Hardest record to break in baseball?

[OleMissCub]

56 game hitting streak

 

i think this for sure

 

With a ton of luck and a world class hitter like Ichiro this could be approached...it's unlikely, but it could be done.

 

Luck has little to do with having a .367 lifetime BA or 5700 career K's, etc.

[Derwood]

didn't want to start a whole new thread, but how many career records will Alex Rodriguez break? Let's take a look at his stats:

 

if he continues his current pace, he'll finish 2007 with a line of:

 

.315/.415/.697, 65 HR, 177 RBI, 157 runs

 

 

That means at seasons end, his career numbers would stand at:

 

.308/.391/.590, 529 HR, 1524 RBI, 1515 runs

 

at the age of 32 years, 2 months

 

outside of 1993 (129 games) he has not played fewer than 141 games per season.

 

So his health is good, he can move to 1B/OF/DH in the future. Assuming he plays until at least 40, and assuming his average line over that time is (conservatively) 35 HR, 100 RBI, 100 runs, he'll have the following line at the end of 2016:

 

809 HR, 2324 RBI, 2315 runs. If he averages 170 hits a year, he would have 3504 hits. If he averages about 27 doubles a year he'll be over 600.

 

Is there anyone else who can reach those kind of career numbers? Pujols has been unreal, but is so many years behind A-Rod for his career that you never know what will happen.

 

ETA: those numbers (assuming he stopped at 40) would break the career HR, RBI, Runs and Extra Base Hits.

[OleMissCub]

Yes, thankfully Bonds' new record (should he get it) won't last that long thanks to A-Rod.

 

He'll be top 10 baseball players of all time when he's done I think.

[woodchip2153]

I don't think it's a question of whether people will die or not, it's a question of whether they'll start to live to be much older and be able to play to a much later age. In 1900 the average life expectancy was 47. A hundred years later it was 77. I don't believe it's out of the question that it could be 107 by the year 2100. And with advances in science becoming more and more dramatic than they were a hundred years ago, it's not out of the question for that lifespan to go up even more.

 

So, it's pretty safe to assume that as people begin to live much longer, players will stick around longer. And when we get to the point that a player can still be playing at 60 years of age, all bets are off.

 

Nevermind that crazed day when some rich nut buys a collection of game used jerseys and creates a clone hybrid of all of the greats. Much like Serpentor on GI Joe. :lol:

 

I figure with my wealth and modern technology, I think I can live to 250-300.

[Keener98]

Yes, thankfully Bonds' new record (should he get it) won't last that long thanks to A-Rod.

 

He'll be top 10 baseball players of all time when he's done I think.

 

I think he might be pushing top 5 of all time when hes done. The fact that he continues to stay healthy and put up these numbers is amazing. I dont think Pujols will challenge any of these records. His body is much more apt to getting injured then Arods is. I can see Arod playing for awhile longer, but I think Pujols will break down before he reaches any of these.

[XZero771679666304]

Add the dead ball into the mix. Another factor to consider is that there are more pitches available to pitchers today. Decades of innovation have seen new pitches developed, giving today's pitchers more weapons. And even so, modern hitters produce much more on average than the hitters of yesteryear.

 

If anything the dead ball era helped pitchers, not hitters. They used the same ball throughout most of the game. If a ball was hit foul the fans had to throw it back onto the field.

 

 

I know, that part of my post was poorly structured/worded. My point was that pitchers of past eras had a decided advantage when compared to today's pitchers.

[SouthSideRyan]

120 IBBs in one season is going to be tough to beat.

[BigbadB]

120 IBBs in one season is going to be tough to beat.

 

Not once Bonds is sitting at 754. No one will want to give up 755 or 756 to that jerk. :D

[chuckywang]

I don't think it's a question of whether people will die or not, it's a question of whether they'll start to live to be much older and be able to play to a much later age. In 1900 the average life expectancy was 47. A hundred years later it was 77. I don't believe it's out of the question that it could be 107 by the year 2100. And with advances in science becoming more and more dramatic than they were a hundred years ago, it's not out of the question for that lifespan to go up even more.

 

So, it's pretty safe to assume that as people begin to live much longer, players will stick around longer. And when we get to the point that a player can still be playing at 60 years of age, all bets are off.

 

Nevermind that crazed day when some rich nut buys a collection of game used jerseys and creates a clone hybrid of all of the greats. Much like Serpentor on GI Joe. :lol:

 

In all your optimism, you're forgetting that the Earth will not be able to support that sort of population if humans average a 107 year lifespan. If nobody dies, the population will continue to grow, and the quality of life for everyone will decrease. We will have more pollution, more waste, and new diseases, and therefore the average lifespan will decrease. I highly doubt that a 107 year average lifespan is possible.

[Marco4]

This thread reminded me of this post at THT. That'll be a tough one to pass.

[XZero771679666304]

I don't think it's a question of whether people will die or not, it's a question of whether they'll start to live to be much older and be able to play to a much later age. In 1900 the average life expectancy was 47. A hundred years later it was 77. I don't believe it's out of the question that it could be 107 by the year 2100. And with advances in science becoming more and more dramatic than they were a hundred years ago, it's not out of the question for that lifespan to go up even more.

 

So, it's pretty safe to assume that as people begin to live much longer, players will stick around longer. And when we get to the point that a player can still be playing at 60 years of age, all bets are off.

 

Nevermind that crazed day when some rich nut buys a collection of game used jerseys and creates a clone hybrid of all of the greats. Much like Serpentor on GI Joe. :lol:

 

In all your optimism, you're forgetting that the Earth will not be able to support that sort of population if humans average a 107 year lifespan. If nobody dies, the population will continue to grow, and the quality of life for everyone will decrease. We will have more pollution, more waste, and new diseases, and therefore the average lifespan will decrease. I highly doubt that a 107 year average lifespan is possible.

 

That is assuming there will be no wide scale population control, which is inevitable, IMO.

[Derwood]

I don't think it's a question of whether people will die or not, it's a question of whether they'll start to live to be much older and be able to play to a much later age. In 1900 the average life expectancy was 47. A hundred years later it was 77. I don't believe it's out of the question that it could be 107 by the year 2100. And with advances in science becoming more and more dramatic than they were a hundred years ago, it's not out of the question for that lifespan to go up even more.

 

So, it's pretty safe to assume that as people begin to live much longer, players will stick around longer. And when we get to the point that a player can still be playing at 60 years of age, all bets are off.

 

Nevermind that crazed day when some rich nut buys a collection of game used jerseys and creates a clone hybrid of all of the greats. Much like Serpentor on GI Joe. :lol:

 

In all your optimism, you're forgetting that the Earth will not be able to support that sort of population if humans average a 107 year lifespan. If nobody dies, the population will continue to grow, and the quality of life for everyone will decrease. We will have more pollution, more waste, and new diseases, and therefore the average lifespan will decrease. I highly doubt that a 107 year average lifespan is possible.

 

That is assuming there will be no wide scale population control, which is inevitable, IMO.

 

or a job market. I was suddenly thrilled with my part-time wage job when I read that post-graduation there were 1.5 million new people in the US job market yet no one is retiring at 62 1/2 anymore

[Mephistopheles]

The most impressive is the 56 in a row streak. Assume the average hitter gets a hit 25% of the time (close enough). Then assume the average hitter is given five plate appearances a game. Both of these numbers error on the side of making the probabilities higher than the actual. Then the probability of getting at least one hit in a game is 76.25%. Then the odds of getting a hit in at least 56 games in a row are 1 in 3,875,606

[Derwood]

The most impressive is the 56 in a row streak. Assume the average hitter gets a hit 25% of the time (close enough). Then assume the average hitter is given five plate appearances a game. Both of these numbers error on the side of making the probabilities higher than the actual. Then the probability of getting at least one hit in a game is 76.25%. Then the odds of getting a hit in at least 56 games in a row are 1 in 3,875,606

 

and to think, had he reached 57 he had a huge endorsement deal from Heinz....one short...

[BleedCubbieBlue81]

I think it's more impressive that he went on another long hitting streak the day after this streak ended. (Someone with knowledge of it please fill in the actual number of games)

 

But unfortunately, I see the 56 game hit streak as the easiest one to break. Players like Ichiro have the definite potential to pull it off. It might not happen for a long time, but I see that as being easier than any of Cy Young's records, any of Rickey Henderson's records, etc.

 

I don't see anyone coming close to 511 wins as long as they go with a five man rotation. Of course, with the way professional sports are going these days, the season might get extended somewhere down the line to maybe 200 games. This would mean more of an opportunity to pull it off, but it's still HIGHLY doubtful anyone will even come close. I personally believe that there will be only a handful of guys(5 or 6 tops) to even reach 300 wins throughout the rest of my lifetime. (I'm only 25)

[Andy]

I think it's more impressive that he went on another long hitting streak the day after this streak ended. (Someone with knowledge of it please fill in the actual number of games)

I believe he then hit in 24 in a row to make it 80 out of 81 games in which he got a hit.

[SaorsaDaonnan]

I'm going with anything by Cy Young.

 

When I went to see Ryno get inducted into the HoF in '05, I saw Cy Young's 500 win ball. For some reason, seeing that ball brought it all home to me --- it actually brought a tear to my eye (not the only thing in Cooperstown to do that.)

 

I was floored at the thought of 500 wins

 

Pretty hardcore.

 

I don't like the disrespect that I see some modern baseball fans showing to earlier era's in baseball, as if people back then didn't play the type of bang-bang, in your face, sport.

 

Some say "well, they didn't throw as hard." That's bullcrap. Sure, some people with conditioning these days might be able to throw harder than some guy back then, but people on the most part threw just as hard. If guys out of 1A highschools in Podunk, Mississippi can throw 90+, then so could full grown men back then if they just had the talent for it.

 

Hell, they obviously threw hard enough to kill a man, since Chapman got killed by Mays.

 

I think some people just have rubber arms and they are born that way. Back then guys with weak arms would have been weeded out because of the stress and so the only guys who made it to the bigs and could deal with the stress of constant pitching were guys like Livan Hernandez or Zambrano or Randy Johnson. I could almost guarantee you that Zambrano could throw every third day.

 

I know you're going to battle me on this (because you have before), but while I'll concede that pitchers back then probably threw as hard (a la Bob Feller), I just can't believe the hitters were as good on the whole.

 

With the advances in nutrition, conditioning and sports "medicine", the average hitter now is much bigger, faster and stronger than even 20 years ago, not to mention 50. With new training techniques, even hand-eye is probably much better.

 

This makes it more difficult for today's pitcher to maintain great stats, and while a pitcher in 1920 might have been able to produce on shortened rest, I find it unlikely in the extreme that they could do so against today's offensive beasts. Rather than your theory that weak armed pitchers were weeded out, I think great pitchers could get by with only a fraction of their stuff on a regular basis because the average batter really wasn't that great. And its counter intuitive; logic dictates that the overall talent pool todays is far, far greater than it was in the time of Cy Young, but somehow there aren't as many durable arms today?

 

Add the dead ball into the mix. Another factor to consider is that there are more pitches available to pitchers today. Decades of innovation have seen new pitches developed, giving today's pitchers more weapons. And even so, modern hitters produce much more on average than the hitters of yesteryear.

 

Now before you get too upset, let me clarify - I mean the average offensive player. If you look back over the years, you will find that there was much more disparity between the greats - Ruth, Cobb, etc. - and the rest of the league than there is between the stars of today and their peers. And while guys like Ruth and Cobb may have been able to produce at similar levels in today's league, they almost certainly would not have while indulging in the lifestyles they did when they were playing.

 

While guys like Young, Walter Johnson and company would still have had to deal with awesome talents, there was a lot more chaff in between. Could Zambrano pitch every third day now? Probably. Would he be effective? Almost certainly not. The game is played on a different level than it was 80 or 70 years ago. Developments in science, as well as innovation and the influx of huge talent pools from Latin America, Asia and our own African American population have seen to that. Players today are bigger, faster and stronger. The balls are livelier, the parks smaller and the bats better.

 

These are the main reasons that records like Young's 511 will stand.

 

 

 

 

Nice post.

[SaorsaDaonnan]

I don't think it's a question of whether people will die or not, it's a question of whether they'll start to live to be much older and be able to play to a much later age. In 1900 the average life expectancy was 47. A hundred years later it was 77. I don't believe it's out of the question that it could be 107 by the year 2100. And with advances in science becoming more and more dramatic than they were a hundred years ago, it's not out of the question for that lifespan to go up even more.

 

So, it's pretty safe to assume that as people begin to live much longer, players will stick around longer. And when we get to the point that a player can still be playing at 60 years of age, all bets are off.

 

Nevermind that crazed day when some rich nut buys a collection of game used jerseys and creates a clone hybrid of all of the greats. Much like Serpentor on GI Joe. :lol:

 

 

 

 

 

Cobra LUH-LA-LA-LA-LA

 

 

 

:cry:

[Derwood]

no one has mentioned Pete Rose's 4256 hits (or 10,328 outs)

[The Voice of Reason]

Trivia Question

 

Q: Who is the best pitcher never to win the Cy Young award?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A: Cy Young.

[Roast]

This thread reminded me of this post at THT. That'll be a tough one to pass.

 

Give Ryno some time, hell, he's already been ejected 2 (3?) times this year :lol:

 

Also, I have always wondered what guys like Ty Cobb and Ted Williams would do if they were around today. With the advances in medicine (and competent judicial system....COBB) things would be a helluva lot different.

[soccer10k]

Yes, thankfully Bonds' new record (should he get it) won't last that long thanks to A-Rod.

 

He'll be top 10 baseball players of all time when he's done I think.

 

I think he might be pushing top 5 of all time when hes done. The fact that he continues to stay healthy and put up these numbers is amazing. I dont think Pujols will challenge any of these records. His body is much more apt to getting injured then Arods is. I can see Arod playing for awhile longer, but I think Pujols will break down before he reaches any of these.

 

I agree especially if he breaks the records Derwood posted. He will be right up there with Ruth, Williams and Bonds.

[don_kessinger_was_good]

Cy Young's numbers are pretty much impossible to match, but pitching numbers in the era before the existence of the American League (1901) are notoriously hard to interpret. The mound was closer, many pitchers threw underhanded (!), records weren't always fastidiously kept. Note that Cy Young had only 225 wins from 1901 onwards.

 

However, two other pitching numbers from the dead ball era are IMO the TRUE unbreakable records in baseball.

 

Jack Chesbro--41 wins in one season (1904)

Jack Chesbro--48 complete games in one season (1904)

 

Considering pitchers today only START about 32-33 games per year maximum, then yep--the above two numbers are by definition, unreachable.

 

For hitters, my top vote goes to Sam Crawford's career triples mark of 309 (though the first 22 were hit in 1899 and 1900); ballparks aren't big enough anymore to accomodate so many triples. In Crawford's time, most stadiums were HUGE, with enormous power alleys. How about 454 feet to dead center in Cleveland? A fast runner with line drive power to the alleys could run all day in those stadiums, and that's exactly what Crawford did. And he was indeed fast: 366 career SBs.

 

Plus, you need to play a long time and be a darn good hitter (Crawford had 2961 hits, 2821 from 1901 on) to even have the CHANCE to hit that many triples. And a manager that would even LET you try to stretch out so many doubles in this era of the long ball.

 

Oh yeah: you'd need to average roughly 15 triples every year for 20 years to get to this record. Since 1990, the big league leader in any one season has made that mark just four times (two by Carl Crawford--no relation :-)