Joe DiMaggio's 56 game hitting streak vs. Gretzky's 51 game point streak. What is more impressive?

[Crosby2010]

So which one is better? DiMaggio did his back in 1941. Gretzky in 1984. To this day their record still stand and we know DiMaggio took that to his grave and I think Gretzky will too. If Mario came the closest getting to 46 before pulling himself out of a game because of his back in 1990 (and then he was out for a while) then who could beat it with that sort of consistency?

In both cases there were some close calls. Gretzky in Game 44 or so of the streak got an empty net goal against the Hawks in Chicago with 2 seconds left in the game to keep the streak alive. That was as close as it got to ending for him. As for DiMaggio there were plenty of 1 for 4 or 1 for 5 games in that streak. I'd really have to dig in to see if there were some 9th inning hits that kept it going but I am sure there was a time when his final at bat of the game gave him his first hit. Either way, plenty of games with just one hit.

And to see the degree of difficulty you have to look at who has come close. DiMaggio had 56 games in 1941. The record before that was Wee Willie Keeler in 1897 with 45. Ty Cobb is among the others to crack 40 doing it in 1911. But out of the 6 times a player has had at least 40, only once in 1978 with Pete Rose was it after DiMaggio, and Rose had 44. Paul Molitor had 39 in 1987 and I believe was on deck when the winning run was scored which didn't give him the chance to get a final at bat when the streak ended. Jimmy Rollins had 38 in 2006. Luis Castillo had 35 in 2002. Chase Utley 35 in 2006. But in general no one comes close. I am not sure anyone can in MLB today. There is too much of an emphasis on crushing the ball over hitting for the gaps so I think everyone's average takes a hit when this happens. Hence, you don't see the streaks. But either way no one coming even close to it in 45 years is quite remarkable considering DiMaggio has been dead for 25 years and it is virtually untouchable.

With Gretzky you can argue it is easier and that it isn't just as well. The record is 51, Mario had 46. Gretzky is 3rd with 39. He is also 4th with 30. Sundin had 30. Then Yzerman, Gretzky again, Mario, Lafleur (who held the record once) and Coffey all have 28. That rounds out the top 10. Patrick Kane had 26 in 2016 and Crosby 25 in 2011, but that's only half the amount, and I can still remember people following that streak. So what we have here is Gretzky owning 4 of the top 10 spot. Lemieux owning 2 others. Yzerman having that insane 1989 season with 155 is the year he got 28 games, and then Coffey who did it in 1986 and no doubt you have to give Gretzky some credit with that as well. Only Sundin at 30 games stands out. But other than Mario with 46in 1990 no one has come within 21 games of it other than Gretzky himself.

Which one will stand longer? Which one is more impressive?

Click to read more...

 

[MadLuke]

2 things are a bit in Gretzky favor maybe ?

Gretzky streak started first game of the season (having only 80 games a year you do not have that many shot at it) and scored 153 pts, 3 pts per games for so long is quite the ridiculous pace. to do it, you had to have an average scoring pace that would have broke all records, if sustained a whole season.

DiMaggio during his streak was :

Date	Tm	G	GS	Rslt	PA	AB	R	H	2B	3B	HR	RBI	BB	IBB	SO	HBP	SH	SF	ROE	GDP	SB	CS	BA	OBP	SLG	OPS	BAbip	aLI	WPA	acLI	cWPA	RE24	DFS(DK)	DFS(FD)
May 15 to Jul 16, 1941	NYY	56	56	41-13	247	223	56	91	16	4	15	55	21	3	5	2	0		8	2	0	1	.408	.463	.718	1.181

Williams batting average that year was .406, OBP .553, SLG .735, ops: 1.287

someone in the league that year yearly average were higher than DiMaggio number during the streak.

In the other way around, baseball have been played for so long, with so many people in position to do it, almost everyone in the batting order has enough at bat (and would get more if they get hot) to be eligible to do it, not many of them are not fully trying to get a hit when they go at the bat, no role player concentrating on something else those moments and 1941 batting average was not particularly high at all, while scoring was really high in 1984....

With so many more stretch of 56 games in a seasons, which goes a bit both ways, you expect the record to be higher in baseball for those reasons, but if you are the one having it, you had more competition doing so.

 

[Crosby2010]

2 things are a bit in Gretzky favor maybe ?

Gretzky streak started first game of the season (having only 80 games a year you do not have that many shot at it) and scored 153 pts, 3 pts per games for so long is quite the ridiculous pace. to do it, you had to have an average scoring pace that would have broke all records, if sustained a whole season.

DiMaggio during his streak was :

Date	Tm	G	GS	Rslt	PA	AB	R	H	2B	3B	HR	RBI	BB	IBB	SO	HBP	SH	SF	ROE	GDP	SB	CS	BA	OBP	SLG	OPS	BAbip	aLI	WPA	acLI	cWPA	RE24	DFS(DK)	DFS(FD)
May 15 to Jul 16, 1941	NYY	56	56	41-13	247	223	56	91	16	4	15	55	21	3	5	2	0		8	2	0	1	.408	.463	.718	1.181

Williams batting average that year was .406, OBP was .553, SLG .735, ops: 1.287

someone in the league that year yearly average were higher than DiMaggio number during the streak.

In the other way around, baseball have been played for so long, with so many people in position to do it, almost everyone in the batting order has enough at bat (and would get more if they get hot) to be eligible to do it, not many of them are not fully trying to get a hit when they go at the bat, no role player concentrating on something else those moments and 1941 batting average was not particularly high at all, while scoring was really high in 1984....

With so many more stretch of 56 games in a seasons, which goes a bit both ways, you expect the record to be higher in baseball for those reasons, but if you are the one having it, you had more competition doing so.

Just nitpicking a bit, but DiMaggio played 154 games in a season his whole career. They didn't add the 8 games until 1961 to what we know today as 162. And yet no one has beaten it.

It is funny, because DiMaggio won the MVP in 1941 despite Williams having better numbers. I even saw a graph once that showed that Williams' numbers during DiMaggio's streak were better than DiMaggio's during his own streak! That being said, this is still Teddy Ballgame you are competing with. It is a little bit like saying Mario had numbers as good as Gretzky. In other words if it is going to be anyone then Williams isn't a bad guy to lose to. But I guess it does factor in a bit here that DiMaggio probably didn't have the best year in baseball while Gretzky was miles better than anyone in the NHL that year and for nearly a decade. In fact he wins the Art Ross by a landslide with the numbers during his streak alone.

 

[MadLuke]

On one basis metric, and maybe why Mario never did it, you have to play the game, is playing 56 games in baseball in a row rarer than 51 games in hockey ?

My raw first reflex was to think more common in baseball...

And again era related, but if you get really hot in baseball, a team can simply not pitch to you, barry bonds for example:

Barry Bonds 2002 Batting Game Logs | Baseball-Reference.com

Barry Bonds Every game played with complete stats, links to box scores and automated row summing for 2002

www.baseball-reference.com

could go a whole season with less 10 games without going on base, while no hit was common, in baseball if the other team want to stop your streak, that relatively easy, doing just nothing will do it.

 

[x Tame Impala]

DiMaggio for sure. Both incredibly impressive of course but hitting a baseball is one of the toughest things to do in all of sports (I'd argue it's the most difficult). There's also a ton of luck involved in that, guys could make a great play or a ball could be foul by an inch, bad calls by the ump, etc...

I feel like more stands in the way of a player getting a hit than a hockey player getting a point. A hockey player doesn't have to score the goal to get a point either (obviously)

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Around 20 years ago, I read a book about baseball, by scientist Stephen Jay Gould. He had a chapter on Di Maggio's hitting streak. His conclusion, from what I recall, was something like this - everything in MLB history can be explained by basic probability theory except for Di Maggio's hitting streak. He calculated it to be extraordinarily improbable.

Doing a very simplified calculation, I can get close to a 5% probability for Gretzky (1982 to 1989) being expected to get a 51 scoring streak. Still unlikely, but not particularly unusual. Gretzky was so good, and so consistent, and played so many games during his peak, that the 51 game point streak actually isn't all that surprising.

(Of course, Gretzky's point streak was from the start of the season, while Di Maggio's hit streak was mid-year. If we limit it to the probability of Gretzky getting a 51 game point streak from the beginning of the season, that cuts down the probability significantly. But it's still in the realm of unlikely, but not freakish).

 

[The Panther]

I have a feeling this is probably DiMaggio.... even if Gretzky's streak was more than TWICE the length of the previous record.

 

[MS]

Around 20 years ago, I read a book about baseball, by scientist Stephen Jay Gould. He had a chapter on Di Maggio's hitting streak. His conclusion, from what I recall, was something like this - everything in MLB history can be explained by basic probability theory except for Di Maggio's hitting streak. He calculated it to be extraordinarily improbable.

Doing a very simplified calculation, I can get close to a 5% probability for Gretzky (1982 to 1989) being expected to get a 51 scoring streak. Still unlikely, but not particularly unusual. Gretzky was so good, and so consistent, and played so many games during his peak, that the 51 game point streak actually isn't all that surprising.

(Of course, Gretzky's point streak was from the start of the season, while Di Maggio's hit streak was mid-year. If we limit it to the probability of Gretzky getting a 51 game point streak from the beginning of the season, that cuts down the probability significantly. But it's still in the realm of unlikely, but not freakish).

My first reaction is to agree with this ...

... but the interesting thing is that more players have gotten closer to Dimaggio's streak than Gretzky's.

Behind Gretzky's 51 you have Lemieux's 45 and another Gretzky at 39 ... and then nobody else above 30, or not even 60% of the way to the record.

Even taking out the old-timey 1800s results, you have a bunch of big hitting streaks in MLB:

Dimaggio 56
Rose 44
Sisler 41
Molitor 39
Rollins 38
Sisler (again) 35
Castillo 35
Utley 35
Dom Dimaggio (!) 34
Santiago 34

That's 9 other streaks in the modern era at over 60% of the record.

 

[daver]

Monroe > Jones

 

[overpass]

I think DiMaggio's is more unlikely and Gretzky's is more impressive, if that make sense.

If you never heard of Gretzky and someone told you a player had a point in 51 straight games, that would be insane. But we know Gretzky scored over 2.5 points per game for several years and holds most point scoring records. So it's impressive, like all his record are, but not a surprise.

In baseball, few players even average 1.5 hits per game, so 56 straight games with a hit is just an incredible feat of consistency.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

DiMaggio for me. IMO it's easier to luck into a point in hockey than it is to luck into a hit in baseball.

Also in a hockey game a player has constant opportunities to get a point whereas in baseball you only have 3-5 chances to get a hit per game

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Just nitpicking a bit, but DiMaggio played 154 games in a season his whole career. They didn't add the 8 games until 1961 to what we know today as 162. And yet no one has beaten it.

It is funny, because DiMaggio won the MVP in 1941 despite Williams having better numbers. I even saw a graph once that showed that Williams' numbers during DiMaggio's streak were better than DiMaggio's during his own streak! That being said, this is still Teddy Ballgame you are competing with. It is a little bit like saying Mario had numbers as good as Gretzky. In other words if it is going to be anyone then Williams isn't a bad guy to lose to. But I guess it does factor in a bit here that DiMaggio probably didn't have the best year in baseball while Gretzky was miles better than anyone in the NHL that year and for nearly a decade. In fact he wins the Art Ross by a landslide with the numbers during his streak alone.

Speaking of Williams, he also won the Triple Crown twice in his career (1942 &1947). And didn't win the MVP in either season.

 

[MadLuke]

f you never heard of Gretzky and someone told you a player had a point in 51 straight games, that would be insane.

One would simply assume Mario did 51 instead of 46 like they thought, no ? Or asked does that exclude missing game and mario did 51 that way ?

One point about DiMaggios having more close competition with many doing the over 30 games, would hockey have 162 games seasons, scoring being relatively close to 1984 all seasons, league with over 20-30 teams for a century, people with streak over Sundin would probably have happened, 4-5 of them.

It is not surprising that allmost all the top streak occur between 76-93

 

[x Tame Impala]

My first reaction is to agree with this ...

... but the interesting thing is that more players have gotten closer to Dimaggio's streak than Gretzky's.

Behind Gretzky's 51 you have Lemieux's 45 and another Gretzky at 39 ... and then nobody else above 30, or not even 60% of the way to the record.

Even taking out the old-timey 1800s results, you have a bunch of big hitting streaks in MLB:

Dimaggio 56
Rose 44
Sisler 41
Molitor 39
Rollins 38
Sisler (again) 35
Castillo 35
Utley 35
Dom Dimaggio (!) 34
Santiago 34

That's 9 other streaks in the modern era at over 60% of the record.

Pete Rose is one of the best hitters in baseball history and he was still 12 games shy. 12 games is still a huge gap too by the way.

Both of these records are unlikely to ever be broken but i think the likelihood of a: Mcdavid, Kucherov, MacKinnon, or Bedard having a 50+ game point streak in today's higher scoring league is hypothetically more likely to happen than us ever seeing a guy in today's MLB go 57 games in a row with a hit.

 

[Voight]

DiMaggio for me. IMO it's easier to luck into a point in hockey than it is to luck into a hit in baseball.

Also in a hockey game a player has constant opportunities to get a point whereas in baseball you only have 3-5 chances to get a hit per game

This is it for me.

TOI isn't available for Gretzky's point streak season, but he played around 21 minutes/game his last seasons so let's say in his prime he was playing 24 minutes. That's a lot of time to score or get an assist, plus there can be two assists on a goal.

 

[Crosby2010]

Pete Rose is one of the best hitters in baseball history and he was still 12 games shy. 12 games is still a huge gap too by the way.

Both of these records are unlikely to ever be broken but i think the likelihood of a: Mcdavid, Kucherov, MacKinnon, or Bedard having a 50+ game point streak in today's higher scoring league is hypothetically more likely to happen than us ever seeing a guy in today's MLB go 57 games in a row with a hit.

That's fair. Rose is the all-time hits leader and yes he was still a few games away. And this is the best anyone has done since 1941. That has some staying power. The guy whose record Rose broke - Ty Cobb - would have been a good pick as someone who could have had this record that DiMaggio had but even he didn't do it despite some long hitting streaks. I don't know if we will ever see any happen in our lifetime because those just seem to be written in stone. DiMaggio's happened 83(!) years ago! Gretzky's happened 40 years ago and before that the best was Lafleur with 28. That's almost double. And I just don't know if anyone has the DNA Gretzky had. Gretzky would not quit one game to another. Kevin Lowe once said if he had a 7 point game he'd try to get 8 the next night. Paul Coffey once said that the reason Gretzky scored 200 points a year is because he couldn't score 300. There is just something about him that no one else had. Game in and game out a relentless desire to be the best.

But as for the 56 game hitting streak, I know we think the players will just get walked or pitched around if they get even 20 games close. I know that Rose was irked when he lost his streak because he felt the pitchers that game weren't throwing to him. Well, yeah. That'll happen. I will say though that when Aaron Judge broke Maris' American League record a couple of years ago for home runs that there was a lot of good pitches he was getting when he was sitting at 60 or 61 home runs. I think it is a pride thing with pitchers, they'd rather strike him out than walk him.

 

[The Panther]

And I just don't know if anyone has the DNA Gretzky had. Gretzky would not quit one game to another. Kevin Lowe once said if he had a 7 point game he'd try to get 8 the next night. Paul Coffey once said that the reason Gretzky scored 200 points a year is because he couldn't score 300. There is just something about him that no one else had. Game in and game out a relentless desire to be the best.

Mark Howe: "When my dad played and we had a 4-1 lead with a couple of minutes to go in a game, dad would just shut it down, keep the other team off the scoreboard. Wayne, from the drop of the puck until the final whistle blew, was just bound and determined to keep scoring. He just had an incredible burning desire to score, score, score. There was no slowdown in him at all."

 

[JianYang]

I clicked dimaggio but im surprised with how lopsided it is, particularly on a a hockey forum.

 

[Run the Gauntlet]

Hitting a baseball is harder than shooting a puck i think.

 

[MadLuke]

yes but you get more pitches than hockey player get shots usually (team face what 120-150 pitch, hockey teams 20-40 something), so you still end up with more hits than goals 9 hits by game around that time, 3.94 goals a game that year, with 1.63 assists per goal that about 10.36 pts per games ?

Not that big of a difference, and you split the 9 hits for 9 hitter, vs 18 players on a hockey team (hockey will be a imagine more top heavy but still), so probably more hit by top 6 hitters than pts by top 6 players (outside the oilers) ?

Hitting a baseball in play is so ridiculously hard that the sport would maybe not work at all if hitter would have a single chance at hit, but the 3 strikes end up making that quite possible, so much that the achieve to do it .300 by plate appearance, no one in modern hockey history scored on 30% of their shoots and not many player take more shots by games than a baseball players has at bats by game.

Scoring a goal 56 game in a row would be a bigger deal here I think, it is the assist that made it possible.

 

[Henry Miller]

Hitting a baseball is harder than shooting a puck i think.

This. A batter who fails to get a hit 70% of the time will probably be making hundreds of millions in their career

In hockey you can get a point off another player doing the lion’s share of the work, whether tapping in a goal or passing the puck to someone who goes super saiyan and scores. Baseball you earn a hit every time

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Dimaggio was solely responsible for getting a hit every game.

Getting a point in a hockey game can be influenced by what teammates do.

 

[MadLuke]

This. A batter who fails to get a hit 70% of the time will probably be making hundreds of millions in their career

Ovechkin failed to get a goal 87% of the time. Basketball player fail rate at 3 pts attempt looked like that in the 90s.

A batter making hundreds of millions, get more than a hit a game, it really depends how you define success, by swing, by at-bat, by games, at the games level the success rate end up somewhat standard for a sport.

The 1941 average Yankees for the non-pitchers at bat that year:
5,584 at bats in 156 games, 1,380 hits (a .280 average), no designed hitter back them, that's 8.85 hits a game for 8 players.

1984 Oilers has 1,182 pts in 80 games (14.775 pts a game) for 18 skaters.

Getting a hit on a pitch is ridiculously hard even for the best in the world at it (when they face mlb pitcher), but with 3 strike to do it, they can achieve to do it .300 of the time.... something no tennis player ever achieved to do for getting Ace with their serve, hockey player getting goals on their shots....

Is getting a hit in baseball, harder than getting a stop in soccer on a penalty shot for the goaltender ? (that would start a debate between hard and just needing luck maybe).

Would Gretzky achieved to do it in the high of the 06 (with what that it would have involved in terms of arch enemy really trying to stop it a number of time and failing so, the 70 games schedule, the low scoring environment, etc...), could have been more impressive.

Longest point streaks before the 1960 seasons post ww2, you have Beliveau at 16, second-longest with Lindsay at 13, Howe at 12.

Dimaggio was solely responsible for getting a hit every game.

Getting a point in a hockey game can be influenced by what teammates do.

That why it is more interesting as well, it is you in a discrete event, not during a flow where maybe you go to the replay to see you had an assist or not, you could even be back on your team bench and get a point on the play.

Everybody know you are on a hot streak, there some sport code of honor that kick in about pitcher still trying to get you (or not) in a dual going at it and making it is a clear clean cut event.

 

[BadgerBruce]

Baseball — like cricket — is unique in that the defence initiates the offence. Further, unlike many other team sports, there’s no way to execute the equivalent of double-shifting in baseball. If a guy bats second in the lineup, he waits his turn before coming to the plate again, and he relies solely on the success of his teammates to speed up that process. Lastly, a successful at bat doesn’t always result in a hit (walks, sacrifices, etc.) are often desired outcomes. You can get an RBI and an out at the same time (plus a pat on the back).

To my mind, DiMaggio’s streak is more impressive because of all the above. Gretzky, if need be, could take the game by the scruff of the neck and impose his will upon it. DiMaggio would just spit sunflower seeds or tobacco juice while seated in the dugout waiting his turn, with no power to impact a damn thing, other than when he was patrolling the outfield for half the game on the defensive side.

56 straight games with at least 1 hit blows me away.

 

[The Panther]

For what it's worth, while Gretzky's 51-game point streak is obviously impressive, I've always felt his getting at least one point in 77 of 80 games (87 of 90 games, incl. playoffs) is the more impressive feat.