WWTBAM Bored

TheConfessor wrote: I chose to posit "27 pitches" as a reasonable definition of a "perfect game" in baseball mostly to give you the opportunity to bring up situations where an out can be recorded without a bitch being thrown.

TheConfessor wrote: Occasionally there are categories where it would be safe to bit it all on a DD, instead of all but a dollar. Like if the category is "ANIMAL, VEGETABLE, OR MINERAL" and the clue is "POTATO" and the other two players have already guessed animal and mineral. You'd still want to keep a dollar safe on your FJ wager to preserve the guaranteed win.

silverscreenselect wrote:

TheConfessor wrote: I chose to posit "27 pitches" as a reasonable definition of a "perfect game" in baseball mostly to give you the opportunity to bring up situations where an out can be recorded without a bitch being thrown.

I've been to a number of baseball games and I've never seen a bitch get thrown. I seen umpires throw some sons-of-bitches out of games though.

TheConfessor wrote: Are you saying that the pitcher no longer has to throw four pitches to get an intentional walk? Can the pitcher just signal that he wants the batter to go to first base at any time, without throwing a pitch, or regardless of the current ball-strike count? I knew this had been proposed, but it offended baseball purists. Is that currently the rule in MLB, and when did that happen?

BackInTex wrote:

TheConfessor wrote: Occasionally there are categories where it would be safe to bit it all on a DD, instead of all but a dollar. Like if the category is "ANIMAL, VEGETABLE, OR MINERAL" and the clue is "POTATO" and the other two players have already guessed animal and mineral. You'd still want to keep a dollar safe on your FJ wager to preserve the guaranteed win.

That's not how a DD works, is it? Only the person choosing the question gets to answer, right or wrong.

TheConfessor wrote:

littlebeast13 wrote:

TheConfessor wrote:That is obviously true, if "perfect" means "optimally played." The most important goal in Jeopardy! is to win each game and survive to the next game, so no competent player would ever choose to play a "perfect" game if that means playing for the theoretical maximum score. It all depends on how you define "perfect." You could say that no baseball pitcher has ever pitched a perfect game, if you define "perfect" as throwing only 27 pitches.

What is so perfect about throwing 27 pitches? That's 27 more pitches than would be necessary to record a 9 inning no hit victory. Sure, there'd be 27 baserunners from the intentional walks who would all also get picked off, but since you seem to be singling out efficiency for some reason, why not go for the most efficient complete game that could possibly be "pitched?"

Nobody but Jeopardy enthusiasts and aspiring Jeopardy contestants would (or should) give a possum's patoot about the most "optimally played" game, nor would that come to the mind of many in a theoretical question of how much one would win in a "perfect" game of Jeopardy. I'm still curious if this was BiT's reasoning for the statement about perfect not equaling maximum I originally responded to...

lb13

I chose to posit "27 pitches" as a reasonable definition of a "perfect game" in baseball mostly to give you the opportunity to bring up situations where an out can be recorded without a bitch being thrown. I'm not an expert on such obscure rules. I can't recall the last time I watched an entire baseball game, so I'm out of the loop. Are you saying that the pitcher no longer has to throw four pitches to get an intentional walk? Can the pitcher just signal that he wants the batter to go to first base at any time, without throwing a pitch, or regardless of the current ball-strike count? I knew this had been proposed, but it offended baseball purists. Is that currently the rule in MLB, and when did that happen?

While we're at it, what would be a "perfect game" in Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? Winning a million without using a lifeline? Are there other plausible answers? Has that ever been done? If I ever get a chance to play again (which I won't), I would never answer the last question until I had used all of my lifelines.

TheConfessor wrote: While we're at it, what would be a "perfect game" in Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? Winning a million without using a lifeline? Are there other plausible answers? Has that ever been done? If I ever get a chance to play again (which I won't), I would never answer the last question until I had used all of my lifelines.

K.P. wrote:

TheConfessor wrote: While we're at it, what would be a "perfect game" in Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? Winning a million without using a lifeline? Are there other plausible answers? Has that ever been done? If I ever get a chance to play again (which I won't), I would never answer the last question until I had used all of my lifelines.

The first winner, John Carpenter. He used his Phone a Friend just to tell his dad he was about to win the million.

I've only seen one other player win the top prize with a lifeline still on the table: the South African winner.

https://youtu.be/YJp1dmO-mB8

TheConfessor wrote: By definition, using a lifeline ends the "perfect" game. Regardless of his motivation, he still used it. Maybe some people use their lifelines just to extend their moment in the spotlight or to score a guest appearance on Letterman or Saturday Night Live. Whatever the reason, they still used their lifeline.

BackInTex wrote: A pitcher can walk a batter with one pitch (hitting the batter), but I doubt he'd get past 2 such plays in a row without getting tossed, or the crap beat out of him.

TheConfessor wrote:For a classic example of the opposite end of the Jeopardy! spectrum, watch today's bizarre episode. It's amazing, but not it a good way.