There are 66 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

What is more difficult for a major league baseball hitter??

What is more difficult for a major league baseball hitter??

Originally posted by Ninerjohn:
Originally posted by DertyDonahue:
Well, Raul Ibanez is in the 6-hole tonight against none other than Livian Hernandez. He is riding an 0 for 32 at this point.

Wow.. had no idea. Ibanez needs to retire.

After 4 more 0-4 games, then he should retire.
Originally posted by valrod33:
Originally posted by 9erReign:
How is a hitless streak difficult? I have no talent and could beat that record.

if you can make contact im sure you would get at least one bloop hit in 46 tries

If you fail at getting a hit 70% of the time, you're still a good hitter.

If you fail at any other job 70% of the time, you're unemployed.

Gotta love baseball.
Raul Ibanez hit a groundrule double in his second AB.

The tricky thing about this question is considering the type of player who would be allowed to go 0-46 without being DFA'd. If it is a AAAA type player, back to the bush leagues kid. An aging vet might find himself on the DL or relegated to defensive replacement and be the last option as PH in an extra inning game. The probability that a quality, everyday player like Raul Ibanez goes 0-33 must be slim. It would have to be somebody like him though.
It's gotta be the hitless streak.

[ Edited by DertyDonahue on May 3, 2011 at 23:17:33 ]
  • crzy
  • Hall of Fame
  • Posts: 39,284
The 46 at-bat hitless streak is easier, no doubt, all you have to do is NOT swing.

Because a walk doesn't even count as an at-bat.


If you got up there and never swung, you would never get a hit.

[ Edited by crzy on May 4, 2011 at 11:10:14 ]
The question would have to be which is more likely rather than which is more difficult. Hitters try to hit a ball. They don't try to not hit a ball.
lol how is this a question? Joe DiMaggio's hit streak will NEVER be broken. ever. players get halfway and its a huge deal, then they barely ever get to 35 because of the media pressure, and the chances that sooner or later theyll run into a buzzsaw.

Andre Ethier is only going to make it until he faces a lefty with good stuff. Ethier isnt very good at hitting lefties, so the chances of him getting to 56 are very slim.

going 0 for 46 is only hard because most players get released or sent to AAA before they get there. besides, anyone could do it if they tried to. whereas the hitting streak is impossible even if youre trying as hard as you can.
  • crzy
  • Hall of Fame
  • Posts: 39,284
Originally posted by Niners99:
Joe DiMaggio's hit streak will NEVER be broken. ever..

I'm not sure you can make a blanket statement like that.

Sure it's the most difficult thing to do in baseball, since it requires an unbelievable amount of luck, but records are made to be broken.


And Dimaggio's streak is also pretty overrated. Theoretically, a .250 hitter could go 1-4 in 57 straight games and break the record without having a good season.

[ Edited by crzy on May 4, 2011 at 12:56:54 ]
Originally posted by crzy:
Originally posted by Niners99:
Joe DiMaggio's hit streak will NEVER be broken. ever..

I'm not sure you can make a blanket statement like that.

Sure it's the most difficult thing to do in baseball, since it requires an unbelievable amount of luck, but records are made to be broken.


And Dimaggio's streak is also pretty overrated. Theoretically, a .250 hitter could go 1-4 in 57 straight games and break the record without having a good season.

You made 2 points. One is right and the other is WAY off.
1) Of course its possible that the 56 hit streak can be broken. Likely - no but possible - yes.

2) Dimaggios streak overrated? HARDLY. He hit .408 with 55 rbis in those 56 games. It was an amazing achievement.
  • crzy
  • Hall of Fame
  • Posts: 39,284
Originally posted by Ninerjohn:
Dimaggios streak overrated?

The hitting streak itself was still overrated.

Plenty of players have had a 56 game stretch where they put up comparable numbers to Dimaggio's numbers above.

They just didn't happen to get lucky enough to string together 56 consecutive games with a hit.


A "hitting streak" is an overrated accomplishment because it requires that

a) pitchers actually pitch to you. Any team could have stopped Dimaggio's streak by simply getting him out during his first plate appearance and then intentionally walking him every single plate appearance therafter. But this was not considered gentlemanly. Pitcher's were expected to continue to challenge Dimaggio to give him a chance to prolong his streak. In fact, after Pete Rose's hitting streak was snapped, he complained that the pitcher's pitched around him.

b) it requires luck. "Hitting them where they ain't". There are plenty of well-hit balls that simply happen to be hit to well-positioned fielders. A hitting streak requires an abnormally high BABIP.

[ Edited by crzy on May 4, 2011 at 14:38:58 ]
  • jrg
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 126,571
Easily the hitting streak.
Originally posted by HaiGuise:
The question would have to be which is more likely rather than which is more difficult. Hitters try to hit a ball. They don't try to not hit a ball.

Agreed. So okay, I muffed the wording of the question, but I believe the intent is clear. Implied in "major league hitter" is the notion that this is what hitters do, try to get hits. Anybody who has stood in against a pitcher, regardless of level, should understand this.

Originally posted by Niners99:
lol how is this a question?

The hitless streak of 0-46 hasn't been broken in 102 years.
The 56-game hitting streak, while impressive, has stood for 60 years. This latter record is dramatically shorter than the former.

Originally posted by Niners99:
going 0 for 46 is only hard because most players get released or sent to AAA before they get there. besides, anyone could do it if they tried to.

That is why the question was posed. The player would have to be a proven MLB player. If Ryan Rohlinger goes 0-12, he is going back to AAA-Fresno. If someone like Mark Texeira goes 0-12, he is still in the lineup, maybe he gets a day off, but he isn't going back to AAA.

Originally posted by crzy:
The hitting streak itself was still overrated.

This debate is like the "who was a better player, Mantle or Mays?" question. These types of discussions are based largely on subjective beliefs, part of what makes baseball such a storied and revered game.
People in baseball circles still argue over who should have won the AL MVP in '41, Ted Williams (who BTW hit .406, the last player in MLB to accomplish this feat) or Joe DiMaggio. Baseball writers had recently seen players hit .400, but they had never seen a streak like Joltin' Joe's.

But to go 0-46, man that would be tough. No manager is going to plug in a guy day in, day out who "just doesn't swing". Gtfoh with notions like that.

[ Edited by DertyDonahue on May 4, 2011 at 15:44:17 ]
  • crzy
  • Hall of Fame
  • Posts: 39,284
Originally posted by DertyDonahue:
This debate is like the "who was a better player, Mantle or Mays?" question.

Easily Mays.
Originally posted by crzy:
Originally posted by DertyDonahue:
This debate is like the "who was a better player, Mantle or Mays?" question.

Easily Mays.

:ahem:

I respectfully disagree.

But, this should be a thread (Mantle vs. Mays), if it isn't already.
Originally posted by DertyDonahue:
Originally posted by crzy:
Originally posted by DertyDonahue:
This debate is like the "who was a better player, Mantle or Mays?" question.

Easily Mays.

:ahem:

I respectfully disagree.

But, this should be a thread (Mantle vs. Mays), if it isn't already.

Willie Mays was HOF caliber in all 5 tools.

whats your argument for Mantle being better anyways?
Originally posted by Niners99:
Originally posted by DertyDonahue:
Originally posted by crzy:
Originally posted by DertyDonahue:
This debate is like the "who was a better player, Mantle or Mays?" question.

Easily Mays.

:ahem:

I respectfully disagree.

But, this should be a thread (Mantle vs. Mays), if it isn't already.

Willie Mays was HOF caliber in all 5 tools.

whats your argument for Mantle being better anyways?

He was better at hitting from the other side? That's all I have anyways.