# Baseball statistical difficulty question **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [June 22, 2004, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/baseball-statistical-difficulty-question/251709 "2004-06-22T22:09:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![gambler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9e8a1a/32.png) [@gambler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gambler)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2004, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/baseball-statistical-difficulty-question/251709/1 "2004-06-22T22:09:51Z")
Ok, hopefully I got the title right…I was playing some cards and during some banter we had an argument about which was more difficult in baseball: hitting .500 for the season or batting safely only ONCE per game, averaging 4 at bats for game for the entire season, assuming somewhre around a .250 avg. Assume 450 at bats. Which is more impressive? Has anything close or like this been done before (either example, other than Joe D)? ---
**Author:** ![BobT](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e8cbc/32.png) [@BobT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobT)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2004, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/baseball-statistical-difficulty-question/251709/2 "2004-06-22T22:31:29Z")
Do you just want to consider batting average? If you went for on base percentage, there have been a few players with OBA over .500, including the last three seasons for Barry Bonds (.515, .582, .529) A player who got 4 ABs every game and just one hit with 450 ABs, would either be missing several games or drawing a few walks. Under the present definition of batting average (hits/ABs) where walks are not counted in either side of the equation, the highest batting average for a full season is Hugh Duffy’s .440 in 1894 (237/539). In 1887, walks were counted as hits and ABs and statisticians have gone back and forth over whether or not to count that. A few other players have managed OBAs or OBPs if you prefer over .500, including Ted Williams, John McGraw, Babe Ruth, and Billy Hamilton. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2004, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/baseball-statistical-difficulty-question/251709/3 "2004-06-22T23:20:34Z")
I have a feeling you’re misinterpreting the OP. The way I read it is whether it would be harder to bat safely in half one’s at bats, no matter how they occurred, or harder to have a 162 game batting streak. From what I remember reading at various points, from statistical modeling done by people like Bill James and an analysis by Stephen Jay Gould in one of his books, a 162 game batting streak would be phenomenally difficult. If you programming a computer to model a billion seasons, you’d be more likely to get a long hot streak that would result in a .500 average over a year, even if that meant a few games with no hits. If this also isn’t right, **gambler** \* you need to clarify considerably. \*gambler is a very bad name for someone who can’t do basic statistics. You might as well have a Born to Lose tattoo on your forehead. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2004, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/baseball-statistical-difficulty-question/251709/4 "2004-06-22T23:29:45Z")
**Expano** I think the OP is even more stringent than that. I think it is saying that a batter gets exatly one hit in every game for 162 straight games, which would be far far far far far far far far far far far far far far more difficult than hitting .500. The odds of a .300 hitter getting exactly one hit in four at-bats is about 41%. SO the probably of getting exactly one hit 162 straight time is .41^162 or 3.50759390414203E-63. ---
**Author:** ![Fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bc8723/32.png) [@Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fish)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2004, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/baseball-statistical-difficulty-question/251709/5 "2004-06-22T23:52:15Z")
At some point a question like this ceases to be an exercise of pure statistics. Even though we’re trying to model a player who will bat .500 over the season, _the opposing managers and pitchers don’t know that._ As far as they know, he could bat .600, or go 5-for-5 the night they face him, or whatever. It would be hard to calculate the statistical impact of the managers, pitching coaches, catchers and pitchers of each opposing team. Since the game has not seen a .400 hitter in four decades, much less a .500 hitter in its entire history, it’s hard to guess whether such a hitter would even _see_ many pitches in certain situations. It would be hard to maintain one’s hitting stroke under such conditions. The longest hitting streak we know of in the American major leagues was that of Joe DiMaggio, and even then the pitchers made a conscious decision to pitch him the ball fairly—to pitch him their best stuff, and see if he could beat them with _his_ best stuff. That’s not a decision I think would happen in the modern game. ---
**Author:** ![BobT](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e8cbc/32.png) [@BobT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobT)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2004, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/baseball-statistical-difficulty-question/251709/6 "2004-06-23T02:26:30Z")
OK, I get it now. I do think that there are way too many variables for this to be figured out. I was confused with the idea of a player going for 1 for 4 for 162 straight games and then amassing 450 ABs. Then it got worse. ---
**Author:** ![gambler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9e8a1a/32.png) [@gambler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gambler)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2004, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/baseball-statistical-difficulty-question/251709/7 "2004-06-23T15:19:07Z")
Sorry, for the confusion. I was trying to tell my friend that yes, it is way-y-y-y more difficult to hit safely one time, and only one time, in 162 games than it is to hit .500 or more for the year. I used 450 ABs (for each model), because I thought that was about the average ABs a starter would get a year. We also had an argument about who is more valuable, a .500 hitter or the guy who bats .250 (assuming an average of 1 hit/4 ABs per game). I would think that as a manager, I would want the guy I know is guaranteed a hit per game (even it is only a single). My friend, who I consider pretty smart says that to hit .500 for the year, the guy would have amazing hit streaks and for every day the .500 hitter hit .000, the next day he would most likely hit 1.000 (obviously, some hyperbole was added). Thanks for the help. ---
**Author:** ![gambler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9e8a1a/32.png) [@gambler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gambler)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2004, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/baseball-statistical-difficulty-question/251709/8 "2004-06-23T15:20:41Z")
Oh, as for gambling, imo, statistics are only half the requisite knowledge. I let other make the tables, and I memorize that. ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2004, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/baseball-statistical-difficulty-question/251709/9 "2004-06-23T15:53:12Z")
Most difficult: 1 for 4, every game. Most valuable: .500 hitter. Frankly, I don’t see any way that the 162-game streak is more valuable, at all. Someone who hits half of everything thrown at him can completely turn a game around (see: Barry Bonds). ---
**Author:** ![BobT](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e8cbc/32.png) [@BobT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobT)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2004, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/baseball-statistical-difficulty-question/251709/10 "2004-06-23T16:07:35Z")
The guy who gets one hit and one hit only during a game will rarely produce more than one run a game. The guy who hits .500 will create many more runs because he is on base more often. You can’t win games unless you have runners on base. ---
**Author:** ![carterba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/85e7bf/32.png) [@carterba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carterba)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2004, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/baseball-statistical-difficulty-question/251709/11 "2004-06-23T16:23:36Z")
So Hugh Duffy holds the major-league single-season batting record with .440, and Joe DiMaggio holds the major-league hitting streak record with 56 games. Has any minor- or independent-leaguer gotten any closer to .500 or had a longer hitting streak? What about college? I wouldn’t be too surprised if there were college players that hit over .500 for a season, but is there a college player who got a hit in every one of his team’s games? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2004, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/baseball-statistical-difficulty-question/251709/12 "2004-06-23T16:27:41Z")
A batter who _is_ a .500 hitter, getting 4 AB’s every game, would be shut out once every 16 games on average. Any streak longer than that is decreasingly less probable than the .500 average. Any average less than that will result in a shutout more often than once in 16 games, to say nothing of 162. The streak is harder by far. ---
**Author:** ![KP](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/a9adbd/32.png) [@KP](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KP)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2004, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/baseball-statistical-difficulty-question/251709/13 "2004-06-23T16:53:06Z")
As a practical matter, it’s a lot _easier_ to go 1-for-4 consistently than to bat .500 for a season. Most players aren’t going to be able to bat .500 regardless of the circumstances, but many good hitters have high enough batting averages that hitting _at least_ once per game is fairly likely. After that first hit, they could simply strike out deliberately. It’s easier, but less _likely_. ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2004, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/baseball-statistical-difficulty-question/251709/14 "2004-06-23T17:01:28Z")
> [@KP](#): > > As a practical matter, it’s a lot _easier_ to go 1-for-4 consistently than to bat .500 for a season. Most players aren’t going to be able to bat .500 regardless of the circumstances, but many good hitters have high enough batting averages that hitting _at least_ once per game is fairly likely. After that first hit, they could simply strike out deliberately. > > It’s easier, but less _likely_. I disagree. To me, it the difference between being good and being lucky. If you’re batting .500, you’re good - REAL good. Getting a hit every single game is a matter of luck. The key factor is pitching. The .500 is going to have pitchers that just have his number, like everyone does. He’s going to have a bad day once in a while. The 162-game hitting streak transcends all of those factors, and hits Brian Anderson just as well as he hits Jason Schmidt. ---
**Author:** ![gambler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9e8a1a/32.png) [@gambler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gambler)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2004, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/baseball-statistical-difficulty-question/251709/15 "2004-06-23T17:47:32Z")
I think the argument (not that I’m trying to start a GD or anything) stems from my logic: having a 162 game streak is ridiculously hard, therefore it is more valuable. My friend was arguing, “So what? I’d rather hit the crap out everything half the time, then get lucky one out of every 4.” I wonder, number wise, if it is possible, to demonstrate how much harder it is to have a 162 game hitting streak (~.250 BA) versus a .500 average, or, even something a little more realistic, .400 avg. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2004, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/baseball-statistical-difficulty-question/251709/16 "2004-06-23T17:57:26Z")
Rarity has no connection to value. It’s rare for batters to hit for the cycle, but if you had someone do that ten times a year but wind up with a .200 average, that would make him far less valuable than a steady hitter with a .300 average. Getting on base and hitting for power are the only stats that matter. That’s why all modern analysts use On-base-average and slugging percentage to measure the worth of a player. (Some add the two numbers, some multiply them: there is a slight difference in the result but not enough to value one over the other consistently. And it’s a lot easier to just add the two.) Your conclusion is just plain wrong. The .500 hitter is infinitely more valuable. So is the .400 hitter. ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2004, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/baseball-statistical-difficulty-question/251709/17 "2004-06-23T18:00:15Z")
> [@gambler](#): > > I think the argument (not that I’m trying to start a GD or anything) stems from my logic: having a 162 game streak is ridiculously hard, therefore it is more valuable. Only in Vegas. It’s really hard (if not impossible) to get 162 holds in a season as well. Doesn’t mean that I’m voting a middle reliever in for MVP. ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2004, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/baseball-statistical-difficulty-question/251709/18 "2004-06-23T18:09:25Z")
> [@Exapno Mapcase](#): > > The .500 hitter is infinitely more valuable. So is the .400 hitter. This is the most hyperbolic statement ever in the history of the Universe. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2004, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/baseball-statistical-difficulty-question/251709/19 "2004-06-23T18:22:56Z")
Yeah, but it’s just small potatoes in the multiverse. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2004, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/baseball-statistical-difficulty-question/251709/20 "2004-06-23T20:16:09Z")
This seems roughly analogous to coin flipping. Let’s say that over the course of 500 flips, a coin will come up heads 250 times. That doesn’t mean that over the course of four flips, it would come up heads even once. Likewise, in the course of a season, a .300 hitter would **statistically** have to have at least one hit in every full game he plays (assuming four at-bats). But anyone who’s ever followed baseball can think of plenty of .300 hitters who got blanked in a game. As a fan, I might really like to see a batter in the middle of a 162-game hitting streak, but as a manager, I think I’d prefer the .500 batter. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/baseball-statistical-difficulty-question/251709.md?page=2)