Which do you find more impressive?

Obviously the quad-double is a much rarer feat, having only happened 4 times in NBA history.

10/18/74 Chicago vs Atlanta Nate Thurmond 22 pts. 14 rebs. 13 asst. 12 blks.
02/18/86 San Antonio vs Phoenix Alvin Robertson 20 pts. 11 rebs. 10 asst. 10 stls
03/03/90 Houston vs Golden State Hakeem Olajuwon 29 pts. 18 rebs. 10 asst. 11 blks.
03/29/90 Houston vs Milwaukee Hakeem Olajuwon 18 pts. 16 rebs. 10 asst. 11 blks.
02/17/94 San Antonio vs Detorot David Robinson 34 pts. 10 rebs. 10 asst. 10 blks

And Duncan came really close in the 03 Finals, with 22 points, 20 rebounds, 10 assists, and 8 blocks.

I remember Robinson's. Didn't realize Hakeem had two of them and they were less than a month apart!

Personally I find a perfect game more impressive. There's just something about not making any mistakes all the way through the lineup.

It would also be interesting to see which was truly rarer, after taking into account the number of MLB games played in history compared to the number of NBA/ABA games.

during a perfect game, the opposing team is still going 100% trying to break uup the perfect game

while in a quadruple double game, it may be a blow out and neither team is giving 100%/best players not out there, not to mention the fact that there may be some stat padding

most padding that takes place is point padding, particularly. not so much for rebounds, assists, etc.

not to mention it's fairly difficult to pad defensive stats like blocks and steals

To get the perfect game, you need to be good at only one skill: pitching.

To get a quad double, you need to be a brilliant all-around player on both ends of the court.

Either accomplishment needs some backup from his team, although the perfect game takes more.



Baseball is an inferior sport, so for that reason alone I say the quad-double is better.

quote:

---

while in a quadruple double game, it may be a blow out and neither team is giving 100%/best players not out there, not to mention the fact that there may be some stat padding

---

This argument is moot. There are crappy-hitting baseball teams just like there are bad basketball teams. Baseball games end in blowouts too.

Ulrich

Related question: the five players most likely to get a quad double in the NBA today? My guess, in no particular order:
Russell Westbrook
Rajon Rondo
Lebron James
Dwight Howard
Dwyane Wade

Honorable mention:
Pau Gasol
Josh Smith
Andre Iguodala

espn always thought andre kirilenko could do it, and he came close once, with like a 14/8/9/8 steals or something like that

Quad double would seem to be harder from an individual standpoint. Getting 10 blocks or steals in one NBA game is pretty damn crazy all by itself. Then you've got to throw that up with 10 points/rebounds/assists.

It looks like the quad double happens with less frequency per game per player (too lazy to get all the numbers and do the math, just eyeballing here).

There have been 18 perfect games in the last 110 years. Figuring that your average starting pitcher appears around 30 games a season, NBA players actually get more than twice as many opportunities for a quad double. Also, any of 15 or so players could accomplish the feat in any given NBA game, while only 2 players have the opportunity at the start of a baseball game.

Moral of the story--quad doubles are harder to get, but they don't warrant the same fan attention as a perfect game. And really, they are two very different things.

quote:

---

Baseball is an inferior sport, so for that reason alone I say the quad-double is better.

---

This X10000000

Baseball is head and shoulders above basketball as far as sports go, so obviously the perfect game is much more impressive

basketball requires MUCH more talent, plus it's more fun to watch

nope

Dropkicked must like the tradition of baseball more than the athleticism of basketball.

The best all around athletes in the world are basketball players, followed closely by football. I define athleticism by movement..running, jumping & hand/eye coordination.

Watching baseball puts me to sleep...like golf in a stadium.

more athleticism in basketball, but much more skill and coordination required in Baseball.

the people that think Baseball is boring are simply too stupid or too impatient to understand the intricacies and what to watch for.

WOW.

Baseball has sunk so low that it now takes the "You don't like soccer because you don't understand it" argument?

A perfect game is not even the rarest MLB occurrence.

18 perfect games
15 unassisted triple plays
15 four-HR games
14 natural cycles (single, double, triple & HR, in order)
3 20-strikeout games
2 game ending unassisted triple plays
1 natural cycle completed with a grand slam
1 player has hit two grand slams in one inning

quote:

---

the people that think Baseball is boring are simply too stupid or too impatient to understand the intricacies and what to watch for.

---

Spare me. I've been to MLB games in Angels stadium and they were certainly fun to watch at the stadium, but it doesn't hold a candle to a good NBA game. And I do understand baseball.

20 strike out game seems to be a better comparison. Way too many variables in a perfect game, and baseball for that matter.
How many of the quads were at home?

Olajuwon only has one quad-double, by the way. Unofficial stats said it was, but the NBA took away one of his assists when they went over the tape.

I've always perfect games to be highly overrated in general, so to me its not close; quadruple double wins in a landslide. Look at the list of quadruple double getters. All HOFers except Alvin Robertson (who managed a decent career himself). Look at the perfect game pitchers. Its like a random group of guys who had a lucky day at the ball park.

Triple A talent Armando Gallaraga threw a perfect game (practically) with three strikeouts and with about 10 outs being made with good contact. You can't just luck your way into the quadruple double. He got lucky. I doubt he even even throws a complete game in his career the rest of the way.

The quadruple double might be the most difficult achievement in sports. And the perfect game isn't even a mark of pitching dominance. Perfect games are random aberrations. The 18 K (2/3 of the lineup) game should be the pitching performances that we write books about, etc.

quote:

---

basketball requires MUCH more talent, plus it's more fun to watch

---

talent... as in god given size maybe...not actual skill..

and nba games are only semi exciting in the last 2 minutes or in the playoffs

quote:

---

talent... as in god given size maybe...not actual skill..

and nba games are only semi exciting in the last 2 minutes or in the playoffs

---

Seriously? I'll give you the second point (except in certain rivalries), but there aren't many guys that hang around long just because they are big. Every once in a while you get someone well over 7 feet that gets to hang around (Shaun Bradley), but for the most part you have to have some pretty serious skills and/or be a dominant athlete.

NBA players are immensely skilled. If you want to talk about size, look at the size of some MLB players. For instance, Bartolo Colon, C. C. Sabathia, Bengie Molina, or any of a hundred pitchers over the last few years.

quote:

---

Triple A talent Armando Gallaraga threw a perfect game (practically) with three strikeouts and with about 10 outs being made with good contact. You can't just luck your way into the quadruple double. He got lucky. I doubt he even even throws a complete game in his career the rest of the way.

---

Yeah, he got lucky against 28 batters in a row.

You can't get this kind of analysis just anywhere.

in every perfect game there is at least one, and most times multiple great defensive plays to save the game, i.e. rusty greer.

20 strikeout game >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perfect game

Ah, the baseball argument.

Both football and basketball require more overall talent and skill than baseball.