# Most career 5-hit games?



## Steve

A friend and I have been Googling to no avail to try to find which MLB player holds the record for most career 5-hit games. Wondering if anyone here knows? TIA.

And if you did find it by Googling, please let me know what search term found it for you! :lol:


----------



## JACKIEGAGA

See if this helps Steve

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/recbooks/hits.shtml


----------



## Steve

JACKIEGAGA said:


> See if this helps Steve
> 
> http://www.baseball-almanac.com/recbooks/hits.shtml


Thanks, Jack. I saw that page. That site lists 9-inning 6-hit games (and a couple of 7 hit games, IIRC), but not most 5-hit games.


----------



## JACKIEGAGA

Steve call the WFAN ask Mike :lol:


----------



## Steve

JACKIEGAGA said:


> Steve call the WFAN ask Mike :lol:


I may have to! :lol:


----------



## David Ortiz

Google search: career 5-hit games

Ty Cobb with 14. (looks like one of those was a 6-hit game)

http://www.thebaseballpage.com/players/gwynnto01.php


----------



## Steve

David Ortiz said:


> Google search: career 5-hit games
> 
> Ty Cobb with 14. (looks like one of those was a 6-hit game)
> 
> http://www.thebaseballpage.com/players/gwynnto01.php


Thanks David!  I saw that page on Gwynn earlier today, but didn't read it all the way through. D'oh!


----------



## David Ortiz

Steve said:


> Thanks David!  I saw that page on Gwynn earlier today, but didn't read it all the way through. D'oh!


Go Yankees!


----------



## Steve

David Ortiz said:


> Go Yankees!


They're 11-0 without ARod in the line-up this year, and he just went on the 15-day disabled list. Woo-hoo! :lol:


----------



## Stewart Vernon

XX-hit games is one of those weird stats that you're not sure how to read it. Admittedly I'm not big into baseball... but given the way it works, you can't get to 5 hits unless everyone else in your roster (exceptions made for pinch hitter/designated hitters) hits at least 4 times in the game.

So I'm inclined to think this is a stat that comes in clumps... by which I mean, if one guy gets a 5th hit I bet most times that happens others on the team also get there because it's probably an offense marathon unless we are talking extra innings where they get to bat just because the game gets played that long.

Also... it's not necessarily a testament to anything is it? I mean, you only get there IF everyone on your team is batting lights out and you're scoring a bazillion runs OR both teams are pitching a shutout and no one is really playing very well on offense.


----------



## Carl Spock

David Ortiz said:


> Google search: career 5-hit games
> 
> Ty Cobb with 14. (looks like one of those was a 6-hit game)
> 
> http://www.thebaseballpage.com/players/gwynnto01.php


Interesting. Both Gwynn and Rose came to mind when I first saw this thread. I didn't think of Cobb but now, that's the obvious answer.


----------



## Rich

Stewart Vernon said:


> XX-hit games is one of those weird stats that you're not sure how to read it. Admittedly I'm not big into baseball... but given the way it works, you can't get to 5 hits unless everyone else in your roster (exceptions made for pinch hitter/designated hitters) comes to the plate at least 4 times in the game.


Changed your post to the proper wording. Hope you don't mind.



> So I'm inclined to think this is a stat that comes in clumps... by which I mean, if one guy gets a 5th hit I bet most times that happens others on the team also get there because it's probably an offense marathon unless we are talking extra innings where they get to bat just because the game gets played that long.
> 
> Also... it's not necessarily a testament to anything is it? I mean, you only get there IF everyone on your team is batting lights out and you're scoring a bazillion runs OR both teams are pitching a shutout and no one is really playing very well on offense.


Is it a testament to anything? Isn't the fact that the (arguably) best hitter of all time (can't argue with that .367 batting average) has the most five hit or more games in the long history of baseball enough?

Put simply, it's a huge accomplishment to get five hits in a game. Huge.

Rich


----------



## Herdfan

Stewart Vernon said:


> Also... it's not necessarily a testament to anything is it? I mean, you only get there IF everyone on your team is batting lights out and you're scoring a bazillion runs OR both teams are pitching a shutout and no one is really playing very well on offense.


Not necessarily. Every slot will bat at least 3 times in a 9 inning game. For the leadoff hitter to get to bat a 5th time, then there needs to be a combination of 10 hits/walks/errors/HBP etc over 8 2/3 innings. That is just a little bit over an on-base average of 1.15 per inning. So you could get a 5th at bat in a 0-0 game.


----------



## Rich

Carl Spock said:


> Interesting. Both Gwynn and Rose came to mind when I first saw this thread. I didn't think of Cobb but now, that's the obvious answer.


Cobb's always the first person I think of when it comes to hits. Just as the Babe is the first one that comes to mind when speaking of HRs.

Think of what it was like when Cobb was playing: Not really a hardball by today's standards. More like a small, soft ball. (Note that I did not mean "softball".) Not that many ballplayers stand out from those days. None of us saw Cobb play (well, maybe *Cholly* ), or any of his cohorts. They got paid next to nothing and played the game for the love of it. And Cobb stood head and shoulders above them all.

Rich


----------



## Steve

rich584 said:


> [...] Put simply, it's a huge accomplishment to get five hits in a game. Huge.


Agree. And what about six hits in a 9-inning game? A few have done that as well, and four players actually did it twice!

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/feats/6_hits_1_game.shtml

Also came across another stat while searching for this. *Johnny Damon* is one of 5 players who's had 3 hits in an inning!

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/recbooks/hits.shtml


----------



## Rich

Steve said:


> Agree. And what about six hits in a 9-inning game? A few have done that as well, and four players actually did it twice!
> 
> http://www.baseball-almanac.com/feats/6_hits_1_game.shtml
> 
> Also came across another stat while searching for this. *Johnny Damon* is one of 5 players who's had 3 hits in an inning!
> 
> http://www.baseball-almanac.com/recbooks/hits.shtml


6 hits in a game is hard to believe. When I was forty, I had fourteen hits in a row over about three games in one league. Started to take notice of what I was doing when I got into my late 30s. Up until then, I just kept my batting averages. Up until then, baseball in any form was easy for me. After that, the pain...

Rich


----------



## Rich

Steve said:


> Agree. And what about six hits in a 9-inning game? A few have done that as well, and four players actually did it twice!
> 
> http://www.baseball-almanac.com/feats/6_hits_1_game.shtml
> 
> Also came across another stat while searching for this. *Johnny Damon* is one of 5 players who's had 3 hits in an inning!
> 
> http://www.baseball-almanac.com/recbooks/hits.shtml


One of Cashmen's big mistakes was letting JD go. Hope he has the sense to get us Carl Crawford next year, I hope, I hope, I hope. Before anyone says Damon's not having a good year, put him back hitting second on the Yankees and his stats would be much better this year.

Rich


----------



## Stewart Vernon

I was omitting something in my thought process there, so thanks for the catch/corrections...

I was somehow equating hits with at bats a whole more than I should have... since at least 3 of those at bats would have to result in an out per inning or they'd never finish the game  Also, I guess walks and hit-batters just count as on-base and not hits either.


----------



## Rich

Stewart Vernon said:


> I was omitting something in my thought process there, so thanks for the catch/corrections...
> 
> I was somehow equating hits with at bats a whole more than I should have... since at least 3 of those at bats would have to result in an out per inning or they'd never finish the game  Also, I guess walks and hit-batters just count as on-base and not hits either.


Right. It's not that unusual for a player to get up five times a game, but as you can see, getting hits each time is pretty difficult.

Rich


----------



## Steve

Stewart Vernon said:


> [...] Also, I guess walks and hit-batters just count as on-base and not hits either.


Nor do they count as "at bats".


----------



## Rich

Steve said:


> Nor do they count as "at bats".


I think you have to look at it as how many times a player comes to the plate in the context of getting five or six attempts in a game. Just getting up six times in a game is an awful lot on a Major League level.

Rich


----------



## Herdfan

rich584 said:


> Cobb's always the first person I think of when it comes to hits. Just as the Babe is the first one that comes to mind when speaking of HRs.
> 
> Think of what it was like when Cobb was playing: Not really a hardball by today's standards.


If Babe Ruth at his prime was inserted in a major league lineup today, he *might* be able to put the bat on the ball.

As for Cobb, and Ruth, the eras in which they played were totally different in terms of the approach to the game. Cobb and Ruth got to face tired starting pitchers in the 7-9 innings. The never had to face a setup man with a wicked slittie then the next inning a power pitcher with upper 90's heat. Getting hits/HR's in those later innings was much easier then that it is today.


----------



## Steve

Herdfan said:


> [...] Getting hits/HR's in those later innings was much easier then that it is today.


If so, then why wasn't everyone hitting them?  Ruth was definitely an anomaly vs. his peers. Check out these stats.

As the author of that blog points out, in 1920, Ruth hit more home runs than any team in baseball except the Phillies. That would be the equivalent of Barry Bonds hitting 234 homers in 2001.

Ya, there were no relief specialists, but they also allowed to throw a spitball and umps rarely threw out nicked baseballs, so pitchers were able to make the ball do funny things.

And I don't know if balls travel further at night or indoors.


----------



## Rich

Steve said:


> If so, then why wasn't everyone hitting them?  Ruth was definitely an anomaly vs. his peers. Check out these stats.
> 
> As the author of that blog points out, in 1920, Ruth hit more home runs than any team in baseball except the Phillies. That would be the equivalent of Barry Bonds hitting 234 homers in 2001.
> 
> Ya, there were no relief specialists, but they also allowed to throw a spitball and umps rarely threw out nicked baseballs, so pitchers were able to make the ball do funny things.
> 
> And I don't know if balls travel further at night or indoors.


I've watched a lot of films that showed Ruth batting. Don't sell that ability short. The game today is so watered down it's getting hard to watch. Never mind the PEDs. But, if anyone wants to believe that Cobb and Ruth couldn't have competed today at a very high level, that's up to you. Their stats prove their abilities. Just the comparisons to their peers is telling. If Ruth (like the Mick) had taken better care of himself, his stats would still stand at the top of the lists.

Yes, the game's changed and the way players work out and keep themselves in great shape would apply to Ruth and Cobb if they were playing today. Nobody can make the argument that yesterday's great stars couldn't have performed at a very high level today. That's like saying Ali would have lost to Joe Louis at their respective peaks. How could you possibly tell without putting them in the ring against each other at their peaks? This kind of argument is without foundation.

Does *Herdfan* think that Nolan Ryan couldn't have pitched today, or that Ted Williams couldn't have hit today? Or that Bob Feller couldn't throw a baseball at a hundred miles an hour today?

Rich


----------



## Sharkie_Fan

Herdfan said:


> As for Cobb, and Ruth, the eras in which they played were totally different in terms of the approach to the game. *Cobb and Ruth got to face tired starting pitchers in the 7-9 innings.* The never had to face a setup man with a wicked slittie then the next inning a power pitcher with upper 90's heat. Getting hits/HR's in those later innings was much easier then that it is today.


Nice theory.

Too bad the stats don't agree with you.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/event_hr.cgi?t=b&n1=ruthba01

There is no dramatic increase in the number of home runs Babe Ruth hit in innings 7-end (he had 16 extra inning HRs). In fact, he hit more in innings 1-3 than any other group of innings.

Also... just because specialists didn't exist doesn't mean that you were always facing a tired pitcher in innings 7-9. Relief pitchers still existed and were used (going through the list of players Ruth hit home runs off of, for example, Bill Dietrich appeared in 43 games in 1935, but only started 15 of those).

To assume that Ruth couldn't play in todays era is a silly notion, IMO. He was more talented than his peers by a measure so great that I think one has to assume that if he were playing in today's era, with access to all the same advantages that today's player has, he'd be a successful player. A great player. Maybe not head and shoulders above everyone else the way he was, but he'd be damn good.

I think the same can be said of any of the "great" players. How you define great depends on how true that statement is. Personally, I use the word great very sparingly. For instance, I had a friend tell me last year when Pablo Sandoval of the Giants was hitting .330 that he was a "great hitter". In my mind, that was a very good year... but a great hitter flirts with .400. He said "So you mean there have only been 3 or 4 great hitters in your lifetime". Yup. Exactly what I mean. Great, to me, means you're the best of the best. Take the top handful of players in the world, and you're at the top of the list....

Those players, IMO, regardless of what era they played in, have the kind of talent that would translate across eras.... assuming of course that they took advantage of the advantages of the era. Babe Ruth probably couldn't play in today's game if he was 300lbs and hungover every day.. but if he took care of himself the way todays players do, he'd still be a great player.


----------



## Steve

Why I love baseball stats.  After the Mariners walked Tex yesterday, to load the bases, Cano hit a grand slam. MLB.com reported this:

_"It was the fourth time this season that Teixeira has been intentionally walked; on three of those occasions, the following batter has hit a grand slam. In the four innings in which Teixeira has been intentionally walked, the Yankees have scored 18 runs. Since he joined the Yanks, Teixeira has been intentionally walked to load the bases 10 times, with the subsequent hitter going 7-for-8 with four home runs and 25 RBIs."_

In this post-PED "year of the pitcher" (6-7 no-hitters so far, and 2-3 that went into the 9th?), that's the 10th grand slam for the Yankees, tying their 1987 club record. Don Mattingly hit 6 of those, a record he shares with Travis Hafner. The team grand slam record is 14, jointly held by the 2000 A's and the 2006 Indians.


----------



## Rich

Sharkie_Fan said:


> Nice theory.
> 
> Too bad the stats don't agree with you.
> 
> http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/event_hr.cgi?t=b&n1=ruthba01
> 
> There is no dramatic increase in the number of home runs Babe Ruth hit in innings 7-end (he had 16 extra inning HRs). In fact, he hit more in innings 1-3 than any other group of innings.
> 
> Also... just because specialists didn't exist doesn't mean that you were always facing a tired pitcher in innings 7-9. Relief pitchers still existed and were used (going through the list of players Ruth hit home runs off of, for example, Bill Dietrich appeared in 43 games in 1935, but only started 15 of those).
> 
> To assume that Ruth couldn't play in todays era is a silly notion, IMO. He was more talented than his peers by a measure so great that I think one has to assume that if he were playing in today's era, with access to all the same advantages that today's player has, he'd be a successful player. A great player. Maybe not head and shoulders above everyone else the way he was, but he'd be damn good.
> 
> I think the same can be said of any of the "great" players. How you define great depends on how true that statement is. Personally, I use the word great very sparingly. For instance, I had a friend tell me last year when Pablo Sandoval of the Giants was hitting .330 that he was a "great hitter". In my mind, that was a very good year... but a great hitter flirts with .400. He said "So you mean there have only been 3 or 4 great hitters in your lifetime". Yup. Exactly what I mean. Great, to me, means you're the best of the best. Take the top handful of players in the world, and you're at the top of the list....
> 
> Those players, IMO, regardless of what era they played in, have the kind of talent that would translate across eras.... assuming of course that they took advantage of the advantages of the era. Babe Ruth probably couldn't play in today's game if he was 300lbs and hungover every day.. but if he took care of himself the way todays players do, he'd still be a great player.


Great post. My thoughts exactly. And I'm glad you used "IMO" instead of "IMHO". You obviously weren't humble in your post at all and you are so correct.

I like your definition of "great" players too. I have only seen a few "great" players in my lifetime. Ted Williams, Willie and the Mick. The rest were on another level, just a tad below the "great" ones. Even Aaron wasn't considered to be on the level of Mays, and as it turned out, he stayed healthy and compiled a lot of 40+ HR seasons. Like Pete Rose a great compiler, but neither were thought of during their time playing as "great" players. The Reds had several players on their teams during their great run that were better than Rose. But you look at the stats and think, "Gee, Aaron must have been a far greater hitter than Ruth". Wrong. He wasn't considered as good as Willie and the Mick. Look at Rose's number of hits compared to Cobb's. Rose must have been the better hitter. Wrong. Look at the number of at bats each had. Cobb had far less than Rose did, and Rose damn near killed himself breaking that record.

Cobb and Ruth set standards that only Teddy Baseball came close to and if he hadn't fought in two wars he might have surpassed both of them.

Rich


----------



## Rich

Steve said:


> Why I love baseball stats.  After the Mariners walked Tex yesterday, to load the bases, Cano hit a grand slam. MLB.com reported this:
> 
> _"It was the fourth time this season that Teixeira has been intentionally walked; on three of those occasions, the following batter has hit a grand slam. In the four innings in which Teixeira has been intentionally walked, the Yankees have scored 18 runs. Since he joined the Yanks, Teixeira has been intentionally walked to load the bases 10 times, with the subsequent hitter going 7-for-8 with four home runs and 25 RBIs."_
> 
> In this post-PED "year of the pitcher" (6-7 no-hitters so far, and 2-3 that went into the 9th?), that's the 10th grand slam for the Yankees, tying their 1987 club record. Don Mattingly hit 6 of those, a record he shares with Travis Hafner. The team grand slam record is 14, jointly held by the 2000 A's and the 2006 Indians.


I could watch Robby play all day long. So smooth. And his swing is so close to perfect. Best second baseman I've ever seen on the Yankees. Best infield I've ever seen on the Yankees. But the pitching staff has me worried. They won with three dependable starters last year and one of them wasn't all that dependable. Pettite going down for so long is liable to hurt them horribly in the playoffs.

Rich


----------



## Steve

rich584 said:


> Cobb and Ruth set standards that only Teddy Baseball came close to and if he hadn't fought in two wars he might have surpassed both of them.


Yup. He arguably could have hit at least another 150 homers the four years he missed.

And had the 1947 Williams-DiMaggio trade gone through, I shudder to think how many more homers he would have hit to the short porch at Yankee Stadium!!!!

And what would DiMaggio's numbers have been at Fenway????

FWIW, I consider Gherig right up there with Cobb, Ruth and Williams, followed by Mickey, Willie and Joe D.


----------



## Rich

Steve said:


> Yup. He arguably could have hit at least another 150 homers the four years he missed.


I just looked at his stats and the Korean War years are obvious, but the WW2 time frame has him only playing one year. On this *link*.



> And had the 1947 Williams-DiMaggio trade gone through, I shudder to think how many more homers he would have hit to the short porch at Yankee Stadium!!!!


That's probably one of the best "almost" trades the Red Sox had. The war years had taken a toll on Joe D. He was playing over two hundred games a year. Well over. I don't think he was the same after the war. If I recall correctly, it goes over that in the biography that was published several years ago. Then DiMaggio hurt his heel and was gone while Teddy Baseball played until 1960. Hit over .300 and his very last hit was a home run. Getting Williams for Dimaggio would have been a real coup for the Yankees.



> And what would DiMaggio's numbers have been at Fenway????


Probably good for a year or two and then downhill quickly. That heel problem. Imagine the health care then and compare it to now. He'd be cured and would have played for a longer time.



> FWIW, I consider Gherig right up there with Cobb, Ruth and Williams, followed by Mickey, Willie and Joe D.


He was kind of unlucky when you think about it. Played all those years overshadowed by Ruth. People don't realize how good he was. But Ruth saved the game and you can't forget that. And Cobb was freaky good, from what I've read. Seen a few films of him. There were an awful lot of good players in those years from 1920 on to the early sixties.

Rich


----------



## redsoxfan26

I figured I would put my two cents in on this "who is the best of the best" baseball players of all time. My top three would probably be Ruth, Williams, and Honus Wagner.


----------



## Sharkie_Fan

rich584 said:


> I like your definition of "great" players too. I have only seen a few "great" players in my lifetime. Ted Williams, Willie and the Mick.


Oh to have seen those 3 play in my lifetime!! Only being 33, I've only got to see them in the highlight reels... Granted, I get to see alot of highlight reels of Willie, being in the SF Bay Area.

It drives me nuts to hear fans (and even worse, announcers or coaches) calling a player "great". We've become a society that throws around superlatives every time you turn around... I prefer to save those superlatives for something (or someone) truly special.

I know I brought up Pablo Sandoval earlier.. but here's a kid who with ~120 games in the majors was voted the greatest 3rd baseman in Giants history (by Giants fans)... (To any giants fans reading this... I hate to say I told you so, but... well... I did.) To anyone who cared to look, he had major holes in his game... not the least of which was his approach at the plate... fans looked at his .300+ BA last year and said "Oh he's a great hitter". I looked at him close his eyes and swing as hard as he could and said "Pitchers are going to figure this kid out"...

For some reason, though, we just have this undeniable urge to label people as "great"... and I think it's a disservice to the players now, and more specifically to the players who have come before who truly were "great"...

Calling Pablo Sandoval "great", putting him along side guys like Ty Cobb and Ted Williams is like putting Roseanne Barr and Celine Dion in the same class of singers...

I'll now climb off my soap box and let you return to your regularly scheduled programming.


----------



## AntAltMike

The linked page from post #2 shows that someone named Ted Cox got four hits in his first game. I listened to it on the radio. He went four for four, and then got hits in the first two at bats of his second game, so he started his career six-for-six, but five of those six hits were banjo hits. He was never much of a hitter. Me, I'd rather start my career like Don Hasselbeck. His first four receptions were for touchdowns (thanks to the novel, three-tight-end, goal-line offense), albeit for only five yards gained.

As far as the productivity of Williams and Dimaggio in each other's parks is concerned, it would make less difference than you might think, as they would be pitched differently. The Red Sox have had a slew of batting champions, but only one batted right-handed. The Red Sox used to have a promising young, left handed hitter named Dalton Jones, who used to bat umpteen thousand in Tiger Stadium. He went five for five there once, and hit a game winning homer in extra innings during the 1967 pennant race stretch run. People used to say that if he ever got traded to Detroit, he might win a batting title because the ballpark was so well suited to his swing, so after the 1969 season, the Tigers traded for him. The record books show that Jones's batting average for his final year in Boston was .220, whereas his first year batting average in Detroit was... .220. He was out of baseball before he turned 30.

I remember when shortstop Rico Petrocelli hit 40 homers in one season. It was derided as a Fenway park aided stat, but if I recall correctly, he hit 22 at home and 18 on the road, which seems likely to be about the norm for a major league home/road advantage.

I don't buy the "baseballl is watered down" stuff. Until free agency, many young people would not consider committing to sports at an early age because they were unlikely to be able to make a good living at it even if they did, in fact, make the majors. In the 1960s, the "hard thrower" on your staff could throw a 90 mile an hour fastball. Now, there are lots of guys who throw 90 mile an hour change-ups. Any pitcher who can't throw over 90 miles per hour is considered a junkballer. Scouting today is a thousand times better and more thorough than it was in baseball's golden era. Look how "big" Jimmy Foxx was. 190 pounds? When Nomar Garciaparra played shortstop for the Red Sox, he was bigger than Jimmy Foxx.

Every kid in America who can throw 70 miles an hour has been clocked on a radar gun and entered into computerized files, so no pitching prospect ever gets overlooked. 

And as far as Nolan Ryan is concerned, he was simply the greatest .500 pitcher in baseball history. Over his career, he averaged just one more win than loss per season. When he departed from one team, the manager (Whitely Herzog, maybe?) was asked how he'd replace such a pitcher, and he said he'd pay a couple of guys $100,000 each to go eight and eight.


----------



## redsoxfan26

AntAltMike said:


> The Red Sox have had a slew of batting champions, but only one batted right-handed.


Actually there are four. Five if you count Bill Mueller in 2003 who was a switch hitter. 
They are Dale Alexander 1932, Jimmie Foxx 1938, Nomar Garciaparra 1999 and 2000, and Manny Ramirez 2002.


----------



## Rich

Sharkie_Fan said:


> Oh to have seen those 3 play in my lifetime!! Only being 33, I've only got to see them in the highlight reels... Granted, I get to see alot of highlight reels of Willie, being in the SF Bay Area.


I saw Mantle in '51 and that made up my mind to root for the Yankees. Never regretted that. Gotta wonder what would have happened if I had seen Mays first.

Living in the NYC area, we got the Yankees, Giants and Dodgers on TV for the first time in 1948. I spent '48, '49 and '50 trying to figure out who to root for. I saw DiMaggio and Rizzuto. Saw a lot of Williams too. Not the outfielder Mantle or Mays were. Not bad tho. Good arm. Smart. Better hitter than either Mantle or Mays. Better than DiMaggio after WW2 and played until '60. If I had to pick one in his prime, I'd take Mantle. And wish for Mays.

Rich


----------

