The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Jimmy Rollins extended his hitting streak to 37 games today with his final at bat. He is now 19 shy of Joey D's record.

Do you think he'll make it?

He might get half way there but with off-season lay-off he can't sustain the streak this early in the season.

1niksder wrote:He might get half way there but with off-season lay-off he can't sustain the streak this early in the season.

I agree. To bad last season wasn't longer.

I don't think he'll even get to 40

im a phillies fan, hes a good hitter if he hits safely in like 6 games he can easily get on a role and get to 56.

heres a fun fact. If Rollins gets to 56 on may 20th against the rockies that would be his moms birthday.

Jimmy Rollins is a damn fine player, but there's no telling about this streak.

So much depends on luck.

Still, I think we can all agree that no matter what happens, Rollins will have one hell of an acomplishment. Hitting in even 30 straight games is amazing.

Some might even say that since Joe D. didn't play in an era with black, or latino fielders that Rollins doesn't have to break the record to rival Dimmagio's greatness... IMO, if he goes much farther it should be considered a modern day record.

Skinsfan55 wrote:Some might even say that since Joe D. didn't play in an era with black, or latino fielders that Rollins doesn't have to break the record to rival Dimmagio's greatness...

There were Latin players in the Major Leagues in 1941 (Bobby Estalella is an example) there just weren't very many. And that wasn't due to discrimination, but rather that the Latin countries were not producing the same kind of talent they are today.

If DiMaggio had to face Satchel Paige once or twice during that hit streak, might he have gone a game without a hit? Sure. But remember that the mounds were also higher, the stadiums were larger and there were fewer teams. It cuts both ways.

As for Rollins rivaling DiMaggio's greatness...DiMaggio was a .325 lifetime hitter, a 13-time All-Star, three-time MVP and a nine-time World Series champion who missed three years of his prime fighting in World War II.

Jimmy rollins is a .273 lifetime hitter and a three-time All-Star. To say he has some work to do would be a gross understatment.

Skinsfan55 wrote:IMO, if he goes much farther it should be considered a modern day record.

Why wouldn't we consider Pete Roses's 44-game hit streak a modern day record?

I'm just glad their is something nice to talk and read about in baseball besides the Barry Bonds thing.

A question, if he does break the hit streak reccord, is that a bigger milestone then the in season HR reccord?

Steve Spurrier III wrote:

Skinsfan55 wrote:Some might even say that since Joe D. didn't play in an era with black, or latino fielders that Rollins doesn't have to break the record to rival Dimmagio's greatness...

There were Latin players in the Major Leagues in 1941 (Bobby Estalella is an example) there just weren't very many. And that wasn't due to discrimination, but rather that the Latin countries were not producing the same kind of talent they are today.

If DiMaggio had to face Satchel Paige once or twice during that hit streak, might he have gone a game without a hit? Sure. But remember that the mounds were also higher, the stadiums were larger and there were fewer teams. It cuts both ways.

As for Rollins rivaling DiMaggio's greatness...DiMaggio was a .325 lifetime hitter, a 13-time All-Star, three-time MVP and a nine-time World Series champion who missed three years of his prime fighting in World War II.

Jimmy rollins is a .273 lifetime hitter and a three-time All-Star. To say he has some work to do would be a gross understatment.

Skinsfan55 wrote:IMO, if he goes much farther it should be considered a modern day record.

Why wouldn't we consider Pete Roses's 44-game hit streak a modern day record?

Well said, Spurrier.

Sir_Monk wrote:A question, if he does break the hit streak reccord, is that a bigger milestone then the in season HR reccord?

I would say so... like Ty Cobb said "Any idiot can hit homeruns."

Seriously though, it would be more impressive to me because IMO it's a more difficult thing to do... baseball has always rewarded consistant greatness over isolated excellence.

MLB has allready stated that if he breaks the record then there will be two seperate records. One will be for hit steak in 1 season like Joe's and the other will be hit streak in two seasons.

Steve Spurrier III wrote:There were Latin players in the Major Leagues in 1941 (Bobby Estalella is an example) there just weren't very many. And that wasn't due to discrimination, but rather that the Latin countries were not producing the same kind of talent they are today.

[snip]

You put together a very intelligent argument, I am just echoing what others have said that I believe to be valid points.

There were SOME minority players (though there were NO black players) but as you said they were very few and far between. Also, I disagree with what you said about talent production being different. I think the talent production in places like San Pedro de Macoris (the island of shortstops), the Dominican Republic, Venezuela and others was still very high because of the history of baseball in those places. The difference I see is the lack of scouting. Teams didn't have the money, or interest, to go all the way to the Carribean to scout ballplayers.

Also, you say that hitters were at a disadvantage in 1941 and that somehow negates the factor of improved defense. I completely disagree with this statement as well.

In 1941 the AL leaders in average went:

Williams-BOS .406
Travis-WSH .359
DiMaggio-NYY .357
Heath-CLE .340
Siebert-PHA .334
McCosky-DET .324
Chapman-PHA .322
Wright-CHW .322
Cullenbine-SLB .317
Appling-CHW .314

The leaders in on base percentage went:

Williams-BOS .553
Cullenbine-SLB .452
DiMaggio-NYY .440
Keller-NYY .416
Foxx-BOS .412
Grace-SLB .410
Travis-WSH .410
Cronin-BOS .406
McCosky-DET .401
Wright-CHW .399

The leaders in slugging percentage went:

Williams-BOS .735
DiMaggio-NYY .643
Heath-CLE .586
Keller-NYY .580
Chapman-PHA .543
Travis-WSH .520
Henrich-NYY .519
Cronin-BOS .508
Foxx-BOS .505
Keltner-CLE .485

For 2005, those AL leaders looked like this:

AVG

Young-TEX .331
Rodriguez-NYY .321
Guerrero-LAA .317
Damon-BOS .316
Roberts-BAL .314
Jeter-NYY .309
Martinez-CLE .305
Matsui-NYY .305
Hafner-CLE .305
Ellis-OAK **.316

OBP

Giambi-NYY .440
Rodriguez-NYY .421
Hafner-CLE .408
Ortiz-BOS .397
Guerrero-LAA .394
Jeter-NYY .389
Ramirez-BOS .388
Roberts-BAL .387
Young-TEX .385
Teixeira-TEX .379

SLG

Rodriguez-NYY .610
Ortiz-BOS .604
Hafner-CLE .595
Ramirez-BOS .594
Teixeira-TEX .575
Guerrero-LAA .565
Sexson-SEA .541
Giambi-NYY .535
Konerko-CHW .534
Peralta-CLE .520

So as you can see, current conditions make hitting just as difficult. The hitters in 1941 didn't have a tough time at all, so I believe that disproves the idea of historical conditions as a factor.

The point is Dimaggio was not playing against the current level of pitching or defense that they have today. If Jimmy Rollins were to match his hit streak (or even come close, say past Rose) it would be all the more impressive.

As you pointed out (by missing the point entirely) Jimmy Rollins' total career greatness would never match Dimaggio (though everyone gives Dimaggio more credit than he deserves because he was handed the MVP in 39, 41 AND 47, none of which he was deserving of) but as an individual accomplishment it would be much more impressive as an example of consistency.

Oh yeah, and maybe we OUGHT to consider Rose's streak a modern day record, because the late 70's and early 80's were much tougher on hitters than the 40's.

skinsRin wrote:MLB has allready stated that if he breaks the record then there will be two seperate records. One will be for hit steak in 1 season like Joe's and the other will be hit streak in two seasons.

That is such BS IMO.

A streak is a streak. I guess Cal Ripken's continuous games streak doesn't count, he only gets credit for his single season 162 games played records!

Skinsfan55 wrote:I think the talent production in places like San Pedro de Macoris (the island of shortstops), the Dominican Republic, Venezuela and others was still very high because of the history of baseball in those places. The difference I see is the lack of scouting. Teams didn't have the money, or interest, to go all the way to the Carribean to scout ballplayers.

Was some talent left behind? Of course. But there wasn't nearly the same talent pool back then as there is now. The popularity of the sport has grown, and the Latin countries have simply gotten better at developing their youngsters. For a number of reasons, talent level in given groups of people fluctuate over time.

Skinsfan55 wrote:Also, you say that hitters were at a disadvantage in 1941 and that somehow negates the factor of improved defense. I completely disagree with this statement as well...

I could even agrue that the modern focus on offense has led to a decline in infield defense. Errors are down, but I would bet range is as well, as shortstops and secondbasmen are expected to do more than just play defense. I can't find the numbers right now, but I will post them if I find them.

Skinsfan55 wrote:So as you can see, current conditions make hitting just as difficult. The hitters in 1941 didn't have a tough time at all, so I believe that disproves the idea of historical conditions as a factor.

If you look at the league leaders in hits per game, they are pretty close. That tells me that the best guy in 2005 is having a similarly hard (or easy) time getting on base than the top guy in 1941. If you were right that the mound height, ballpark size and number of teams had no effect at all, the hits per game of the league leaders should go down significantly as the number of black and Latino pitchers enter the leauge:

Leaders, Hits per Game:

1940 - Cramer/McCosky/Radcliff: 1.30
1941 - Cecil Travs: 1.42
1942 - Johnny Pesky: 1.33

2003 - Vernon Wells: 1.33
2004 - Ichiro Suzuki: 1.62
2005 - Michael Young: 1.36

(Note: these number aren't exact - I just took the hit leader and adjusted for total games in a season, not games each individaul played.)

I do agree that DiMaggio didn't deserves some of those MVPs. That doesn't change the fact that he was one of the greatest players of his era.

Rollins keep's the streak going with a double in his first at bat

The era's were also lower during the 1940's then they currently are and that was with pitchers starting 50 games a year. Also that was without 10 different releivers that can come in at any time.

You guys can stop discussing this issue, Streak eneded at 38. I had a feeling he wouldn't reach 40. Joe D's record of 56 will NEVER be broken.

im reading this and i cant stop thinking, what is henry rollins doing playing baseball???