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

[bobholly39]

I voted Gretzky.

Depends what we're looking at though. Are we asking which streak/strech was more impressive? Because there's no way anyone is ever going to convince me that anything Dimmagio did is more impressive than 153 points in 51 games.

If you're just talking the idea of scoring in 51 straight nhl games vs hitting in 56 straight baseball games - while ignoring Gretzky's actual output of 153 points - maybe that's a different answer.

 

[MadLuke]

Someone that had 1.625 hits per games probably had more distribution luck than someone with 3 pts per game in their streak. (in the sense someone hitting .406 still does not have a good chance to go 56 games in a row with at least a hit, it is almost impossible, someone that would 3 pts per games will often have long game streak in comparison)

Now, how the brains say that the needed distribution luck make it more or less impressive.... better...

 

[The Panther]

I voted Gretzky.

Depends what we're looking at though. Are we asking which streak/strech was more impressive? Because there's no way anyone is ever going to convince me that anything Dimmagio did is more impressive than 153 points in 51 games.

If you're just talking the idea of scoring in 51 straight nhl games vs hitting in 56 straight baseball games - while ignoring Gretzky's actual output of 153 points - maybe that's a different answer.

You raise a good point.

Maybe it should be Dimaggio's hitting streak vs. 1 point-per-period over 53 straight games...

 

[JackSlater]

DiMaggio's streak is more famous but I thought the arguments in his favour would be better. Then again, it is a hockey forum. The arguments about how a hitter works on his own while a hockey player can pick up a cheap assist don't impress me very much, particularly when outside a freak like Lemieux multiple players have been closer to DiMaggio's record than have been closer to Gretzky's.

I'm more impressed with Gretzky's, but I'm open to my mind being changed. This is also just comparing the length of the streaks, not that Gretzky did (a lot) more damage during his streak. I think the arguments in favour of DiMaggio would probably be built around the best hitters generally having fewer hits per game than the best hockey players do points per game historically and that the longer season gives players more time during their peak to establish such a streak, but I am not inclined to crunch any numbers. I'll admit that I am also probably biased against DiMaggio since I find him a very unlikable figure from reading about him.

 

[MadLuke]

I think the arguments in favour of DiMaggio would probably be built around the best hitters generally having fewer hits per game than the best hockey players do points per game historically and that the longer season gives players more time during their peak to establish such a streak,

I feel longer season go against him no ? Many more attempts to do it.

As for the hits per games versus points per games that could be true for the 80s but I am not sure in general, in 1941 the #10 in hits had an average of 1.25 hits per games, in 1984, #10 in points in the nhl was scoring at a 1.3125 rate.