Mario Impemba noted in Luke Scott's first at bat tonight that he was riding a five-game hitting streak. That is a fairly pedestrian stat, especially considering what Luke Scott has done against the Tigers this year. So, a five game hitting streak would mean that Luke Scott has gotten a hit in five consecutive games, right? The problem is, Scott didn't play last night.
This is something that has always bothered me. A hitting streak should be just that - a streak. When it is said that someone has hit safely in ten straight games, it should actually mean ten games. It shouldn't mean three games, then a day off, then four more, than a few days off, then three more. Earlier this year Ramon Santiago was riding a hitting streak and every time it was talked about I wanted to scream. The dude only plays every third day if he is lucky. Imagine what Joe Dimaggio could have done had he sat a few games every now and then to stay sharp. Where would his streak be at? Seventy games? Eighty games?
I just think it is such an asinine stat when given leeway.
When a player has a hitting streak going into the end of the year and it carries over the following year, I can see the merit in that. The player has no control over the end of the year, and thus should not be penalized.
But what if Joe Mauer hit in forty straight, and then went on the DL? If he comes back and breaks the record, should that count? What if Luke Scott only played against the Tigers? He would most surely have surpassed Joe D. by now.
Baseball is game that relies so much on statistics and records and such that I feel that if anyone where to break the record without being an everyday player, we may have a controversy on our hands. I know I would most certainly lead the charge.