Talk:Basketball five-by-five/Archive 1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Note:This is from an archived version of the old talk page from before the page move, which was done incorrectly. Do not alter it.
[edit] Talk
Please don't delete any of this. I just started it 4/16/07. I have work left to do. If you want to clean things up, feel free. I'll find out all the records for the things I have in the records section. Some, I just need to figure out first. But, they are all things I plan on doing so please leave these.
Second, I got most of my info from basketball-reference.com which has a page on five-by-fives. However, it lists ONLY five-by-fives from the 1986-87 season onward. Thus, for the 1973-74 season up until 1985-86, there are no stats. I have no idea how many five-by-fives occurred during this time, so some records may be wrong but as this is the best info available, I say leave it and leave a note saying this. Then, if there is new info at some point (some one feel free to find it), it can be added. One thing is Andrei and Hakeem ARE the only players ever to get a five-by-six as this is referenced on an espn.com article.
- I'm not so sure about this article, and I'm a big stats guy myself. I think you need to add a little more history on it, and definately add some sources. Right now, it seems to be of very little importance. I myself, have never really heard the term five-by-five. Zodiiak 03:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
How about this... You responded by saying you don't know about this article and it needs work... and you responded to my saying "I'm not done yet, please leave this up and I'll work on it" in essence.
Since you've never heard of the five-by-five, here's a list of other sites which mention the five-by-five... http://english.people.com.cn/200601/27/eng20060127_238792.html
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20070115/ai_n17129206
http://kfba.net/Articles/102997.aspx
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,660195154,00.html
http://www.rotonation.com/?cat=3
http://www.hoopsworld.com/article_17560.shtml
http://www.hoopsworld.com/cgi-bin/news/exec/view.cgi?archive=36&num=10020
http://jazzfanz.com/newzItem.php?id=21899
http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=9718356&sid=9030e478a7d8ae10d9c89e04b6b558b5
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=383492&format=print
And how about this article from SportingNews.com which appeared well over a year ago http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=51669 which states very nicely for me in this discussion "You've heard of triple doubles and 20-20s, but Jazz F Andrei Kirilenko is making the "five-by-five" part of the NBA lexicon."
And, honestly, the first time I heard of five-by-five was in a Wiki article on Andrei Kirilenko. So, go delete that if it's not an acceptable term.
Like I said in my first paragraph, I just started the page today. Leave it alone and I'll make it better or make it better yourself. I don't have time to search all over the internet, read lots of articles and get all of it together from nothing in one day. I have other things to do. I will do it over time. The article has potential and will be good when I'm finished. That's why I put in the whole two paragraphs to say leave this alone because I'm not finished. It will have more info than the quadruple double page probably, which doesn't have much, and a lot of what it does have is from me putting it up. And, a five-by-five is more common than a quadruple double but still rare enough to be interesting. And, with Marcus Camby and Andrei Kirilenko playing now, it is possible that more will happen soon (though AK's stats suck recently... Camby was within 1 steal of one earlier this year, and within 2 total stat points of one two other times this year). Also, Josh Smith and Ben Wallace have been within 1 stat point at least once each in the last two seasons.
By the way, this article in SportingNews gives me info I've never seen... it tells me 1. Andrei and Hakeem are the ONLY two people to do it multiple times 2. Only seven other people have ever done it. I have five of them on the list. That means, this list contains all but two five-by-fives of all time, one each by two different players... so find out who they are if you want to make this a better page. All I can say is they happened sometime between 1973-74 to 1985-86. I guess, there could be another Hakeem five-by-five in his first couple seasons as well. StatisticsMan
- Why are you snapping at me? I simply said you should include some more information and history on it so that you can raise the relevance and importance of the article. As it stands right now, it doesn't seem noteworthy, which is why I commented. Random facts and information do not make an article, which is why I was giving you some suggestions on improving it. Zodiiak 21:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't really snapping. But, you said things such as "I'm not so sure about this article." This is a statement that sounds more like the whole idea in general is bad. It does not indicate "This article could be improved by...". You then said it seemed to be very unimportant, a lot of that seemed to be based on the fact that you had never heard of it. Add on the fact that I just stated I was planning on working on it (in fact had just started it that day) and your comments are not at all how you just categorized (you giving me suggestions on improving the article) them but more like "This is a dumb idea and this page should probably be deleted." So, I was pointing out 1. Just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean it's important and 2. It's important to some people even if it's not to you and 3. Why it is important.
All in all, if this really is an online encyclopedia, then a grouping of stats IS a valid article, especially when this grouping of stats is an extension of other stats (double-double, etc.) Otherwise, this so-called encyclopedia is incomplete. And, if this article isn't any good, then the ones for double-double, triple-double, and quadruple-double (especially the last) aren't that good. For the most part, the only thing they have over this one is that they are more well known terms. The articles are for the most part pretty short. The quadruple-double one has very little info other than stats. But, if those articles are good, then this is the logical next step since a quintuple-double has never happened, nor has any one been anywhere close.
Hakeem was once 1 assist and 5 steals away. I'm guessing no one has been closer. But, 5 steals is a LONG way. There have only been, I think, like 16 times ever where someone has gotten 10+ steals. It's amazingly hard in itself. Now, even it's mostly a given that someone gets 10 points, the odds of a guy quick enough to get 10 steals also getting 10 rebounds isn't that high since they're probably not very tall. But, way, way, way more difficult would be someone getting 10 blocks. In fact, I believe the best ever is someone getting 7 of each in a game which was by Hakeem (listed on this page) who was one of the best defenders ever and it was a monster game even for him and it was in double OT. And, on top of all this stuff which is likely never to happen (a quadruple double in those four stats), they also have to get 10 assists which probably happens a few times a year tops except for point guards. So, it's likely that a quintuple-double has never happened and never will happen. The five-by-five is a stat analagous but accessible. Yet, it is still very rare so it is interesting. It's one that may not be that well known now but could easily be in the near future with players like AK, Marcus Camby, Josh Smith, maybe even Ben Wallace, one of whom probably will get one in the next year or so.
I could make this article longer by discussing things just to make the article longer. For instance, I could repeat talk already on the quadruple-double page and say "Stats for steals and blocks were not kept until 1973-74 season so it is very possible that players such as Wilt and Russell achieved many five-by-fives, especially since Wilt averaged 30, 20, and 8 twice (or whatever he averaged) for entire seasons." That would be some history sort of but it's already on a very closely related page. And, it's more like non-history. Beside that, there just isn't a ton of information on this stuff. The internet probably doesn't have all the info on this stuff. To find the complete list of five-by-fives, I, or someone else, will probably need to look through some basketball encyclopedia which lists box scores of past games... if such a thing even exists... and I'm talking about looking through thousands of box scores. Perhaps the only people in the world who have access to these stats are stat companies like Elias and sports writers who can get the stats from the companies. I don't know. But, I will get together all the info I can find on the subject and it will be an article that is interesting to people who care about stats as much as I do. And, it will be the logical extension to the double-, triple-, and quadruple-double and those articles, as a group, are incomplete if this page is not completed.
You might be a stats guy, but I'm StatisticsMan
- Not exactly sure what you hoped to achieve with that rant. I guess you're trying to show that you have researched the topic, which I don't doubt, nor did I ever believe the article to be "A dumb idea," as you carelessly assumed. I simply mentioned a few ways for you to improve the article, because Right now, it seemed of very little importance. This being wikipedia, prominent editors will always exercise good faith in edits and newly created articles. We simply try to voice our opinion and give an outside perspective on how to improve the relevance of an article, while providing some honest feedback. So, relax StAtiStIc mAn. Zodiiak 07:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Imagine you do some project for work and it's going to take you a week or so to get it done. You work on it for a day and let your boss know you're working on it and have several other things you're going to add. Then, he comes along and suggests ways to improve it when he doesn't even know what it's going to be like when it's finished and even suggests things you've already done and says things like "I just don't know about this project."
Your suggestions were to add history, which I know very little about because it's a relatively new stat so far as being talked about (not to mention I said I'm not finished and will add all I know about it), and to add sources when every stat I have so far comes from a total of two sources and yet I have four listed because not only do I have sources for stuff on the page, but also for stuff I have yet to add.
If you want to help, then do some research. Otherwise, wait a bit, see how it turns out and then make suggestions. StatisticsMan 15:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- This isn't work and we are not bosses. This is an online encyclopedia, and you posted in the discussion page, to which I replied in hopes to provide my own opinion on it. Relax, and among other things, I think you should read up on this policy. I'm done replying here, as you seem to just want to argue, and the only thing I was looking to do was supply ways to help improve the article so that this doesn't happen. And remember, Relax. Zodiiak 18:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't care to argue. Thanks for the help. Can we delete all this talk now since most of it is irrelevant? I don't know the policy. StatisticsMan 20:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- If consensus is mutual, then yes. You've got the OK from me if you want to ;) Zodiiak 01:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not so sure about this article, and I'm a big stats guy myself. I think you need to add a little more history on it, and definately add some sources. Right now, it seems to be of very little importance. I myself, have never really heard the term five-by-five. Zodiiak 03:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- What do you think of the page these days? Do you have any suggestions on making it better? I have maybe a couple thoughts on doing extra but there is not a lot more I can do. I know there are a few more five-by-fives out there but I don't even know who did them. Even if I knew that, I'd have no idea where I could get a box score of it. Other than looking through a few articles I've found on the net and checking out one book at a library close by, I have done mostly all I can as far as stats and such.
StatisticsMan 06:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Research Help Appreciated
These are specific things I sort of know about but don't have much info on, even how to find it, so if any one else knows how and can find this info, that would be great.
1. a. The Dave Allessandro article referenced on the page mentions Hakeem and Kirilenko are the only two players with multiple career five-by-fives and then says seven others have done it once. Well, the five-by-fives I put on the page are all from basketball-reference.com. The guy has all box scores from 1986-87 up until the last completed season. So, all five-by-fives in that time are on the list. But, there are two other players who have achieved five-by-fives (according to that article) that I know nothing about... who they are, when they did it, what the stats were and on and on. Also, Hakeem's career started in 1984-85 so it is possible he achieved another one or two sometime in 1984-85 or 1985-86 and it would be nice if someone could check this somehow.
1. b. basketball-reference.com only has playoff box scores since the 1996 playoffs. I have no info at all on whether or not someone has achieved a five-by-five in the playoffs other than I know no one has from 1996-2006 inclusive because I searched on the basketball-reference.com box score search page. As mentioned, Chris Webber was once a steal short. No one else was that close. If any one has info on previous playoffs, that'd be nice.
2. I am going to add something in on "greatest career five-by-fives" which would be the person who has the highest number of all stats... that is I know of four players whose career highs are at least 8 in all five stats so I will call that a career five-by-eight. This is of interest because it has been claimed that quintuple doubles are so highly unlikely that no one has ever even achieved a career quintuple-double. This could be something to do on this page. So, I have a list of every player with at least 9 steals and I'm thinking about making a separate page with that list. Then, all that needs be done is find the career highs in, presumably, blocks for all those guys. For more recent players, this is easy because NBA.com will have them. In fact, combining box score searches from basketball-reference.com and career highs from nba.com, I have looked at every instance of 8 or more steals since 1986-87 until the last completed season. And, for all but about 5 players, I know their career highs in other things so I know of those people none have achieved a five-by-nine career and I have found every one of them who has achieved a career five-by-eight. I have a list of 65 players who I know do not have career five-by-eights. I picked them strategically, so they are not just 65 random current players. They are players I knew had high stats in steals or blocks, and all played at least until somewhere around 1994. For players who played in the 70s and 80s mostly, this is very hard to do. It would be nice to get some help on that.
3. This is not so important but is an interesting stat related to this, especially related to the likelihood of a quintuple double. I did a search of all regular season box scores from 1986-87 until last complete season and found only three people in that time period even had as many as 6 each of blocks and steals. Two of those are Hakeem and AK, listed in the five-by-fives. The other was David Robinson who got 6 each, but only had 2 assists so no five-by-five, in only 24 minutes of play. Hakeem's is by far the most impressive with 12 blocks and 7 steals. Has any one else gotten 7 of each or has any one ever had 8 of each? I'm sure no one has done 9 each and this might be possible to be verified. But, just the fact that maybe only three players have ever had even 6 blocks and steals in a game shows a quintuple double is extremely unlikely. StatisticsMan 17:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
