Dimaggio Hit Streak Betting Line

I saw a commercial for ESPN's Streak for the Cash again today and it got me thinking about Dimaggio's 56-game hit streak. Some baseball minds have made it clear that they believe this record will never be broken, but I disagree. Thinking back to Uggla's hit streak last year, I think it is more of a few lucky bounces keeping the streak alive here and there that will allow someone to surpass Joe D's mark. I'm not looking for someone breaking the streak "ever", but I guess I'm asking what you math people think a proper line would be for anyone in the MLB beating this 56 game streak in a) the next 10 years or b) the next 20 years.

My line of thinking is that as absurd as this streak is, with 162 games for each team and 9 batters per side, it isnt unfathomable for someone to hit a streak like this. Baseballreference.com lists 186,119 Plate Appearances from all combined teams in the 2010-2011 season.

Using the league-wide batting average of .255 for the MLB last season, this comes out to 42,267 hits in the 2010-2011 season after accounting for walks and HBP's which do not count as "at bats".

I'll leave the rest to the math people since I have a number in my own head, but it is based on nothing mathematical whatsoever and only on what I believe to be a decent guess. I realize 10 years is a long time for a futures bet, but think of this as a friendly running wager which could be brought up between friends any time someone approached Dimaggios number.

Appreciate any assistance with this one.

<3 Duck

There are many papers out there already calculating this very question.
A simple Google can find them.

I think it will never happen since all it will take is when the hitter is getting closer to breaking the streak the other team will just easily walk him every at bat and the streak is broken.
Bonds was walked every at bat in a game many times when he was a hot hitter.
I'm sure a manager and the pitchers do not want to be included in the list of a 57 game hitting streak.

And did not DiMag hit safely in the next 16 games after the streak?
So 72 out of 73?

Major League players and managers know that baseball is a game of numbers, so to walk a batter simply because they are on an unreasonable streak is somewhat ridiculous. Looking at Uggla's streak last year, no one was afraid to pitch to him and in 32 games he had 1 intentional walk. If pitching to a hitter is the best option at the time, the manager will decide to pitch to them. This is why I would argue that the streak could happen to anyone at any time, regardless of the hitter's prowess at the plate.

Uggla is no slouch, but he had a BA in the neighborhood of .170 before the streak and after the streak ended, it was only up to a measly .220 overall. Those numbers arent going to scare anybody away, but an infield hit here or there mixed in with some well-hit balls finding gaps leads to a recipe for success in my mind.

Quote: guido111

There are many papers out there already calculating this very question.
A simple Google can find them.

I think it will never happen since all it will take is when the hitter is getting closer to breaking the streak the other team will just easily walk him every at bat and the streak is broken.

The Official Baseball Rules include rules for determining streaks (the last time anybody really paid attention to them was when Ripkin was about to break Gehrig's consecutive games streak - for example, had Ripkin started the game but been injured in the top of the first inning, the streak would have ended, but had he been ejected, it would have counted as a game played).

Rule 10.23(b):

Quote:

A consecutive-game hitting streak shall not be terminated if all of a batter’s plate appearances (one or more) in a
game result in a base on balls, hit batsman, defensive interference or obstruction or a sacrifice bunt. The streak shall terminate if the player has a sacrifice fly and no hit.

I was going to say that "if the player has any plate appearances but no at-bats, the streak is not broken," but a sacrifice fly is not an at bat. (I wonder why not - it's not as if there are that many players capable of intentionally hitting sacrifice fly balls!)

I am not a baseball girl.
I really do not know much about the game.(I had to ask about the at bats and averages)
and you do not want to watch me even throw a baseball.

You might know how many players play every day during the whole season.

My figures using a streak calculator are for any one player

162 games and a streak 56 or more

For a .255 hitter
69.195% chance of at least 1 hit in a game (4 at bats per game)
1 in 26,840,362.66

For a .300 hitter
75.99% chance of at least 1 hit in a game (4 at bats per game)
1 in 179,971.55

For a .333 hitter
80.247% chance of at least 1 hit in a game (4 at bats per game)
1 in 10,251.59

Hope this helps.
Is a long hitting streak in baseball a good thing?

Quote: mustangsally

Hope this helps.
Is a long hitting streak in baseball a good thing?

Highly debated by sports people across the globe. Some say that hitting streaks deserve merit, others say they are terrible indicators of a player's hitting ability. The record set by Dimaggio in 1941 of 56 games is a ridiculous achievement, but some of the detractors say that streaks alone are bad measures of talent.

For the most part though, yes, long hitting streaks are a good thing, and the closest thing to a 56 game hitting streak since then was Pete Rose who had 43 or 44 (I can't remember which).

To clarify, a hit means putting the ball in play and reaching base safely without it being counted as an "error" on the defensive team, not simply hitting the ball and putting it in play. To have 56 games in a row with a hit is ridiculous.

I also learned today.

American League there are 14 teams and 9 players can bat each game for 126 players to have a chance at the streak.
National League there are 16 teams and 8 players can bat each game for 128 players to have a chance at the streak.
About 254 players each year have a chance to break that streak.

Do they win something if they do?
I guess they would become famous or more famous.

The more hits one gets the better chance of scoring a run?
I guess one has to get to a base first to score a run.
So I guess the hitting streak is good for scoring runs.

Joe DiMaggio
games played 1736
AB 6821 (3.93 AB avg per game)
BA .325

79.241% chance of at least 1 hit per game (4 AB)
Hitting Streak of at least 56 games
0.000767009 or
1 in 1,303.77
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pete Rose
games played 3562
AB 14053 (3.95 AB avg per game)
BA .303

76.399% chance of at least 1 hit per game (4 AB)
Hitting Streak of at least 44 games (his longest)
0.005947636975298 or
1 in 168.13

Hitting Streak of at least 56 games (he did not make this mark)
0.000235032106755 or
1 in 4,254.74

FYI:
Pete Rose, he has a nice smile, can be seen at Caesars Palace in Las Vegas.
His GF was with him when I was there.
I want her!

Quote: mustangsally

Is a long hitting streak in baseball a good thing?

I understand baseball appeals a lot to math types and stat types, as it's chock full of statistics. But I just have to get this out:

There are no good things in baseball. The best that can be said about it is that it isn't soccer. The only positive thing to come out of baseball is Abott and Costello's "Who's on First?" routine.

Thanks. I'm feeling much better now :)

Seriously, there are a lot of long-standing, meaningless records in every sport. Any player who breaks one gains fame, or adds to his fame, which can get him more money. He also gains the ability to charge more for doing endorsements, appearances, etc during and after his active career. Usually these are good palyers to begin with, but not always.

As a player would approach the milestone, he would be walked more frequently. The pitchers would be able to make more cautious pitches, KNOWING the player would be more likely to swing at a 'bad' pitch rather than try for a walk. Similar things have happened after a player has 3 home runs in a game, the fourth at bat, the pitcher, although not technically intentionally walking the batter, makes no pitches in the strike zone, or if he does, the pitch will be at the extreme edge of the strike zone. I would say the odds of a streak that length would be 10 times LESS likely than the simple math might suggest.