit further; I think the actual remaining record is that would impress both the saber and scouting communities, Nap Lajoie’s .4265 single season modern era batting average mark. Since World War Two, new Hall of Famer Tony Gwynn was closest back in the strike damaged season of 1994 when he hit .3938. That record being broken wouldn’t be a fluke, but a full season of success, not 56 games of hits, but 162.

And yes, Ted Williams had a good 1941...

Welcome to the frontpage

[nanwynnfan]

I fully agree with others here; and batted balls in play generally fall safely for hits between .290 and .320 of the time, as opposed to average batting which gravitates to @ .265 - .275. Contact is key; and random chance plays a considerable part thereafter.

If we take the improbable hitter who runs a pattern of batting, as follows, over an entire season:

1 for 4
1 for 3
1 for 5
1 for 2
2 for 5;

and, no matter how you jumble the order, you keep him in that loop for 162 games, he will bat at a 6 for 19 clip, or .316, hardly extraordinary or astounding. However, he will have smashed DiMaggio's record by hitting safely in 162 consecutive games.

Moreover, in 1941 Ted Williams created 184 runs, 21,3% of his team's total. DiMaggio created 152 runs, 18.3% of the Yankee total.

What really screwed Ted and the Red Sox in 1941 was pitching: Sox pitchers gave up 750 runs, while the Yankee staff yielded only 631. Sox outscored the Yankees, 865 to 830, to no avail.

[Nat]

So where are we with the AB-record watch?

[bedir than average]

Originally Posted by Nat

So where are we with the AB-record watch?

Ichiro walks a little more often

[Grandstander]

Actually, we do have a challenge being mounted. Jimmy Rollins of the Phillies has played in every game and already has 514 at bats, a pace which would give him 712 and shove the immortal Willie Wilson into second place. It's a one man pursuit, no one else is on pace to top 700.

Rollins has a number of things working in his favor. I once codified the ideal AB record breaker....needs to be a lead off hitter....needs to walk with exactly the right frequency, just enough so that the OBA remains high enough to justify leaving him at the top of the order, but not so often that it cuts into the at bat totals severely. The player needs to be a on a team with a good offense, so that at bat opportunities are increased.

Rollins fits this profile. The Phillies lead the NL with .355 team OBA, so the lineup turns over with great frequency. Rollins bats lead off for them and his 36 walks added to his .290 ba is just enough to justify keeping him at the top. He hasn't missed a game this season and has never been on the DL in his career. The Phillies are in contention, so it isn't likely that Rollions will be taking any days off just to try out some rookie.

The other factor is luck....the breaks have to come Rollins' way...no injuries, the team remains in contention down to the final day...extra inning games happen often....but it looks like a legit challenge.

I wonder if Bud Selig will be there for it when Rollins reaches 700 plus at bats and is positioned to shatter the record in any game. And will Rollins be able to deal with the media swarm and hate mail and all the other distractions which come when chasing immortality like this?

[kflo]

.609 obp (bonds - 2004)
.863 slg (bonds - 2001)
1.422 ops (bonds - 2004)
275 adj ops+ (bonds - 2002)
233 RC (ruth - 233)
20.11 RC/27 (bonds - 2004)
6.5 ab/hr (bonds - 2001)

[kflo]

.609 obp (bonds - 2004)
.863 slg (bonds - 2001)
1.422 ops (bonds - 2004)
275 adj ops+ (bonds - 2002)
233 RC (ruth - 233)
20.11 RC/27 (bonds - 2004)
6.5 ab/hr (bonds - 2001)

[LouGehrig]

Originally Posted by jtur88

This is complete BS. If DiMaggio had played for Cincinnati, there isn't a sports writer on earth who would call it the "greatest record" of all time. And if Rose had broken Joe's record, nobody would call that a great record, either. Furthermore, sabermetricians don't even pay any attention to hits anymore---players are judged by their on-base percentage and slugging percentage. And, quick, who holds the record for getting on base the most consecutive games?

Isn't it funny how all the great records are held by Yankees, and if the record is not held by a Yankee, well, then, it's not such a great record then, is it? Isn't it funny how all the sportswriters who get national attention live in New York City?

Runners on second and third, two outs, down by a run in the bottom of the ninth. I kinda think that a batter with a high batting average might be more valuable than a batter with a high on base average.

Yes, all the great records are held by Yankees. Ty Cobb, Barry Bonds, Cy Young, Sandy Koufax, Nolan Ryan, Ted Williams, Sam Crawford, Bobby Thigpen, Walter Johnson, and Rube Marquard all had great Yankees careers.

[LouGehrig]

Originally Posted by Grandstander

In baseball, what counts is how many per opportunity over the course of a year. How these happen to get arranged within any particular number of games is utterly unimportant. If you divide the season into three 54 game segments and Player A gets 220 hits while player B gets 200 hits, but player B happened to have gotten at least one hit in each game of one of those 54 game segments, that in no manner boosts his value past player A.

For 1941, Dimaggio hit .357 in 541 at bats. During the streak he was 91 for 223, .408. That means that in the other games, he was 102 for 315, .321.

What it all actually means is that he hit .357 in 1941. That is exactly as valuable as any other player who has hit .357 with the same secondary stats. That a large portion of his total contribution was concentrated in a 56 game segment....means zip.

DiMaggio hit .408 during a 56 game stretch. That same year, Ted Williams hit .406 for the whole season. Unable to grasp that the streak meant nothing in terms of boosting the Yankees fortunes, the writers voted DiMaggio the MVP. A ridiculous award for a fluke accomplishment.

Would a player who hit in his team's LAST 25 games, say on the 1964 Phillies or 1973 Cubs, have been valuable than a player who hit in 25 consecutive games during the middle of the season?

[nanwynnfan]

Since batting streaks are based primarily on making decent contact with the pitched ball, I don't think it makes any sense to select which games in a seasonal schedule a strek takes place. Why? Because beyond contact, random batted ball distribution and a bit of luck enter into the picture. We know that nearly one-third of batted balls in play go for base hits, so for a contact hitter to bat safely often [reasonably high BA] is to be expected.

Since the thread started with an homage to DiMaggio and several of us have challenged the 56 game hit streak's supremacy among records, what is there about DiMaggio's performance overall that qualifies him as among the greats.

Somewhere on this board I mentioned the "elites," hitters who generated run creation at or above 20% of their total plate appearances. Then, since so many positions have NO players who reached that threshold, I listed the position leaders, between 1901 and the present. Here's where DiMaggio shines - contact, power and consistency.

Below are "elites" [and HR record leaders] and position leaders at RC/PA % and the ration between their HR's and their K's, which seeks to look at authoritative contact rate against overall run production rates. The higher the HR/K ratio, the more productive contact is suggested. Look at DiMaggio.

Player Name............RC/PA %..........HR...........K...........Ratio

Ruth.......................25.97.............714.. ......1330....... .537
Williams...................24.09.............521.. .......709....... .735
Bonds.....................21.30.............758... .....1531........ .495
DiMaggio.................20.44..............361... ......369........ .978
Aaron.....................18.58..............755.. .... 1383....... .546
Guerrero..................19.96.............356... .......720....... .494
Greenberg...............21.23..............331.... ......844....... .392
Gehrig....................23.44..............493.. ........790....... .624
Musial....................20.20..............475.. ........696........ .682
Mays.....................18.76..............660... ......1526....... .433
Foxx......................22.23..............534.. .......1311....... .407
Mize......................19.44..............359.. .........524....... .685
McGwire.................18.93..............583.... .....1596....... .365
Pujols.....................22.18.............274.. .........444....... .617
Helton....................21.08..............297.. ........743....... .400
F. Thomas..............19.33..............505........ ..1320...... .383
Hornsby..................21.83.............301.... ........679...... .443
Schmidt..................16.75.............548.... ......1883...... .291
Mathews.................16.34.............512..... .....1487...... .344
"C." Jones................18.77.............376........ ..1062...... .354
Rosen.....................16.46.............192... .........385...... .499
Brett......................16.28.............317.. ..........908...... .349
Garciaparra..............17.53.............217.... ........509...... .426
A. Rodriguez.............19.20............503........ ...1491...... .337
Piazza.....................18.44............422... ........1092...... .386

Not only is DiMaggio one of only 11 players [1901-present] to generate runs @>20% of plate appearances, but he is also far ahead of the pack in power relative to effective contact, putting the ball in play. That is more convincing than a hit streak. The hit streak does serve to point out an amazing consistency of contact and relative power.

This should not dtract from guys like Williams, Ruth and Bonds whose numbers are affected by their extreme eyes and plate discipline, drawing walks.

[Grandstander]

Originally Posted by LouGehrig

Would a player who hit in his team's LAST 25 games, say on the 1964 Phillies or 1973 Cubs, have been valuable than a player who hit in 25 consecutive games during the middle of the season?

No. Games played in the miodle of the season count exactly as much as games played in September. There may be a difference in dramatic perception, but there is no substantial difference in terms of impact on the goal of winning your division. If a team wins a game 10-9, all ten of the runs that were scored were equally critical, remove any one of them and the victory evaporates. Thus, the portion of the runs scored in the early innings have no more or less value than the 10th run even if it came on a walk off homerun. Had those earlier runs not been scored, that walk off homerun would have been reduced to a parting shot in a loss. It's all perceptions of staggered values, while actually being equal values. It works the same way for the team's schedule. September wins may seem more critical because you are closer to resolution, but they are not really any more critical.

Mistaking the September games as having greater value than ones played in any other month, is an error most congruent with mistaking Dimaggio's streak for something of value beyond its context within the entire season. That Dimaggio got the hits...that is what counts. How they were arranged, that's random luck at work.

Think of it on a simpler level....if the contest was coin tossing, the winner being whichever side came up most frequently within 162 tosses, what is critical is only which side came up most frequently. If the loser happened to have won an inexplicable 25 tosses in a row during the contest, that means zip if overall if there were not at least 82 such victories. Nor does it mean anything if the winner was ten tosses behind and won the last ten in a row to pull out the victory. That creates the perception of "clutch" while in reality was random.

And that's what is important in understanding the value of Dimaggio's streak....it was randomness at work, not skill. Dimaggio's skill was getting lots of hits, it was never arranging the pattern of those hits. No one has such a skill and even if someone did, it would be a useless one because it has nothing to do with winning ballgames.

[LouGehrig]

I find it fascinating that I agree with your statements, but the premise of randomness or pure acceptance of the statistical result without the variables of humans being involved creates problems, and that is what is bothersome.

Originally Posted by Grandstander

Games played in the miodle of the season count exactly as much as games played in September.

But how did the team GET there? If a team or a player does not play the same way in April (less intensity) as he does in September (greater intensity), the chances of winning the game in April, recognizing all the uncontrollable variables, is less, in most cases. While the games all count the same, a win is a win, they are often not approached that way. If teams and players approached every game with the same ability, it would be more akin to a coin toss, but they are human, and they do not or cannot approach every game the same way. Many players bear down more when it counts, not realizing that if they did that earlier, they wouldn't have to do it later.



If a team wins a game 10-9, all ten of the runs that were scored were equally critical, remove any one of them and the victory evaporates.

How about a team that goes out in front, 10-0, and simply coasts. Statistically, all ten runs are equally critical, but the leading team often gives away runs. In a close 10-9 game, every run is critical, both statistically and on the field. In a blow out, if the leading team bears down, possibly doesn't bring in a second line pitcher, etc., the score would not have been 10-9.


That Dimaggio got the hits...that is what counts. How they were arranged, that's random luck at work.


Back to the human factor. A player, any player, might "give away' an at bat by not concentrating, not running to first hard, etc. But a player with a personal record at stake, who is a great competitor, cannot let that happen. DiMaggio might have concentrated more during the streak. Over 154 games, you can't get up for every game, but during a potentially historic hitting streak, some players reach back for a little extra.


Think of it on a simpler level....if the contest was coin tossing, the winner being whichever side came up most frequently within 162 tosses.

That's JUST IT. The contest involves humans, emotions, desires, competition, courage, hustling, NOT hustling, etc. It is not solely statistics. The statistics attempt to quantify WHAT HAS OCCURRED. Inferential statistics can ONLY INFER within accepted limits, and that means the acceptance of possible errors.

Dimaggio's streak was randomness at work.

See above. It was not randomness. It involved randomness.