Stat of the day from BP. For 538280.

[BoSox Rule]

"STAT OF THE DAY

Top 5 Most Consecutive Games Reaching Base Streaks*

Player 	       NUM 	Start Date 	End Date
Wade Boggs 	81 	27-MAY-85 	27-AUG-85
Dale Murphy 	74 	07-APR-87 	28-JUN-87
Jimmy Wynn 	66 	18-MAY-69 	03-AUG-69
Mark McGwire 	62 	16-SEP-95 	18-JUN-96
Jim Thome 	60 	28-JUL-02 	05-APR-03

* Since 1960. Includes reaching on error in addition to hit, walk, and hit-by-pitch."

[Brian McKenna]

wow 81 games - half a season - i wouldn't have thought that - there is a lot to be said for looking out from the dugout and always seeing the same teammate on base

i guess it includes a fielder's choice as well which i guess sort of cheapens it a little

[538280]

Jimmy Wynn, nice. It's also nice to see Joe DiMaggio appears nowhere on the list.

I'll say what bkmckenna said too-81 games is truly amazing. Half the season!!!!

[RedSoxVT92]

I am not comletley sure, but I believe Ted Williams holds the all-time mark for consecutive games to reach base. Which was obviously before 1960 though.

[west coast orange and black]

81 is remarkable.
boggs is also the most recent player to hit .400 in a hidden season -- a 162-game stretch over two seasons.
over the final 107 games of of the ’85 season boggs batted .402.
then by 8 june 1986, the 162nd game of the skein, he had batted in 160 of ‘em for an even .400 (at the end of the 154th game boggs was at .402).

in 2004 bonds reached base safely in 141 of the 147 in which he appeared.
does anyone know of a player with a higher percentage than that?

[csh19792001]

Herm Krabbenhoft (whom I was lucky enough to meet) presented his research paper at the SABR convention in Boston four years ago.

The alltime records for consecutive games reaching base.

Another great link.

Excerpts:

"Krabbenhoft uncovered that information in the process of researching another record. He knew Yankees star Joe DiMaggio had hit safely in 56 consecutive games, failed to hit in game No.57, and then hit in 16 more. But DiMaggio walked in game No. 57, so he reached base in 73 straight games; in fact, he walked in the game before his streak started, thus compiling a streak of 74 games in which he reached base. Had anyone topped that?

After weeks of checking thousands of players' statistics, Krabbenhoft found that one hitter had topped that mark: Williams had a consecutive games on base safely (CGOBS) streak of 84 in 1949. Starting July 1, Williams got on base in every game through Sept.27.

Consistency was a Williams characteristic. If games in other years in which he had only one plate appearance, as a pinch hitter, are excluded, there were only seven times he failed to get on base safely two games running. And only once (in 1939) did Williams fail to get on base three games in a row (May 23-25, 1939). On Aug. 20 of that season, Williams didn't get on base in either game of a doubleheader. In 1940, he failed in the second game of a July 13 doubleheader and in the first game of the next day's doubleheader. Both days he reached safely in the other game.

From July 14, 1940, through Sept. 26, 1950, Williams never had back-to-back games without reaching safely, if a couple of pinch-hit appearances in 1941 and '48 are discounted.

(This is probably more incredible than reaching base in 84 straight games) ...

But on Sept. 27, 1950, he failed to reach base in a doubleheader - again, his lapse confined to one day. It was nearly four years later, in September 1954, that he went two straight games without reaching base. It happened just twice more, once in 1958 and once in his final season, 1960.

In 1957, soon after he turned 39, Williams reached base in 16 consecutive plate appearances, including 4 consecutive home runs.

[Brian McKenna]

considering the amount of errors in the 19th century, i would think a lot of research could be done there

[csh19792001]

Jimmy Wynn, nice. It's also nice to see Joe DiMaggio appears nowhere on the list.

What a telling statement that is.

[BoofBonser26]

What a telling statement that is.

So is SINCE 1960. Read the first post.

[csh19792001]

I'm supplementing a cut and paste job with the work of a friend who spent a year of his life researching this exact topic.

[BoofBonser26]

I'm supplementing a cut and paste job with the work of a friend who spent a year of his life researching this exact topic.

I think it's really telling that DiMaggio didn't make a list that starts in 1960. That really says something.

[The Dude]

Wasn't it just a few years ago Scott Podsednik had 48 or 51 games in a row safely? And then after that had another 30+ game strek.

[csh19792001]

I think it's really telling that DiMaggio didn't make a list that starts in 1960. That really says something.

Uh, ok. What DOES it say?

Dimaggio retired in 1951, so no, he wouldn't be on the post 1960 list (or part of the discussion). Yet Chris writes:

[BoofBonser26]

Get it yet?

Yes, I get it. I missed the sarcasm in your original post. So now I say to 538280 what you said:

Dimaggio retired in 1951, so no, he wouldn't be on the post 1960 list (or part of the discussion).

Get it yet?

[538280]

All right, I'm back here. My comment about DiMaggio was because I feel that his whole hitting streak (and the idea of "hitting streaks" in general) is rather silly and ridiculously overhyped. I was not aware, when I posted that, that this was since 1960. Should have read more carefully. Why would they only make it since then anyway? It takes away more than half of baseball history.

[DoubleX]

All right, I'm back here. My comment about DiMaggio was because I feel that his whole hitting streak (and the idea of "hitting streaks" in general) is rather silly and ridiculously overhyped. I was not aware, when I posted that, that this was since 1960. Should have read more carefully. Why would they only make it since then anyway? It takes away more than half of baseball history.

Why do you feel that it's "rather silly and ridiculously overhyped?"

Also (and this is a general question for anyone), didn't DiMaggio start something like a 17 game streak the day after the 56 game streak ended?

[538280]

Why do you feel that it's "rather silly and ridiculously overhyped?"

Hitting streaks have little to no inherent value to the team, they're just really a fun little thing that's sort of enjoyable to keep track of. A real hitting streak is for every PA, not every game.

For example, what's a better day, 1-4 or 0-2 with two walks. The former will keep your hitting streak alive, but the latter is more valuable.

[csh19792001]

Why do you feel that it's "rather silly and ridiculously overhyped?"

Also (and this is a general question for anyone), didn't DiMaggio start something like a 17 game streak the day after the 56 game streak ended?

Chris, do you know anything about Steven Jay Gould? He was one of the most renowned scientists/statisticians of the last 30 years.

I've posted this a few times before (I typed it directly from the book), I'll post it again in response to your "silly and ridiculously overhyped" comment. Just to show you how completely of base your slander off Dimaggio is.

Joe Dimaggio
2150 Beach Street
San Franciso, CA 94123

January 3, 1985

Dear Joe,
My best wishes to you for a happy 1985. I hop you had a chance to see the NOVA show in which you so kindly participated. I have received so many favorable comments, with unanimous agreement that your appearance mad eth show.

I mentioned to you in San Francisco that my colleague Ed Purcell, a Nobel Laureate and one of the world’s greatest physicists, had determined that your fifty-six-game hitting streak was, statistically, the most unusual and unexpected great event in the history of baseball. Ed recently sent me the enclosed note in which he derives the reason for his statement. The mathematical details need not be perused, but the chart on the back of the second page will give you some idea of how remarkable and unpredictable your achievement was in statistical terms. The top row labeled b represents lifetime batting averages of .400, .380, and .300. The first column, labeled n at the left indicates the number of games in a hitting streak- 40, 50, and 60 in this example.

The nine numbers in the chart itself give you the probability that a batter with lifetime batting averages of b will have a hit streak of number of games n over a career of 1,000 games. Just consider the .0096 value for a .350 lifetime average, and a 50 game hitting streak. This means that a lifetime .350 batter has only nine chances in a thousand to have a 50 game hitting streak in a career of 1,000 games. To make it more likely than unlikely that such a hitting streak would exist, the number in the chart must be great than .5- for a probability of greater than one-half.

Thus, there would have to be fifty-two lifetime .350 hitters in order to make the probability of a 50 game hitting streak more than likely (.0086 times 52 equal the crucial value of one-half). I don’t have my encyclopedia handy, but I think that only 3 people actually have lifetime averages exceeding .350 (Cobb, Hornsby, and perhaps Joe Jackson). But your streak went for 56 games, a value that would only become more likely to happen (than not to happen) if baseball included more than 100 lifetime .350 hitters.

You asked me jokingly if this analysis meant that your record would never be broken. Even us pompous academics wouldn’t dare to make a statement like that. But Ed Purcell’s analysis does suggest that of all baseball records, your hit streak is surely the one least likely to ever be broken.

Thanks again for you time and, especially, for your kindness to my son Ethan.

Sincerely,
Steven Jay Gould

Gould (2003), Triumph and Tragedy in Mudville (p. 188-189).

[csh19792001]

Hitting streaks have little to no inherent value to the team, they're just really a fun little thing that's sort of enjoyable to keep track of. A real hitting streak is for every PA, not every game.

For example, what's a better day, 1-4 or 0-2 with two walks. The former will keep your hitting streak alive, but the latter is more valuable.

Value, value, value..... . Baseball is a math formula. Dimaggio reached base in 74 consecutive games in 1941. That's the second longest streak compiled in the entire history of baseball.

[538280]

I'm sorry, Chris, I'm not willing to call Joe one of the top 10 players of all time because of a 56 game hit streak. I don't care how rare of an event it was. Bill Joyce had a 52 game hit streak, given his hitting ability that was statistically even less probable probably. Does that make him a top 20 player, or even a HOFer? Hitting streaks mean close to nothing to me, I'm sorry that I'm not sucked into these events in the history of the game that are supposed to make me starry eyed in admiration.

We've been getting along, though, let's not stop that here. I don't want to fight again. I evaluate players on how much they help their teams win.

[switch_hitter]

Well, Joe Dimaggio's team(s) won a pretty good bunch, including in 1941 (World Series I mean, of course). And I don't think his streak had little to nothing to do with it.

[538280]

Well, Joe Dimaggio's team(s) won a pretty good bunch, including in 1941 (World Series I mean, of course). And I don't think his streak had little to nothing to do with it.

His streak didn't have much to do with it, it was his overall play that helped them win. He didn't have the hitting streak in 1939, and yet he was just as good and his team still won. His team didn't win because of the streak, move out four hits in that period and put them in other games so that DiMag has the same season totals but no streak and they have the same record and still win the World Series.

[switch_hitter]

Originally posted by 538280
His streak didn't have much to do with it, it was his overall play that helped them win. He didn't have the hitting streak in 1939, and yet he was just as good and his team still won. His team didn't win because of the streak, move out four hits in that period and put them in other games so that DiMag has the same season totals but no streak and they have the same record and still win the World Series


Yeah, I was being facetious. You really don't think, though, that his streak had *anything* to do with his team's fortunes in 1941? I mean, emotionally and such?

[The Big C]

Hitting streaks have little to no inherent value to the team, they're just really a fun little thing that's sort of enjoyable to keep track of. A real hitting streak is for every PA, not every game.

For example, what's a better day, 1-4 or 0-2 with two walks. The former will keep your hitting streak alive, but the latter is more valuable.

Just a funny little thing thats enjoyable to keep track of.

In my world, that is the definition of a statistic...

[wamby]

For example, what's a better day, 1-4 or 0-2 with two walks. The former will keep your hitting streak alive, but the latter is more valuable.

I think it would depend on the situation of each AB in each individual game. I don't think you can make a generaliztion that two walks would always be more valuable than one hit.