Which feat will happened again sooner (1 Viewer)

[Righetti]

I really don't know what the answer is

 

[Doctor Detroit]

56 game hitting streak to me is a little harder feat. If Barry Bonds had played 100 games in a season to get enough bats in the early part of this decade he might have gotten close. Rod Carew, Tony Gwynn, and George Brett were within reach of 400 while Rose 44 and Molitor 39, are the closest to come to Dimaggio. I guess the argument is .12 percentage points over a season or 12 more games with a hit. I think the hitting streak is a little harder to catch.

 

[Reality Football]

I'd say the hitting streak, because it allows for such little margin of error. Hitting streaks can be affected one way or another by freakish probability.

Though, only a handful of guys have even come close to matching .400. I think Gwynn had a solid shot in 1994. Alas.

Gwynn (.394) 1994

Brett (.390) 1980

T. Williams (.388) 1957

Carew (.388) 1977

 

[Darth Cheney]

I say .400 will happen first. Pitching is getting pretty bad. The biggest problem will be all the jackals from the media making a story about it in June or 30 games into the streak.

 

[Reality Football]

I'd say the hitting streak, because it allows for such little margin of error. Hitting streaks can be affected one way or another by freakish probability.Though, only a handful of guys have even come close to matching .400. I think Gwynn had a solid shot in 1994. Alas.Gwynn (.394) 1994 Brett (.390) 1980T. Williams (.388) 1957Carew (.388) 1977

My answer here didn't clarify....I voted that .400 would come sooner. The hitting streak is indeed the tougher feat.

 

[Jayrod]

I'd say the hitting streak, because it allows for such little margin of error. Hitting streaks can be affected one way or another by freakish probability.Though, only a handful of guys have even come close to matching .400. I think Gwynn had a solid shot in 1994. Alas.Gwynn (.394) 1994 Brett (.390) 1980T. Williams (.388) 1957Carew (.388) 1977

My answer here didn't clarify....I voted that .400 would come sooner. The hitting streak is indeed the tougher feat.

I'd have to disagree. The hitting streak would require two months of being "hot". To bat .400 it takes a whole season with no real period of let down. The longevity of it makes me think it just isn't going to be done again.The real reason for the difficulty nowadays is the specialization of bullpen pitchers and the 5-day starter rotation. Pitchers are primed to come out with their best stuff every game by being provided with enough rest while back in the time when these records were set, pitchers were expected to pitch entire games and go every couple of days or so. While there was less talent dilution, there was more wear and tear on those pitchers, IMO.I still think some freak like Reyes or Ichiro with serious speed and a quick bat will get to 56 games in my lifetime, but I don't think anyone can sustain a .400 average for a whole year again.

 

[Righetti]

Every few years a guy gets to a 30 game hitting streak and you start to wonder but it involves so many things including getting pitched to, luck and obviously skill that I'm not sure it's going to happened any time soon.

For example Jeter has hit safely in 41 out of 43 games this year and 78 out of his last 81 games dating back to last year, but of course there are a ton of games there where he had only one hit.

batting 0.400 wouldn't depend as much on luck and getting pitched to in a certain spot/game.. A guy like Reyes/Ichiro might have a chance but they also swing at a lot of bad pitches.. It would have to be a singles hitter with a really good eye batting in a good lineup to get to .400

 

[Funkley]

56 game hitting streak to me is a little harder feat. If Barry Bonds had played 100 games in a season to get enough bats in the early part of this decade he might have gotten close. Rod Carew, Tony Gwynn, and George Brett were within reach of 400 while Rose 44 and Molitor 39, are the closest to come to Dimaggio. I guess the argument is .12 percentage points over a season or 12 more games with a hit. I think the hitting streak is a little harder to catch.

Good way to break it down. I don't see anyone in the majors right now capable of .400 so for now, I'll say 56 games is slightly more likely.

 

[Please See Mine]

I don't understand the poll choices.

You could vote 3 and still vote for 1 or 2.

 

[Greco]

I believe a Colorado Rockie will bat .400 for a season in my lifetime.

 

[Please See Mine]

I would have to think that the probability of getting a hit in 56 games consecutively would be lower than hitting .400 for a season, because for the former, you could never go more than 4 at-bats without a hit, whereas for the latter you just have to make up 240 hits out of any 600 at-bats.

That may not really be true mathematically, but it feels right . . .

 

[Funkley]

FWIW, I voted neither. I don't think either will happen.

 

[Jayrod]

This is kind of like "the chicken or the egg" debate, except in reverse.........................but not really.

 

[Righetti]

I don't understand the poll choices.You could vote 3 and still vote for 1 or 2.

option 3 should have been.. will never happened again