Talk:Quadruple-double

message: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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)
replies: text: The problem is, the source we've got says 10. Ten assists are verifiable. Therefore, the article should say 10 and count it as a quadruple-double unless a reliable source can be found that says otherwise. —C.Fred (talk) 16:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

text: What's unclear about it? Both statements make it pretty clear that the NBA doesn't recognize the "fifth quadruple-double" as an official one. —C.Fred (talk) 22:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hakeem 

message: 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)
replies: text: The article is completely sourced as of now. Quadzilla99 08:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lack of Sources

message: 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)
thread_title: Sources

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Near miss? 

message: Why were the sources removed? Quadzilla99 23:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just reinserted them. Quadzilla99 23:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources Removed?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Quintuple doubles 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Response to many 

message: 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)
thread_title:  5 stats response 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Career Quintuple Double 

message: 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)
thread_title:  College Basketball? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Hakeem getting 2 quadruple-doubles

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Don't revert until there's consensus here.  And let's hear from someone who is not a sock-puppet of banned user . — Myasuda (talk) 03:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Efficient and relatively neutral. I like. —C.Fred (talk) 22:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Stop removing the unofficial quadruple doubles

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Efficient and relatively neutral. I like. —C.Fred (talk) 22:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Keep but restructure?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Socket set 

message: 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)
replies: text: Semi-protected the page for three days. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sockpuppet edits, yet again 

message: For the uninitiated . . . note the common edit fixation of the following: 
*Banned user : See 
*Blocked TyrusThomas4lyf sock-puppet : See 
*Soon to-be-blocked TyrusThomas4lyf sock-puppet : See 
Also note the same juvenile vulgarity:  from TyrusThomas4lyf vs  and  from 75.34.9.214.  More examples of invective via the edit summaries and edit warring can be seen at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TyrusThomas4lyf.  
And a quick scan of the article history shows how this article attracts so many other confirmed and suspected TyrusThomas4lyf socks: 
*
*
*
*
*
If nothing else, this article serves as a useful way of ferreting out TyrusThomas4lyf socks. In all likelihood, this sock-list will continue to grow over the coming months and years.  — Myasuda (talk) 03:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nicely put. As a reminder, the wikipedia policy is to revert the edits of banned users on sight, regardless of merit. As I've stated before in edit summaries, I'm going to issue a warning the first time I see the next sock, then start just using rollback to save time. Socks should also be reported promptly, also. Redrocket (talk) 04:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Identifying edits by banned user TyrusThomas4lyf sock-puppets on ''this'' article 

message: I've talked about this twice earlier in the discussion but things were changed contrary to what I said without any extra discussion.  And, they are so far back, I can't rely on people reading them if I edit back up there, so new section.
Hakeem has only one official quadruple double.  In the first section of this discussion, someone replied to my post of around 2 years ago and said they think his "first" one should stay since we have a verifiable source.  But, if you go to any webpage that is reputable, it will say there are only 4 official quadruple doubles in NBA history and Hakeem's "first" one will not be in there.  So, just because we have one source that disagrees with many others does not mean it is reputable.  So, I think his first quadruple double should be removed and put in near misses with a note about the game (which is how I had it a while back and no one ever discussed it, other than me, simply changed it).
Again, the story I heard was from the guy who runs basketball-reference.com and when he told me, he was not 100% sure on the actuality of the story.  I'd love to know from a verifiable source what really happened.  But, what I heard was they did the whole game and Hakeem had 9 assists OFFICIALLY.  Being so close, the team thought they would go back and change it to see if there was one missed.  They found 10, so they changed the box score.  The NBA said they could not change it after the fact.  So, 9 assists, from this story, is the official stat.  10 is not. 
Further, the NBAs official webpage only lists one.  The quote is
"Recorded the third quadruple-double in NBA history, with 18 points, 16 rebounds, 11 blocked shots and 10 assists, against the Milwaukee Bucks on 3/29/90" from his player profile page on NBA.com,
http://www.nba.com/playerfile/hakeem_olajuwon/index.html
Note that if 3/3/90 had been one, that would have been third and 3/29/90 would have been fourth.
I'm not going to just change this without discussing it like others have in the past, even though it was the other way first.  However, if no one adds to this discussion, I will change it some day.
I would like to add one thing, though, that makes this a very interesting thing.  NBA.com's webpage says he has 234 assists in the 1989-90 season.  So does basketball-reference.com's.  And, if you add up all his game logs for that season from basketball-reference, it adds up to 234.  So, what is interesting is the NBA apparently will give him that assist for his career stats.  But, it will not count it as an official quadruple double.  That is why I would love to have more information about this, though clearly it should be listed as only one quadruple double officially.
StatisticsMan (talk) 21:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd love to find a source that backs up the story. However, here's my though: let's make that particular near miss the lead paragraph of the Near misses section. Then the others can be a list. I'm going to be bold and make that edit momentarily. —C.Fred (talk) 21:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I finally found a source for this (which I put in the article), although it does not confirm all the details of this story.  So, I rewrote the section to agree with what the source says.  However, the source specifically says the NBA did do a press release for this when they took away the 1 assist.  So, this means it is maybe likely that a source with more information can be found, perhaps from a Houston newspaper within a few days of the game??? StatisticsMan (talk) 18:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hakeem's Two Quadruple Doubles (for the third time) 

message: The near miss list is condensed to where only players who missed by a single stat—a triple-double with nine of the fourth item—are listed. There was prior discussion here, and that was the result reached. Chris Paul got a triple-double this week with seven assists, leaving him three away. Should we list him, and if we do, how wide does that let the floodgates open? I think we should not list Paul and only list players with 9 of the fourth stat. —C.Fred (talk) 01:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur —Chris! ct 01:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Now, Chris Paul has 2 games with a triple double and 7 steals.  But, I agree that it should not be put in the article.  I do like the current way where only if you miss by 1 stat do you get on the near misses.  Otherwise, the list becomes very long and less special.  And, if you are 2 or 3 steals away, that is actually still very far away.  The best NBA players in regards to steals usually only get this number of steals in 40 minutes of playing time.  So, to get that many more, on top of 7 for instance, is still a long way off.  And, the NBA record for steals is only 12.  I believe I saw that no one has even had 10 steals in a game for many years. StatisticsMan (talk) 18:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Near misses and Chris Paul 

message: i noted in larry's near miss that it was achieved in only three quarters of play, as he chose to sit out the fourth quarter alltogether given the celtics were in no danger of losing at that mark, and as such werent in need of him in the game. 
i feel this is a very important and relevant note, as all of the other both near misses and quadruple doubles, were acheived over the entire length of regulation and some with overtime quarters played as well, and doing so in only three quarters of play is easily the most impressive feat listed here, and should be appropriately acknowledged, as these lists serve in part as a record and talley of rarity, impressiveness, and shear difficulty of achievement of the triple double. – l3g3nd24.176.145.22 (talk) 05:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a source that he sat out the fourth quarter? If it can't be verified, it will need to be removed from the article. —C.Fred (talk) 14:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What about this: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/basketball/nba/1998/bird/timeline/index2.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.230.119.248 (talk) 23:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. Added it as a reference. —C.Fred (talk) 23:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  larry bird has the most impressive "near miss" or quadrupule double