What would it take to beat DiMaggio?

[epo]

Ahh....baseball is here. I think the most impressive record in sports is DiMaggio's 56 game hitting streak. What attributes of a hitter would it take to beat the record ? And what current players fit the mold to put together that type of streak?

[patsopinion]

you need the tony gwinn swing(the flat straight through the zone)

speed(ichiro)

[cougarjake13]

you need the tony gwinn swing(the flat straight through the zone)

speed(ichiro)

ichiro would get my vote as the guy who might be able to break it

[BoondockSaint]

Yeah, I was going to say Ichiro.

[Don Stugots]

imo, no one. it will stand just like most complete games by a pitcher.

[cougarjake13]

imo, no one. it will stand just like most complete games by a pitcher.

only difference is the game hasnt changed that much for a hitter to make a run at 56, a guy does it almost every year

theres no way in todays pitching world that any manager will let a guy go a full nine let alone enough times to beat the record

[epo]

A couple of things that I think of is that a player should be 1 or 2 in the lineup to get maximum at-bats. Also I think being in a good offense helps as the lineup naturally generates extra at-bats & pressure on pitchers.

Does somebody like a Grady Sizemore or Carl Crawford have the attributes to pull it off?

[cougarjake13]

A couple of things that I think of is that a player should be 1 or 2 in the lineup to get maximum at-bats. Also I think being in a good offense helps as the lineup naturally generates extra at-bats & pressure on pitchers.

Does somebody like a Grady Sizemore or Carl Crawford have the attributes to pull it off?

those would be 2 guys i think might do it but crawford on the rays doesnt have a lot of help in that lineup

[Bossanova]

only difference is the game hasnt changed that much for a hitter to make a run at 56, a guy does it almost every year

theres no way in todays pitching world that any manager will let a guy go a full nine let alone enough times to beat the record

I gotta go with Stugs on this. By getting close, I assume you mean in the 30's. Thats way too many away to call almost. No one will ever break this record. For starters, no one is that patient, and pitchers will never let a person get that close. They would pitch around or just throw junk.

[LOAF]

imo, no one. it will stand just like most complete games by a pitcher.

I agree, I think that record will stand for a while, I mean other than Denny Lyons at 52 set in 1887, Pete Rose is the next closest with 44. (Of course I looked these up)

The record has stood and will stand for a long time!

[cougarjake13]

I gotta go with Stugs on this. By getting close, I assume you mean in the 30's. Thats way too many away to call almost. No one will ever break this record. For starters, no one is that patient, and pitchers will never let a person get that close. They would pitch around or just throw junk.

well the almost part of my comment is insignificant
theres no change in the wqay the game is played or managed by the manager that affects the way a guy going after the streak has to worry about

i don t even think the leader in complete games last year had more than 5


after checking the leader was
harang and sabathia both had 6 last year

jack chesbro had 41 in the modern era, no starter even pitches that many games in a year let alone completing all of them

[Bossanova]

well the almost part of my comment is insignificant
theres no change in the wqay the game is played or managed by the manager that affects the way a guy going after the streak has to worry about

i don t even think the leader in complete games last year had more than 5


after checking the leader was
harang and sabathia both had 6 last year

jack chesbro had 41 in the modern era, no starter even pitches that many games in a year let alone completing all of them

I'll go with everything you said. Dare I say that neither will ever be broken.

[epo]

No one will ever break this record. For starters, no one is that patient, and pitchers will never let a person get that close. They would pitch around or just throw junk.

Are you saying opposing managers and pitchers are pussies?

[cougarjake13]

I'll go with everything you said. Dare I say that neither will ever be broken.

its probable that they never will
but joes 56 still is reachable under current playing standards

[Marc with a c]

What would it take to beat DiMaggio?

57 games

[Bossanova]

What would it take to beat DiMaggio?

57 games

Marc, you are always 1 step ahead of everyone

[yeti]

More steriods and enhancers....thats how you break the records.

[Team_Ramrod]

Quite honestly, not a whole lot right now.

[Dan 'Hampton]

A Suicidal Blonde or Lung Cancer.

[JPMNICK]

even a 45 game hitting streak is still 20% away from Joe D.

[jetdog]

It would take someone sucking some DNA outa Ol Ted's frozen head and cloning him, even then it's a long shot.

stupid clones.

[Team_Ramrod]

A Suicidal Blonde or Lung Cancer.

Thank you!

I thought I might be going too far with my comment considering the hight NY content on this board.

[Dan 'Hampton]

Ahh they're a bunch of kidders. They don't mind. Never stopped me from wearing my sox garb from Penn Station to the Bronx.

[Snacks]

It will never happen again. First batters face 2-3-4 even 5 pitchers in 1 game. Back when Joe D did it they would see 1 maybe 2 pitchers. What that means is it was easier to get a hit in your last at bats b/c you already had 3 against the same pitcher in 1 game. There are no hitters like Joe D now a days. The only player I think that could have done it in resent memory would have been Gwynn or Boggs just b/c they were both pure hitters.

Maybe Ichiro b/c of his speed and how hes able to slap the ball. But I think this is a safe record.

[TheMojoPin]

More steriods and enhancers....thats how you break the records.

How is that going to help someone beat a hitting streak?

[Mike Teacher]

Ahh....baseball is here. I think the most impressive record in sports is DiMaggio's 56 game hitting streak. What attributes of a hitter would it take to beat the record ? And what current players fit the mold to put together that type of streak?

As to the most impressive record in sports, the late evolutionary biologist and baseball uber-fan Stephen J. Gould agreed. He called the streak the most extraordinary thing to happen in all of sports, ever.

He wrote an article on the streak, said the sports numbers people crunched it and claim it is so many deviations away from the norm, so unlikely, that it shouldnt have happened in the first place, an unpredictable anomoly, like someone, one day, high jumping say, ten feet.

So as to attibutes, I'll stick with Gould and say the ability to pull off a miracle.

Current players that can pull off miracles at this time? beats me.

One of Several [long and detailed, you have been warned] articles on The Streak by Gould

HERE (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/4337)

[TheMojoPin]

What would it take to beat DiMaggio?

Probably a sock full of quarters.

[feralBoy]

As to the most impressive record in sports, the late evolutionary biologist and baseball uber-fan Stephen J. Gould agreed. He called the streak the most extraordinary thing to happen in all of sports, ever.

He wrote an article on the streak, said the sports numbers people crunched it and claim it is so many deviations away from the norm, so unlikely, that it shouldnt have happened in the first place, an unpredictable anomoly, like someone, one day, high jumping say, ten feet.

HERE (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/4337)

Because I'm a geek, I figured I would figure the odds of a lifetime .325 hitter, hitting 56 games in a row. This is what I came up with.

The odds of getting atleast one hit in a game, assuming 4 at bats a game is:
1 - (1 -.325)^4 = .79
So, if we take that number and carry that for 56 games we get:
.79^56 = .0000018

So, that means there is a .00018% chance of it happening. That's pretty crazy.

[A.J.]

As to the most impressive record in sports, the late evolutionary biologist and baseball uber-fan Stephen J. Gould agreed. He called the streak the most extraordinary thing to happen in all of sports, ever.

He wrote an article on the streak, said the sports numbers people crunched it and claim it is so many deviations away from the norm, so unlikely, that it shouldnt have happened in the first place, an unpredictable anomoly, like someone, one day, high jumping say, ten feet.

So as to attibutes, I'll stick with Gould and say the ability to pull off a miracle.

Current players that can pull off miracles at this time? beats me.

One of Several [long and detailed, you have been warned] articles on The Streak by Gould

HERE (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/4337)


And it's not just the 56 games -- it's that he hit in another 17 straight games after it ended.

[sailor]

i have no doubt the record will be broken eventually. luck, more than anything else will cause a long hitting streak. you hit the ball hard, and despite what many folks (most) believe, you don't really know where it's going. also, someone with limited patiece at the plate would help, ironically (think soriano). you don't want to be taking walks, they are as bad as an out when looking at a hit streak. you have precious few ABs and have to try at all of them. speaking of ABs being on a run machine isa essential, as you will get more ABs per game than on lesser teams. speed (suzuki) is not as important for this as it would be for someone making a run at .400, where the extra few infield hits will go a long way. [speaking of suzuki, i was not that impressed at his breaking the hits record. he got 700 ABs and only walked 49 times. yes, he hit .372, but if he was more selective i think he's have helped his team a lot more.]

hitting streaks are aberations. if cano moved up higher in the yankee order i could see him making a run at the record if he got lucky.

[sailor]

Because I'm a geek, I figured I would figure the odds of a lifetime .325 hitter, hitting 56 games in a row. This is what I came up with.

The odds of getting atleast one hit in a game, assuming 4 at bats a game is:
1 - (1 -.325)^4 = .79
So, if we take that number and carry that for 56 games we get:
.79^56 = .0000018

So, that means there is a .00018% chance of it happening. That's pretty crazy.

BUT, you're only looking atthe chances of one player. what you need to look at is the chance of ANY player getting it. plus, what of people who have gotten 40-game hitting streaks? those have to be pretty freakin' unlikely as well, but they DO happen. it's all a matter of time.

[JPMNICK]

i feel like luck is the last word that should be used here. As Mike the Teacher said, it would be like someone jumping 10ft on a given day. that is a one time event. that is like Reggie hitting 3 homers in a game. that is more luck that 56 games in a row. yes, some of those games might have had a few things go his way, but he was just a great hitter. Ted Williams said he was the best ever. in the minors he had a 61 game hitting streak.

here is a numerical way to look at this. the #10 longest hitting streak is 36 games. thats almost 64% of Joe's total. now look at most homers in a season, it is 80%. the difference in numbers is staggering.

[King Hippos Bandaid]

57 Games in a row Aginst The Royals

[Don Stugots]

i think mudo can do it. he pitched a perfect game after all.

[Mike Teacher]

One stat Gould uses is the fact that the runners-up for the record aren't even close, and those straks themselves are amazing:

"Most records are only incrementally superior to runners-up; Roger Maris hit sixty-one homers in 1961, but Babe Ruth hit sixty in 1927 and fifty-nine in 1921, while Hank Greenberg (1938) and Jimmy Foxx (1932) both hit fifty-eight. But DiMaggio's fifty-six–game hitting streak is ridiculously and almost unreachably far from all challengers (Wee Willie Keeler and Peter Rose, both with forty-four, come second). Among sabremetricians — a contentious lot not known for agreement about anything—we find virtual consensus that DiMaggio's fifty-six–game hitting streak is the greatest accomplishment in the history of baseball, if not all modern sport.

=

Clostest thing I can think is when Bob Beamon long jumped 29' 2.5" in Mexico City in 1968. Cant remember the record before him, but he didnt break it, he destroyed it. And for how long? decades?

=

Gould's cites someone's calculation of the odds of it happening again, I'm not even sure of what it means exactly:

Purcell calculated that to make it likely (probability greater than 50 percent) that a run of even fifty games will occur once in the history of baseball up to now (and fifty-six is a lot more than fifty in this kind of league), baseball's rosters would have to include either four lifetime .400 batters or fifty-two lifetime .350 batters over careers of one thousand games. In actuality, only three men have lifetime batting averages in excess of .350, and no one is anywhere near .400 (Ty Cobb at .367, Rogers Hornsby at .358, and Shoeless Joe Jackson at .356). DiMaggio's streak is the most extraordinary thing that ever happened in American sports.

[Snacks]

i have no doubt the record will be broken eventually. luck, more than anything else will cause a long hitting streak. you hit the ball hard, and despite what many folks (most) believe, you don't really know where it's going. also, someone with limited patiece at the plate would help, ironically (think soriano). you don't want to be taking walks, they are as bad as an out when looking at a hit streak. you have precious few ABs and have to try at all of them. speaking of ABs being on a run machine isa essential, as you will get more ABs per game than on lesser teams. speed (suzuki) is not as important for this as it would be for someone making a run at .400, where the extra few infield hits will go a long way. [speaking of suzuki, i was not that impressed at his breaking the hits record. he got 700 ABs and only walked 49 times. yes, he hit .372, but if he was more selective i think he's have helped his team a lot more.]

hitting streaks are aberations. if cano moved up higher in the yankee order i could see him making a run at the record if he got lucky.

How much higher of an on base % do you think Ichiro would have if he was more "selective" he hit 372 plus his walks. Thats just nuts Ichiro does not need to be more selective to help his team. The guy couldnt do anymore then he has done. I have never heard anyone on any sports show, website ever say something like that.

The funny thing is you then go onto say a guy like Cano would have a chance if he moved up the order. Why? First he needs to walk more to help his team doesnt he? He has batted 296 in 05 with 16 walks and 342 with 18 walks in 06. Plus he wouldnt need to move up the order b/c in that line up he will still get 4 abs a game.

[sailor]

i feel like luck is the last word that should be used here. As Mike the Teacher said, it would be like someone jumping 10ft on a given day. that is a one time event. that is like Reggie hitting 3 homers in a game. that is more luck that 56 games in a row. yes, some of those games might have had a few things go his way, but he was just a great hitter. Ted Williams said he was the best ever. in the minors he had a 61 game hitting streak.

here is a numerical way to look at this. the #10 longest hitting streak is 36 games. thats almost 64% of Joe's total. now look at most homers in a season, it is 80%. the difference in numbers is staggering.

pure luck. if his hitting was so incredible, he's have a lifetime .400 record. he got hot over a period of time, but didn't even win the batting title that year! he hit like .409 over the streak and williams hit .406 over the season! he just happened to be LUCKY enough to get at least one hit each game for 56 games. he spaced his hits out. yes, it was an incredible outlier, but it was still just a statistical aberration/anomaly. if his hitting was so good and he was such an incredible hitter, why did he not continue his hot hitting for the rest of the year?

[sailor]

How much higher of an on base % do you think Ichiro would have if he was more "selective" he hit 372 plus his walks. Thats just nuts Ichiro does not need to be more selective to help his team. The guy couldnt do anymore then he has done. I have never heard anyone on any sports show, website ever say something like that.

The funny thing is you then go onto say a guy like Cano would have a chance if he moved up the order. Why? First he needs to walk more to help his team doesnt he? He has batted 296 in 05 with 16 walks and 342 with 18 walks in 06. Plus he wouldnt need to move up the order b/c in that line up he will still get 4 abs a game.

that's exactly my point that cano is not selective at all. moved up in the line-up he could get closer to 5 AB's a game. as for suzuki, he finished 2nd in OBP to melvin mora even though he out-batted mora by 30 some-odd points, so, yeah, i'd say suzuki would have helped his team more if he wasn't a selfish me-first record seeker.

[sailor]

i feel like luck is the last word that should be used here. As Mike the Teacher said, it would be like someone jumping 10ft on a given day. that is a one time event. that is like Reggie hitting 3 homers in a game. that is more luck that 56 games in a row. yes, some of those games might have had a few things go his way, but he was just a great hitter. Ted Williams said he was the best ever. in the minors he had a 61 game hitting streak.

here is a numerical way to look at this. the #10 longest hitting streak is 36 games. thats almost 64% of Joe's total. now look at most homers in a season, it is 80%. the difference in numbers is staggering.

this is the best summation i can come up with...if his streak was talent-driven, why was his lifetime average not much, much higher?

[Snacks]

that's exactly my point that cano is not selective at all. moved up in the line-up he could get closer to 5 AB's a game. as for suzuki, he finished 2nd in OBP to melvin mora even though he out-batted mora by 30 some-odd points, so, yeah, i'd say suzuki would have helped his team more if he wasn't a selfish me-first record seeker.

How could he have helped his team more? If he walked 100 times he would have had 50 less hits. Which who knows if he would have walked he may have struck out looking. But anyway he still would have been on base the same amount. You cant say a guy who walked 50 times in 1 year and hit .372 could have helped his team more by walking more. Its not like he batted 260 and waqlked 50 times. Then yes that type of guy could have helped his team more. But not a guy that hit almost .400. I cant believe we are even discussing a guy helping his team more when he hit .372. Let me guess his 262 hits broke a record and no player should go for records? Selfish the guy gives his body up to make great catches, his career avg is .330 (MLB) and he avg stealing over 35 bases a year. The guy is not selfish. So everytime a player goes for a record he is selfish?

[spadanko]

I don;t think it is a record that can ever be broken, but if anyone does it, it would be Ichiro. I like the Grady sizemore pick. I think he could do it too... crawford would have a shot too. But honestly, no way it's ever happeneing

[sailor]

How could he have helped his team more? If he walked 100 times he would have had 50 less hits. Which who knows if he would have walked he may have struck out looking. But anyway he still would have been on base the same amount. You cant say a guy who walked 50 times in 1 year and hit .372 could have helped his team more by walking more. Its not like he batted 260 and waqlked 50 times. Then yes that type of guy could have helped his team more. But not a guy that hit almost .400. I cant believe we are even discussing a guy helping his team more when he hit .372. Let me guess his 262 hits broke a record and no player should go for records? Selfish the guy gives his body up to make great catches, his career avg is .330 (MLB) and he avg stealing over 35 bases a year. The guy is not selfish. So everytime a player goes for a record he is selfish?

basically. and like i said, mora had a better OBP because he's a slightly more selective hitter. therefore, he helped his team slightly more.

here's a small sample of his rankings in these two categories (top 10 finishes only).
Hits
2001 AL-242-1
2002 AL-208-2
2003 AL-212-2
2004 AL-262-1
2005 AL-206-2
2006 AL-224-1

On-base %
2002 AL-.388-10
2004 AL-.414-2
Act-.376-26

so, we see, each of the past two years he was 1 or two in total hits, but only twice did he finish in the top 10 in OBP (wicked more important than average, unless you're a dinosaur). in fact, amongst active players suzuki is 26th (26th!!) in OBP. if you don't see that being more selective would help his team, you're deluding yourself. and yes, OBP is not the end-all stat, but he's averaging 10 homers a year, so getting on base is ALL that matters as far as his hitting is concerned.

edit: yes, i was talking hits and average, which are not entirely the same, but average is a measure of the ability to get hits. sorry for the mixing of measures, even though i don't think it has a significant impact.

[Snacks]

basically. and like i said, mora had a better OBP because he's a slightly more selective hitter. therefore, he helped his team slightly more.

here's a small sample of his rankings in these two categories (top 10 finishes only).
Hits
2001 AL-242-1
2002 AL-208-2
2003 AL-212-2
2004 AL-262-1
2005 AL-206-2
2006 AL-224-1

On-base %
2002 AL-.388-10
2004 AL-.414-2
Act-.376-26

so, we see, each of the past two years he was 1 or two in total hits, but only twice did he finish in the top 10 in OBP (wicked more important than average, unless you're a dinosaur). in fact, amongst active players suzuki is 26th (26th!!) in OBP. if you don't see that being more selective would help his team, you're deluding yourself. and yes, OBP is not the end-all stat, but he's averaging 10 homers a year, so getting on base is ALL that matters as far as his hitting is concerned.

edit: yes, i was talking hits and average, which are not entirely the same, but average is a measure of the ability to get hits. sorry for the mixing of measures, even though i don't think it has a significant impact.

see when you compare Ichiro to others the % part of on base % means dick because he gets on base more then any other player. So he helps his team more. The year your talking about he was on base 311 times compared to Mora who had the higher %. Mora was on base 253 times. I would say Ichiro gave his team more chances to score then Mora by 58 more times. Plus how many times does a Ichiro type player not get any credit for a sacrafice? Players like Ichiro bunt way more then a player like mora.

Ichiro is avg 225 hits a year and has never had less then 206. I will take a consistant Ichiro over any other 1 year high obp guy.

[mendyweiss]

A record that won't be broken for a looooong time-
3/30/2007 459 users ronfez.net online !!!

[sailor]

see when you compare Ichiro to others the % part of on base % means dick because he gets on base more then any other player. So he helps his team more. The year your talking about he was on base 311 times compared to Mora who had the higher %. Mora was on base 253 times. I would say Ichiro gave his team more chances to score then Mora by 58 more times. Plus how many times does a Ichiro type player not get any credit for a sacrafice? Players like Ichiro bunt way more then a player like mora.

Ichiro is avg 225 hits a year and has never had less then 206. I will take a consistant Ichiro over any other 1 year high obp guy.

i never said mora was better, just that that year he was better at ichiro at what ichiro should focus on, precisely because ichiro is more interested in getting hits (and hit records) than getting on base. it's silly to say total times on base is more important than OBP. ichiro got on base more because he had over 150 more at bats (see my argument that more at bats are one of the crucial elements of breaking joey d's record). as for bunting, a sacrifice bunt does not count as an official at bat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At_bat), so that point is moot (and ichiro's 704 at bats would say he ain't sacrifice bunting a lot).

[sailor]

A record that won't be broken for a looooong time-
3/30/2007 459 users ronfez.net online !!!

for REAL

[epo]

What about a guy like Soriano? Great speed, doesn't walk, hits at the top of the lineup?

[TheMojoPin]

What about a guy like Soriano? Great speed, doesn't walk, hits at the top of the lineup?

Not a chance. He's too much of a hacker.

[feralBoy]

BUT, you're only looking atthe chances of one player. what you need to look at is the chance of ANY player getting it. plus, what of people who have gotten 40-game hitting streaks? those have to be pretty freakin' unlikely as well, but they DO happen. it's all a matter of time.

Ok, so what I did was this. I figured out the changes of at least one person hitting a 56 game streak, in 100 years. I have the average batting average as .275. Each player got 4 at bats a game (which is actually alot higher than it should be), and there are 750 players in the league.

What I came up with is the chances of that happening is:
.1025%

I'm trying to figure out if I did it right, but the calc was this:
1 - (1 - .275)^4 = A = the chances of a player getting at least one hit in a game.
A^56 = B = The chances of a particular player getting a 56 game winning streak
1 - B = C = The chances of a particular player not getting a 56 game winning streak
C^750 = D = The chances of 750 players (the league) not getting a 56 game winning streak
D^100 = E = The changes of the league not getting a 56 game winning streak for 100 years.
1 - E = The changes of at least one person getting a 56 game winning streak in 100 years.

I have to think about that, but I think it's correct.

[SinA]

I'd start with a shovel and then... eh, I'd just stick with the shovel.

[cougarjake13]

man there's just too much math in my sports thread

[sailor]

Ok, so what I did was this. I figured out the changes of at least one person hitting a 56 game streak, in 100 years. I have the average batting average as .275. Each player got 4 at bats a game (which is actually alot higher than it should be), and there are 750 players in the league.

What I came up with is the chances of that happening is:
.1025%

I'm trying to figure out if I did it right, but the calc was this:
1 - (1 - .275)^4 = A = the chances of a player getting at least one hit in a game.
A^56 = B = The chances of a particular player getting a 56 game winning streak
1 - B = C = The chances of a particular player not getting a 56 game winning streak
C^750 = D = The chances of 750 players (the league) not getting a 56 game winning streak
D^100 = E = The changes of the league not getting a 56 game winning streak for 100 years.
1 - E = The changes of at least one person getting a 56 game winning streak in 100 years.

I have to think about that, but I think it's correct.

my math is WAAAAAY too out of shape to work on this one. :) (one possible flaw in your math is it looks like you're looking at the odds of hitting in a particular 56 games, ie. hitting safely in games 1-56 of the season. you would also have to look at 2-57, 3-58...107-162. therefor, there would be 107 possible 56 game streaks per player/season, rather than just one. {if i'm wrong, well, there ya go. :) } )

edit: actually, since mlb lets streaks carry over, there would be 162 possible streak start dates, not 107.

[sailor]

my math is WAAAAAY too out of shape to work on this one. :) (one possible flaw in your math is it looks like you're looking at the odds of hitting in a particular 56 games, ie. hitting safely in games 1-56 of the season. you would also have to look at 2-57, 3-58...107-162. therefor, there would be 107 possible 56 game streaks per player/season, rather than just one. {if i'm wrong, well, there ya go. :) } )

edit: actually, since mlb lets streaks carry over, there would be 162 possible streak start dates, not 107.

fuck, the edit didn't show up, so i quoted myself...now it shows up. i fuckin' stink.

[Marc with a c]

can somebody lock this before sailor goes a beautiful mind on us?

[sailor]

can somebody lock this before sailor goes a beautiful mind on us?

i swear it wasn't there!! you believe me, right? right?? RIGHT!?! *whimpers* right?

[Kevin]

i swear it wasn't there!! you believe me, right? right?? RIGHT!?! *whimpers* right?

THE LITTLE GIRL NEVER AGES, SAILOR.. NEVER AGES!!!

[high fly]

What would it take to beat DiMaggio?

He's dead, right?
So it wouldn't take much and he's not going to fight back.
I guess you could beat him with a ruler or a car antenna or maybe a yardstick, depending on how the embalming took.
There could be a problem with splashback, so you might want something with a longer handle on it like a shovel or maybe a 2x4.
You can get 2x4's up to something like 16 feet long.

How much damage you looking to do?