Sports Trivia 2017
- Thread starter nondescriptive
- Start date
Former Texas shortstop , Toby Harrah, pulled off an incredible feat, he is the only MLB player to have ever done this, what did he do?
unassisted triple play?Former Texas shortstop , Toby Harrah, pulled off an incredible feat, he is the only MLB player to have ever done this, what did he do?
Nope, what Toby Harrah did was inconceivable.unassisted triple play?
Toby Harrah was also involved in another amazing feat which involved teammate Bump Wills. It had been done only once before in the history of MLB, what was it?
Name the NHL HOFer who during a 3 year stretch in career scored goals in 15 goal increments, that is 15 goals one year, 30 the next year, 45 the next year and finally 60 the next year.
answered by bobistheowl
answered by bobistheowl
Last edited:
We are going to lap the field, if we do the "Team Challenge"! Imagine Bob McCown, or Tim and Sid, saying "All we need is 40% on the last 50 questions", and then the jaws drop....!!!!!
Steve Shutt?Name the NHL HOFer who during a 3 year stretch in career scored goals in 15 goal increments, that is 15 goals one year, 30 the next year, 45 the next year and finally 60 the next year.
My 'wavelength' for hockey is very narrow, nondescriptive but sharp within a certain range. To wit:Correctamundo!
a) What was the nickname of the guy who played the trumpet at Montreal Canadiens' home games in the 1970's? (Hint: he was the proprietor of a specialty music store, on Crescent Street, at the time).
b) What Montreal Canadien had two local TV commercials for "Dorion Suits", one a "mea culpa", for the first?, (mid 70's).
c) Which product did Jacques Laperierre endorse, on local TV commercials, in English, c. 1971?
d) What long time Hab had had, until sometime after the end of his playing career, his name inscribed on the Stanley Cup as a player, more times than he had legitimately celebrated his "birthday"?
Correct - shack
e) What were both the first name and the nickname of the other brother, of d), who never made it to "the show", (roundabout clue on this page, but in a different post, by someone else!)
Stuff like that. No verifiable source, [(a), b), c)]; either you know it, or you don't. Someone else might possibly be able to make a 'vouch confirmation'. In my spare time, I like correcting errors on Wikipedia!!!! Just little spelling/ grammar errors, as a courtesy.
What I initially thought was Wikipedia "points system" isn't that at all, and I completely misunderstood the purpose of Wikipedia. "Points" is actually the number of typed characters on the Wiki page, or on the help page, in a section called "The Sandbox", one for each Wiki page. Various Wikipedia editors reply to questions, with a sense of humour: I had an annecdotal backstory to a question, the first line of the reply "Um, is there a question in there somewhere? Then a focussed reply, with the expectation that, while help is appreciated, any instruction told to you once will be expected to be fully understood in the future, even if the instruction is a link address, to a page, with a ¼ inch long scroll bar. It's exactly like being a 'temporary 2nd Lieutenant' in the Sci Fi novel Starship Troopers, you learn 'on the bounce'! It's both flattering, and humiliating to be treated as a "noob', with potential, among seasoned vets!, (who might or might not be around for the next 'drop').
I completely misunderstood the purpose of Wikipedia. It isn't an online encyclopedia. Independent research is strictly prohibited! The entire purpose is to provide factual information that can be verified, by cross reference hyper-link, to another recognized online source. There is also a very democratic appeal process, in which an argument rejected by the editors in "Sandbox" may be appealed, provided that the appeal is filed in a very specific location, in a very specific format, with very specific protocols, which must be followed, to a T, with the expectation that these protocols will be understood, and obeyed, in which case, the answer will be both terse, and respectful, but no FURTHER appeal will be considered, or tollerated.*
I already had 'round about' instructions, on how to do that, years ago. We all did, if we were paying attention, without having to be told to do so. The proper protocols for the Wikipedia appeal process, with both a positive and a negative result, are clearly explained, metaphorically, with example, in the "Soup Nazi" episode of Seinfeld!!!!!!!!
* My argument that a text document contained in a bit torrent, for Revolver (TV Series) [UK 1978], prepared by the capper, listing only the musical acts, in sequence, as well as in between bits, for all 8 episodes, did not constitute independent research.
The matter was referred to semi-retired senior editor "SisterTwister", who reads incoming mail approximately once per week, but only if the request is focussed, precise, logically presented, and terse, and only if the handle of the apprentice level editor is preceded by five tilde, ("~~~~~"), otherwise, you don't even get a reply. I received confirmation from a "buffer" that my appeal had been both pondered, and denied. It was as if I was Solozzo, asking the Don about the possibility of an hypothetical business partnership!
It is so true; EVERYTHING you need to know about how to do anything successfully in life can be learned by watching The Godfather Trilogy, (not so much III), and every episode of Seinfeld, (for more trivial concerns)!!!!!!
Guys, do not get a flu shot! I can't explain why, but may be able to soon. If my deductive reasoning hypothesis is debunked or contradicted by knowledge not currently in my possession, I will explain in full here. If my hypothesis is confirmed, I will explain it, selectively, by private message. I'm not making a joke, (in red)
Added: I have an interesting dilemma for Wikipedia, a legitimate addition, with reference link to my own YouTube channel, where the information I provided is complete, and correct, but the cross reference link on imdb.com is both incomplete and incorrect. I'm attempting to have a third party confirm, that everybody else is wrong on this one, except me. Been there, done that.
Last edited:
Tips to winning the Team Challenge:
Guys, if you're curious to know as much as possible about a sports player, or event/ trophy/ etc, read the Wkipedia entry, about something you know fairly well. Look for interesting information that you did not already know. Ask that question here. If one of us, other than yourself, knows it, that's a point for TERB in the challenge. If no one here knows it, that's a question that may stump other teams, as well. We've had years to prepare, and focus, individually, and collectively. They get 24 hours, but we have to declare first. I don't know how many questions there will be; 100? 200? 300? ??? If we have more than 100, maybe we issue a new challenge every month, and win every time? So we're the guys who know the most about both pussy and sports trivia, collectively, and that's Props in two of the subjects by which men measure themselves against others. To assert domination in this way, we don't 'Take Turns". The standard accepted way is that the winner dictates terms to the challengers, until some opponent defeats him, like playing Pool in a strip club! If we win consecutively a few times, but run out of questions, we just retire undefeated, and ignore someone else' list; they have to beat us first, before being worthy of our notice. We'll allow lesser teams to duke it out for the bronze and wood medal. The big thing is the points table listing of all challengers. If a team is offered the chance, but declines, they're - 'DNP-CD' if they enter a reply, they are ranked in the table, to see if they are champions, podium worthy, premier league, 2nd division, or recreational league. Accepting the challenge has both risks and rewards, as does issuing it.
Perhaps someone could give me a 'bump' on this, around April 1? (a different person, once every three or four months):
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?586657-Tips-for-the-curious-South-of-the-Border
If would be so crass, to do so myself. That way, it's a semi-sticky tongue-in-cheek noob guide, resurfacing every so often. Thanks, ~bito
Guys, if you're curious to know as much as possible about a sports player, or event/ trophy/ etc, read the Wkipedia entry, about something you know fairly well. Look for interesting information that you did not already know. Ask that question here. If one of us, other than yourself, knows it, that's a point for TERB in the challenge. If no one here knows it, that's a question that may stump other teams, as well. We've had years to prepare, and focus, individually, and collectively. They get 24 hours, but we have to declare first. I don't know how many questions there will be; 100? 200? 300? ??? If we have more than 100, maybe we issue a new challenge every month, and win every time? So we're the guys who know the most about both pussy and sports trivia, collectively, and that's Props in two of the subjects by which men measure themselves against others. To assert domination in this way, we don't 'Take Turns". The standard accepted way is that the winner dictates terms to the challengers, until some opponent defeats him, like playing Pool in a strip club! If we win consecutively a few times, but run out of questions, we just retire undefeated, and ignore someone else' list; they have to beat us first, before being worthy of our notice. We'll allow lesser teams to duke it out for the bronze and wood medal. The big thing is the points table listing of all challengers. If a team is offered the chance, but declines, they're - 'DNP-CD' if they enter a reply, they are ranked in the table, to see if they are champions, podium worthy, premier league, 2nd division, or recreational league. Accepting the challenge has both risks and rewards, as does issuing it.
Perhaps someone could give me a 'bump' on this, around April 1? (a different person, once every three or four months):
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?586657-Tips-for-the-curious-South-of-the-Border
If would be so crass, to do so myself. That way, it's a semi-sticky tongue-in-cheek noob guide, resurfacing every so often. Thanks, ~bito
Has the Pocket Rocket had his 20th birthday yet?d) What long time Hab had had, until sometime after the end of his playing career, his name inscribed on the Stanley Cup as a player, more times than he had legitimately celebrated his "birthday"?
"The Lady in the Locker Room" was Melissa Ludtke.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...sports-journalism_us_56057c26e4b0dd8503074f2e
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...sports-journalism_us_56057c26e4b0dd8503074f2e
Yes or no, shack, with explanation. Henri Richard was Born February 29, 1936. He has 11 Stanley Cup rings, the most, as a player, in NHL History. If his day of birth is considered a birthday, the answer is yes, his 20th was on February 29, 2016. If we count only anniversaries of his birth, the answer is no. Good question. I consider this to be a correct answer to 1d), by intuition.Has the Pocket Rocket had his 20th birthday yet?
This information will stump a lot of teams, Skyrider. I'll take responsbility for writing the question in such a way that there is no ambiguity as to the correct answer."The Lady in the Locker Room" was Melissa Ludtke.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...sports-journalism_us_56057c26e4b0dd8503074f2e
I am a Montreal Canadien defenseman and had an affair with a female usher. Who am I?
As written, the gentleman in question would currently be on the roster, the affair has concluded, and no other current roster players have also formerly had affairs, since concluded, with female ushers. This one maybe wouldn't work in a challenge against other teams. If we had other information about him, (date of birth, former organization affiliation(s), year of draft, etc, it could work. There would have to be some documentation, confirmation by the usher, etc. For a challenge question, we'd need to have only one possible correct answer, and the name of the usher would be 'taboo'. I'm already banned from The Lounge. For a challenge question, the answers need to be known, by recall, or not. Ideally, we'd want some 'just on the tip of my tongue, but can't recall..." questions, to make the opposition unfocused. They have 24 hours, without doing research, to recall the details. There's probably a way to use this, but the wording would need to be precise.
At the 1976 Winter Olympics in Innsbruck, Austria, Canada won exactly one gold, one silver, one bronze, and one 'wood medal', for 4th place. Please name at least one of these 'medalists' as described, and the specific competition(s) in which they attained extended Olympic podium status.
(ie: 'skiing' is not a specific event; the gender of the event is part of the specific competition definition, if there were separate men's and women's competitions, in the same specific discipline, and the length of a race in an event like speed skating is also a factor).
We'd want to use every legitimate reason to nullify a partially correct answer by a competitive rival team. We want them to expect to have the benefit of the doubt. This could be a 4 point question, where partial marks are given, unless the rest of you can get all four, in one or more attempts.
The question, as worded, implies that one or more competitors may have won more than one medal, but each was actually won by a different Canadian Olympian.
Kathy Kreiner - Correct - nondescriptive
Toller Cranston - not specific enough in the event, but otherwise correct.
(we'd have to apply the same exclusionary criteria to other teams).
(ie: 'skiing' is not a specific event; the gender of the event is part of the specific competition definition, if there were separate men's and women's competitions, in the same specific discipline, and the length of a race in an event like speed skating is also a factor).
We'd want to use every legitimate reason to nullify a partially correct answer by a competitive rival team. We want them to expect to have the benefit of the doubt. This could be a 4 point question, where partial marks are given, unless the rest of you can get all four, in one or more attempts.
The question, as worded, implies that one or more competitors may have won more than one medal, but each was actually won by a different Canadian Olympian.
Kathy Kreiner - Correct - nondescriptive
Toller Cranston - not specific enough in the event, but otherwise correct.
(we'd have to apply the same exclusionary criteria to other teams).
In the modern Olympic era, beginning with the 1896 Athens Summer games, what was the name of the hosting city, in the only Summer Olympic games to have been held in a non-leap year?
1976 Summer Olympics, Montreal:
a) On what date, and in which city and country, did the IOC award the 1976 Summer Olympics to Montreal, in the second round of voting?
b) Which other two cities were among the three finalists, from which the 1976 host city was chosen?
c) Which of those three host cities received the most votes in the first round?
d) Which city was eliminated from further consideration, after receiving the fewest votes in round one?
e1) What famous quotation, with an anatomically impossible antecedent, (a boast by then Montreal mayor Jean Drapeau), with reference to the possibility of defecit spending in funding for the Montreal games, was later proven to have had a false premise? This boast was later mocked by an editorial cartoon by Terry (Aislin) Mosher of the Montreal Gazette, and was the title of, and on the cover of, one of Mosher's trade paperback collected works. (the precise wording of the quotation is required).
e2) What was the name of the Terry ('Aislin') Mosher editorial cartoon collection, described in e1)?
a) On what date, and in which city and country, did the IOC award the 1976 Summer Olympics to Montreal, in the second round of voting?
b) Which other two cities were among the three finalists, from which the 1976 host city was chosen?
c) Which of those three host cities received the most votes in the first round?
d) Which city was eliminated from further consideration, after receiving the fewest votes in round one?
e1) What famous quotation, with an anatomically impossible antecedent, (a boast by then Montreal mayor Jean Drapeau), with reference to the possibility of defecit spending in funding for the Montreal games, was later proven to have had a false premise? This boast was later mocked by an editorial cartoon by Terry (Aislin) Mosher of the Montreal Gazette, and was the title of, and on the cover of, one of Mosher's trade paperback collected works. (the precise wording of the quotation is required).
e2) What was the name of the Terry ('Aislin') Mosher editorial cartoon collection, described in e1)?
