Posted By:
davidcyclebackAll streaks involve some degree of lucky chance. Cal Ripken could have sprained his ankle tripping on the rug. The 2007 New England Patriots won some games that could have gone either way. The last game went the other way. If you're saying a famous streak involved some chance, I don't doubt your claim.
Actually, sports streaks, or perception of streaks, are the product of cognitive biases-- but that's another topic.
Say, over a season, Joe DiMaggio and Ted Williams have the same number of games with hits and the same number of season hits. However, DiMaggio's hit-games involves a record 56 game streak and Williams has no such streak-- Ted's hit-games are more evenly spaced out over the year. Fans and baseball historians will irrationally focus on DiMaggio's season because of the streak. However, there is no rational reason to say Ted's season was any lesser. It's just that fans have a psychological and aesthetic bias towards hit-games strung together and towards streaks in general. Ted had the same 56 hit games as Joe, but they weren't in a row. In the light that the two players had identical season totals, there's no rational reason to say Ted's 56 hit-games were any lesser. It's just that Ted's scattered 56 games don't align with fan's aesthetic views.
In fact, with the same overall seasons, it could be reasonably argued that you'd rather have a player scatter his hit-games over the season, rather than hit them in a tight bunch followed by a lengthy layoff. In this light and looking back over the entire season, a streak might not be considered as a positive. It looks flashy and sensational for the fans (again, a matter of aesthetics), but you'd pick the less streaky player.
Half-joking, I would say Ted Williams had the same 56 game hit streak as Joe DiMaggio, except Ted's 56 games weren't in a row.