1. Cy Young's 511 career wins
2. Joe DiMaggio's 56-game hitting streak
3. Lou Gehrig's 2,130 consecutive games streak

One down and two to go.

I recall that Steven Jay Gould calculated that DiMaggio's streak was actually _not_ within the bounds of statistical likelihood. I don't remember what numbers he used to conclude that.

I have always thought the streak (and most streaks) was overrated. Though it's exceedingly unlikely, one could get one hit a day for 60 games in a row. They've set a new record but were not particularly good hitters over that period. Plus there are all the stories about questionable scoring decisions which kept the streak going. Anything so reliant on simple accounting decisions loses a lot of luster in my book. It's an interesting feat but to me not as remarkable as records like Cy Young's wins or something.

- While a .350 hitter has only a 0.0017% chance of getting at least one hit in 56 consecutive games;
- A .350 hitter's chance of going hitless in only 6.5 consecutive games (26 at-bats) is a mere 0.0014%;
- Further, a .350 hitter's chance of getting a hit in eleven consecutive at-bats is less than 0.0010%

...after which he pointed out that both of these new numbers weakened my assertion. Uh...yup...but I'll still call it an anomaly.

You're both right. I had run the numbers with several different BAs, and I inadvertently put the odds for a .375 hitter in that part of my post. That obviously skewed my comparisons as well -- one of them in a direction to support my assertion, but the other in a direction to weaken it. My "therefore" should have looked like this:

- While a .375 hitter has only a 0.0094% chance of getting at least one hit in 56 consecutive games;
- A .375 hitter's chance of going hitless in only FIVE consecutive games is a mere 0.0083%;
- Further, a .375 hitter's chance of getting a hit in TEN consecutive at-bats is less than 0.0055%.

Thanks for the correction. Oh...for those who saw huge differences at a glance, my figures are percentages rather than decimals.

Technically, it took 4 ballots for Joe D to get in - he got a vote in 1945. Eligibility requirements hadn't been formalized yet.

Concerning the number of Indians fans, it may be relevant that Cleveland's population is much smaller now than it was in the 1940s and 1950s. It's true that, like most teams, they have more fans (and higher attendance) when they're good than when they're bad, but you also have to take into account the changing population, and the rise in attendance all over major league baseball over the last 20 years or so.

Speaking of Joe DiMaggio, does anyone know why it took him 3 ballots to get into the Hall of Fame? Was it his general demeanor, his frosty relationship with the press (not that those kept Ted Williams or He finished 9th (!) in his first year of eligibility, and was behind Rabbit Frickin Maranville for each of the first two years. What was the voters fascination with good-but-not-great players like Maranville and Dazzy Vance in the early 50's, and why would anyone think they were remotely as deserving of HOF consideration as DiMaggio?

.303 .000000283725
.325 .000002193158
.350 .000016513486
.357 .000027593809

Naturally the odds change a bit given the number of at-bats actually available in each game, and IIRC Rose had 5 the night his streak ended, but these figures give you something for camparison.

Last but not least, do I remember correctly that the game after the one the broke DiMaggio's streak marked the beginning of a separate 19 game streak?