Talk:Quadruple-double

A previous version of this page had a 'near misses' section that had references to people (and teams) that didn't play basketball. I removed the entire section. 130.207.3.178 19:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hakeem

Hakeem did it twice, he did it on March 3 of 1990 as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.17.107 (talk • contribs)

I haven't looked to see if it was there or not when you commented, but that game is documented in the "Near Misses" section of the article - he actually had just 9 assists after the game was reviewed. - Slow Graffiti 00:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the article: Hakeem Olajuwon, March 3, 1990, Houston vs. Golden State; 29 points, 18 rebounds, 9 assists, 11 blocks. The initial boxscore read 10 assists, but the figure was corrected by the league

Here's the deal, what I've heard from the dude at basketball-reference.com... not a quote

First, the initial box score did NOT show 10 assists. The initial showed 9. Since it was so close, the Rockets went back to check the tape to see if an assist was missed. After watching the tape, they decided he had 10 assists so they changed it. However, the league said they could not change it after the fact. The actual box score still reads 29, 18, 10, and 11, at least from the data basketball-reference.com has but it is not an official quadruple double. His actual career stats, I believe, reflect him getting 10 assists that game. Aug 13, 2006, Geoff

Lack of Sources

I added 2 unsourced tags, which I hope will be removed one at a time. The first tag is for the first section. For the article for each player (except for Alvin Robinson), I have provided a source saying that the player achieved a quadruple double. However, sources are still needed for the specific stats and game.

I added the second tag because neither the "near-miss" designation, nor individual stats, nor game specifics (X vs. Y on DATE) are provided. Also I think I separate source for the revision of box score would also be helpful. Thanks. Ufwuct 19:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go to basketball-reference.com. It has tons of box scores, definitely including Hakeem's quadruple double, and Hakeem's near miss quadruple double (though, as I stated above, it actually reads 10 assists which is in fact a quadruple double). Geoff

The article is completely sourced as of now. Quadzilla99 08:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting Stuff

Alvin Robertson's quadruple double is, by far, the most impressive. First, 10 or more steals in one game has only happened 16 times EVER (17 if you include AIs 10 in the playoffs). Add a triple double, not nearly as rare but still pretty rare for most players, in the same game and that's amazing.

Hakeem's two quadruple doubles, basically, were both in the same month.

As far as quintuple doubles go, Andrei Kirilenko is the closest, in one sense. As far as I know, no player other than him has ever recorded more than 5 each of points, rebounds, assists, steals, and blocks all in one game. He has recorded 5 or more a few times and one time even recorded at least 6 in all five stats in the same game. Again, this data is from basketball-reference.com. The thing is, he doesn't have all box scores as far back as 73-74 when steals and blocks were started. But, of all the box scores he does have, Andrei is the only one with five sixes. This is the link to all "five-by-fives", as they are called on other sites I've found, from the data he has which probably contains pretty much all actual occurrences since 73-74 but might be missing a few I guess.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/friv/five_by_five.html

I found a link which says Kirilenko is the only person to ever get 6 of all five stats in one game. They call them "five-by-fives", that is getting 5 of everything. It also says he's the only person to have more than one (3), other than Hakeem, who has 6.

http://www.kirilenko.ru/index.shtml?lang=eng&chapter=andrey&chap_id=2&page=5

One amazing thing, I have yet to mention. It brings this all together! Hakeem's near miss quadruple double was also a five-by-five. He had 5 steals too.

Geoff

Sources

Geoff: You're right; this is interesting stuff, especially the links regarding Kililenko. If you happen to know the links from basketball-reference.com, feel free to add them (be bold). Otherwise, I'll check out the website and find the sources myself...eventually. Thanks again. Ufwuct 18:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aight, I went ahead and added sources for two of the quadruple doubles and all five of the listed near misses. I also added a sixth near miss with source. If Mullins' 3 steals short is a near miss, then Robinson's 3 blocks short should be as well. I also gave the date for Shaq's near miss. But honestly, I bet there are at least several more where they are only 3 total stat points away. I'm sure Hakeem or Robinson had games with 10 or more poitns, boards, and blocks, and then 7 assists.

Alright, just to see, I just went to basketball-reference.com to the list of all triple doubles since the beginning of the 87-88 season. I scanned through, using the convention that a near-miss is missing by only 3 total stat points. Thus, since it's a triple double, I simply scanned for a 7 in the other 2 lines. I found six more of those, two which were only 2 stat points away. I scanned by sight so it's quite possible I missed one but I don't think so since I checked twice. I'll add those now. I made the section in order by 1. Stat points short of quadruple double 2. Date. I also added a note defining a near miss as being within 3 total stats of a quadruple double.

As far as Hakeem's near miss, I looked all over the internet and couldn't find any one giving a verifiable reason. I found a few places which say what this says, that an assist was taken away, but they're all things such as people's blogs, not exactly reliable. I only found one place which gave the reason I gave above, but of course it was a post in a forum by the dude who runs basketball-reference.com, I believe directly quoting a question I emailed him a few months ago, "My question is this: Did the NBA actually take away the extra assist, or did they just say that Olajuwon's performance was not an "official" quadruple-double." The way this guy explains the situation is

"On March 3, 1990, Hakeem Olajuwon fell one assist shy of a quadruple-double. After the game, the Rockets reviewed the game tape and "found" another assist for Olajuwon. A day or so later, the NBA stepped in and said that the Rockets could not change a box score after the fact. "

Here's the link to that http://sonicscentral.com/apbrmetrics/viewtopic.php?t=610&view=previous&sid=34e81c74dd311b08e9b9261133237a09

Also, I'm curious about your quote above. "For the article for each player (except for Alvin Robinson), I have provided a source saying that the player achieved a quadruple double." I didn't see any sources or citations at all in the entire article before I added them. Am I just missing something?

Geoff

Redirection pages

Hey, I don't know if I'll start a five-by-fives page or not. But, I noticed that if you search for quintuple double, it redirects you to the quadruple double page. Do you know how to change that so it would redirect to another page? Geoff

Dates

Maybe it's just me but having every single thing blue that could possibly blue seems a bit much. Why on earth does every single year and every single date need to have a link? It has nothing to do with this article. It seems to me that the best way to do things of this sort is put links for things you would actually go to. But, I'm certainly not going to read about quadruple doubles and see Hakeem did one in 1990 and think, "Oh, 1990 is interesting, let's check that out." The only reason I'd ever check out such a random link from a basketball article is if I were bored and I'd probably just end up wasting time reading about crap. Now, having the names of the players and also the names of the teams with links, this makes sense. I'm reading about basketball, specifically about the players. It makes sense that I might want to jump to the player page more than anything. The team pages are okay I guess, not as overboard as the dates. Am I alone here?

The best thing might be this. The entire date and the team names are all one link to the box score. That is, all of

March 29, 1990, Houston vs. Milwaukee

is a link to the box scores. Really, this makes the most sense to me. First of all, you need all of that info to describe the game that is played so it would make sense that such words would have a link to the game it is referring to. Also, if I were reading this page, the only real things I'd ever consider wanting to check out are the box scores and the player pages to see their stats, though even those are kind of bad because I want to see their stats which I'd get a way better version of on any of 15 basketball sites. But, those are the types of links that make sense. People on here are going to know what basketball is, they are going to know the teams. If they really care they can search for the teams. I just think in general some people on here seem to go way overboard on what they link. I could link the word link and a million others because there just might be a page but it's absolutely irrelevant to this article.

Geoff

I'll probably change this in a day or two if no one cares enough to read the discussion or respond. I think the changes are for the best any way.

Near miss?

I'm of the opinion that the following "near misses" should be removed:

   * Alvin Robertson, March 18, 1989, San Antonio vs. Utah; 27 points, 11 rebounds, 10 assists, 7 steals.
   * Lionel Simmons, November 26, 1991, Sacramento vs. Phoenix; 10 points, 14 rebounds, 10 assists, 7 blocks.
   * David Robinson, January 11, 1994, San Antonio vs. Minnesota; 27 points, 12 rebounds, 10 assists, 8 blocks.
   * David Robinson, February 8, 1994, San Antonio vs. Washington Bullets; 31 points, 14 rebounds, 10 assists, 7 blocks.
   * Chris Mullin, February 19, 1997, Golden State vs. Boston; 19 points, 12 assists, 10 rebounds, 7 steals.
   * Mookie Blaylock, April 14, 1998, Atlanta vs. Philadelphia; 14 points, 8 rebounds, 11 assists, 10 steals.
   * Kevin Garnett, December 14, 1999, Minnesota vs. Atlanta; 22 points, 15 rebounds, 10 assists, 7 steals.
   * Mike Bibby, April 2, 2000, Vancouver vs. Dallas; 14 points, 11 rebounds, 11 assists, 7 steals.
   * Shaquille O'Neal, June 8, 2001, NBA Finals, LA Lakers vs. Philadelphia; 28 points, 20 rebounds, 9 assists, 8 blocks.
   * Tim Duncan, June 15, 2003, NBA Finals, San Antonio vs. New Jersey; 21 points, 20 rebounds, 10 assists, 8 blocks.

All of these require two or more events to become quadruple-doubles. Some even need more in two categories. In my opinion, a near miss would be where someone needed ONE more block, or ONE more steal. Needing to get three more blocks or steals isn't even close. Cjosefy 16:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:Cjosefy here. In fact, I'd just as soon have the entire "Near miss" section removed . . . but if it stays, I'd rather have the qualification standard be that of falling short by only one unit of a particular category rather than three. What do other people think about this? Delete the section? Modify the section? Leave it as it is? — Myasuda (talk) 15:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The whole idea is that it sums up to within 3 of the double figures in all required stats. Perhaps accounts with 7 steals or 7 blocks only could be removed, and basically required 8+ in each of the stats, but that's about where the line should be drawn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Illadelph halflife (talk • contribs) 18:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disregarding the comment from confirmed TyrusThomas4lyf sock-puppet User:Illadelph halflife, do we have consensus on leaving the section but removing all entries but those falling short by one statistical unit? — Myasuda (talk) 20:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is absolutely retarded to minimize it to missing by one point. What is wrong with 3? The list was fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.34.9.214 (talk) 02:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources Removed?

Why were the sources removed? Quadzilla99 23:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just reinserted them. Quadzilla99 23:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quintuple doubles

I know it's hard to prove a negative, but a statement saying "no player has even recorded double digits in each of the five major statistical categories in different games of their career" sounds like someone would have to do some very extensive digging to be certain of this somewhat obscure stat. Is there a source for this? Roehl Sybing 05:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's been removed as Robinson and Olajuwon probably both had double digit steal games in their career in additions to double figures in points, rebounds, blocks, and assists. Robinson and perticularly Olajuwon were in the top ten in steals many times throughout their careers so it's very likely one or both of them had double digit steal games.Quadzilla99 15:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to many

There are entire companies devoted to nothing more than sports statistics. People have already done the digging. They can probably just type in a certain query into one of their computers and within a few minutes find out that this has never happened. That's probably where this came from. If there were a source, that would be nice. However, if I wanted to (and I don't), I could probably verify this in an hour. This comes from the fact that 10 steals has only happened about 20 or 30 times ever since steals was recorded as a stat, and some of those people doing it have done it multiple times. You can easily find a list of people who have 10 steals if you search the internet for a bit. So, all you need to do is find career highs in blocks for 20 people and none of them will have 10 (if this is true... since it's definitely not points or rebounds... could be assists that some one falls short in but steals and blocks are the hardest). 10 steals has only happened 9 times in the last 18 years, not including this year. The highest ever is 12.

As far as the links, it's dumb to have 17 different links when all but a few of them are just game logs from one site. Put one link for basketball reference and leave it how I had it, where you can click on the number and it takes you to the game log. You don't need to list every single outside internet URL that can be accessed from the page. It's way too much. That's probably why they were removed and you probably wasted your time putting them back on because it's dumb.

As far as near misses, it's something that has only been done 4 times and it's even rare for people to get close to getting it so I think it's something that's interesting. If this is actually an encyclopedia of knowledge, it's dumb to say some knowledge is unneeded, especially when a page is so small. If all you care about is actual quadruple doubles, then just look at the first section of the article and you're fine. If others care about a gathering of stats that probably isn't on the net anywhere else, then they can get it here.

-Geoff —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 00:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

5 stats in double figures

i was just wondering if anyone has ever had 5 stats in double figures. anyone know? -thanks

5 stats response

If you read above, it seems as though no one has ever had all double figures in all five stats in their entire career. That is, no one has ever had a game of at least 10 points, a game with at least 10 boards, a game with at least 10 assists, a game with at least 10 steals, and a game with at least 10 blocks in their entire career... 5 separate games or one game. I do not know for sure if this is true but it would not surprise me. It is very rare to get 10 blocks or 10 steals, extremely rare to get 19 steals. I found a website that shows the most steals in a game and it lists only 19 times ever where someone got 10 steals in a game (well 20 if you count AI doing it once in playoffs) and the best EVER in one game is only 11. So, this one thing has happened only 19 times ever. And, these are usually very quick players. So, the odds of these players being very tall men who gets a lot of blocks is pretty darn low. Either way, it has definitely never happened in a game where someone had double figures in all five stats.

There is a analogous stat sort of which I've seen called a five-by-five. It's where someone gets at least 5 in all 5 categories (points, rebounds, assists, steals, and blocks) in one game. This has happened many times, though not hundreds or anything. Below is a link to all instances of this since the 1986-87 season I believe, found on basketball-reference.com. The guy has box scores of all NBA games from that season on but none before, and has searched through them (with a computer) and found only 14 instances. So, there are also all games from 1973-74 through 1985-86 where there might be more. But, the odds are pretty low of there being many since there are not many people who can get 5 steals and 5 blocks in a game, let alone also getting 5 boards and assists (points is by far the easiest overall). His list has 14 instances, 6 by Hakeem, and 3 by Andrei Kirilenko. Also, both are tied for the most of all stats in a game... that is both have had a six-by-five game, a game with at least six of all five stats in one game. Okay, I'm not entirely sure that's the record, but I think I saw that one time. Hakeem's is more impressive statistically, but I believe Kirilenko did it in regulation whereas Hakeem did not. Speculatively, Marcus Camby seems most likely to get another one of these. AK was most likely probably, but he has not had very good stats at all this year. If this keeps up, he might not get another in his career. Camby has been close two or three times this year, once being only one steal short I believe.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/friv/five_by_five.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.56.112.75 (talk) 03:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Jason Kidd

Turnovers don't count, so his recent game is not any where near a quadruple double. So, I'm taking it down. Points, rebounds, assists, steals, blocks... that's it. Five possible stats.

Geoff

Career Quintuple Double

By the way, it's easy to see that no one has had a career quintuple double.

http://nbahoopsonline.com/History/Leagues/NBA/moststealsinagame.html

http://nbahoopsonline.com/History/Leagues/NBA/mostblocksinagame.html

I just looked at both lists and no names appear on both. That is, no one has ever had even 10 blocks sometime in their career and 9 steals some other time. Also, for specific players, www.nba.com has actual career highs on all the stats. Though, this only works for more recent players.

I'm going to put this on the five-by-five page. You can put it here too or instead. I don't know what's best.

StatisticsMan 17:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

College Basketball?

Is this article just for the NBA? I remember that Marcus Hatten of St. John's had a game where he had a near miss of a quadruple double.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/boxscore?gameId=230490183

Can we put this on the page? I know it's not within 3 stats, but since a college basketball game is only 40 minutes long (as opposed to 48 minutes for the NBA), I feel that this is more than deserving of inclusion. 167.127.24.69 18:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hakeem getting 2 quadruple-doubles

Hakeem did not have 2 quadruple doubles. Leave the page how it was. I don't know exactly what happened but I've heard the story and basically it's a technicality. This is what I've heard, which is already in the discussion probably. At the end of the game he was 1 assist shy. So, the Rockets went back over the tape and saw that he actually had 10 assists and gave it to him and called it a quadruple double. But, the league said they could not change it after the fact. I have no source for this but was told this story by the guy from basketball-reference.com. He is not sure of it either I do not think. Any way, point is no one considers it a quadruple-double as far as basketball historians. Search all over the internet and any good site will list 4 quadruple-doubles and then people in forums will talk about Hakeem getting 2. That's not a reliable source.

StatisticsMan 19:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop removing the unofficial quadruple doubles

There seems to be some unilateral removal of Wilt's two unofficial quadruple doubles. As least the 1st one must stay, because it is verifiable fact, meeting WP:V and not offending WP:NOR. The source for the Game 1 (24p/32r/13a/12b, I think) is the Wilt: Larger than Life book, which I own myself, a bulletproof source as of WP:RS. To the ppl who consistently hack out this info, state your reasons here why you think verifiable fact should not be included. —Onomatopoeia (talk) 16:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This is a sourced edit that emphasizes the unofficial nature of the stat, and since it sheds at least some light on the era before tabulation of steals and blocked shots (and therefore prior to the possible attainment of a quadruple-double) it is of encyclopedic interest. The only request I might make is that it would be worth mentioning the stat tabulator (Harvey Pollack I would guess?). — Myasuda (talk) 18:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you cannot possibly honor something that is not officially recorded. You are contradicting the whole nature of SPECULATION. See the speculation section. There is no possible way of telling whether the official scorer was even recording this, and let's say that he/she DID record it. They were still not trained in judging what is and is not a blocked shot because it was NOT A STATISTIC that was kept by the NBA. Was it anyone's official job to record blocks? No. Does this leave overwhelming speculation? Yes. There is no way of even knowing if they were doing an honest job with their stat keeping - perhaps the player was playing for the home team's scorekeeper. In addition, you cannot honor one supposed quadruple double found in history without also having proven that it is the only existing case. We know for FACT that there are only 4 quadruple double in NBA history. Who knows if there would be other unofficial quads?--Illadelph halflife (talk) 03:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't revert until there's consensus here. And let's hear from someone who is not a sock-puppet of banned user TyrusThomas4lyf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). — Myasuda (talk) 03:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, questionable content should not be ADDED until there is consensus. Blind accusations won't get you very far.--Illadelph halflife (talk) 03:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is about the equivalent of saying that player A made 18 steals in a game in 1965. Oh, but it wasn't officially kept. Would you try to enter such information into the NBA record book? I think not.--Illadelph halflife (talk) 03:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, your edits clearly show that you are a sock of TyrusThomas4lyf. You have been reverted and blocked so many times, so why don't you give it a rest. Chris! _ct 03:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion closed. User:Illadelph halflife is blocked for editwarring. Chris! _ct 04:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but restructure?

I think the Chamberlain stats line should stay in. Personally, I think that combining Unofficial section into the Speculation section into one larger section and giving it a more neutral title than Speculation would improve the article. I'm trying to think of a section title, maybe along the lines of "Before blocks and assists were kept officially", but that's cumbersome.

I'm holding off on boldly adding that to the article because 1) I want a better section title first and 2) I want the edit history to cool down a bit; I'd rather wait a while to see if there's agreement before making this change. —C.Fred (talk) 04:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do like the idea of combining the unofficial and speculation sections. In fact, I was thinking along those lines myself . . . but you beat me to it. As for a title, maybe we could just go with "Prior to 1973-74" and leave it to the section itself explain the significance of the year. Thoughts? — Myasuda (talk) 15:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Efficient and relatively neutral. I like. —C.Fred (talk) 22:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Socket set

I'm new to this page, and I've been burned once before. User:Cyberdyne systems reverts, and refuses to discuss, and has made virtually no other edits save the ones he's made to this page. Does that sound quite familiar to anyone else?

I don't want to edit war, so I'll leave this for editors more familiar with the case. Redrocket (talk) 01:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And today the same edit was made by an IP. I've protected the article from new/anon users. If they'd like to reopen discussion, they can do so on the talk page, but enough of the edit warring on the article. —C.Fred (talk) 16:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet edits, yet again

Another set of anon IPs is making the same edits of banned user TyrusThomas4lyf. I've made changes to the article, but from now on, I'm just going to roll them back. As per removed on sight, edits by banned users should be reverted on sight, regardless of merit.

Since rollback doesn't use edit summaries, I wanted to make that clear to anyone else who also edits this page. I don't feel there's any need for discussion in edit summaries to a user who obviously knows what he's doing, and has been banned multiple times. Redrocket (talk) 02:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected the page for three days. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]