Raf

correct

If not for this TV Show, the Super Bowl Halftime Show as we know it would not have been a thing. For years, the halftime show was a cheesy spectacle of dance numbers, bands, magic... you know, filler fluff. So this show decided to capitalize on halftime one year by airing a live segment during Super Bowl halftime. Producers promised to end the segment so that viewers would be able to go back to the Super Bowl in time for the second half to start.

It worked brilliantly. They got 20 million viewers to switch channels during halftime.

The following year, the Super Bowl Halftime Show was a Michael Jackson concert.

Name the show that changed the Super Bowl.

"The 26-year-old Arraez became only the second player in the Modern Era to capture a batting title in both leagues, joining DJ LeMahieu (Rockies in 2016, Yankees in '20), and the first to do so in back-to-back seasons."

mlb.com

Most Historians believe that Jesus of Nazareth was an itinerant preacher in what we now call the early first century who was executed by the Romans and around whom Christianity was founded.

I am increasingly of the belief that there was no historic Jesus, and that if there had been, Paul would never have succeeded as his most influential apostle.

I believe his entire earthly history is completely fictional, and when we weed out the known forgeries of scripture, you are left without a scrap of evidence of an earthly ministry of Jesus.

This thesis comes with some questions that are difficult to answer, but in my view, those questions are not nearly as difficult as the questions raised by the hypothesis that he was a real historical figure.

I have read Bart Ehrman's book on the topic, which holds the traditional/majority view that Jesus really existed and his identity/fate is a question of faith. I've also read numerous writers who claim he never existed at all. The most convincing of them is named Richard Carrier, who is well qualified in the field of the history of the time.

I found Carrier's position far more convincing than Ehrman's.

Am I 100% convinced? No. But at least 90.

I'll be sharing thoughts on the subject on this thread. Feel free to ask questions. I I can answer them I will. If not, I will admit I have no response. I assure you there are questions I cannot answer.

But the conversation is, in my view, far more interesting than traditionalists would have you believe.

I've totally lost track of this thread. Everyone ok with it? No moderating needed?

THAT'S IT!
Not just two different teams, but two different leagues.

AL Batting champion in 2022

NL Batting champion in 2023.

ONE other person has done both, but not in consecutive years.

Ok, let's wrap this up:

What Luis Arraez did in 2022 is something that happens twice a year in baseball. It's impressive because only two people can accomplish that feat in one year. 

What Luis Arraez did in 2023 is something no one could have done unless he were in Arraez' shoes. Namely:

* Something specific had to change between seasons FOR THAT PLAYER. Not a change in the rules, not a pandemic. Something that could happen to any player at any time, but for Arraez happened between the 2022 and 2023 seasons.

* THEN he had to repeat the achievement. Had he repeated the achievement without the change, it would have been less remarkable. Numerous people have done that. Some have done it three or four times in a row.

But NO ONE has ever done what Arraez did. (Hint: it has something to do with the uniform he wore).

The more precise you are with your guesses, the more precise I am with my clues.

He did bat over three hundred both seasons. I do not believe he switched from left to right.

His batting average is the correct stat. But most switch hitters, I dare say all, alternate lefty/righty all the time. They don't go full seasons one-way and the next season another.

Don't get complicated: Whose batting average do you care about? 

Ok, clarifying.

The seasons were 2022 and 2023. No interruptions.

It's a single season stat, accomplished both seasons.

The stat alone won't give you the answer, but the context around it will.

Example: Barry Bonds hit 77 homecruns in a single season. That's a stat. 

No one else ever hit that many. That's what makes the stat significant.

Luis Arraez did something significant [not THAT significant, but still impressive AND recognized] two years in a row. 

Something changed from 2022 to 2023 that altered the significance of his achievement, making it something no one had ever done before. The change was to Arraez, not to the sport.

14 hours ago, GeorgeStGeorge said:

Maybe the only player ever to make more than one unassisted triple play?

George

This achievement took two years. It could not have been accomplished in one. 

WW's guesses are also incorrect. I wouldn't expect to find either on a baseball card. 

So here's what's important: 

It IS a single season stat. 

It was over two CONSECUTIVE seasons. That's part of what made it interesting.

Another part: something significant changed between 2022 and 2023 that focuses this achievement. Without that change, it still would have been impressive. Just not as unique.

22 hours ago, GeorgeStGeorge said:

It can't be a one-season stat, if it took him two years to do it.   don't recognize the name at all, so maybe it's a defensive stat.  Fielded 1.000 two years in a row?

George

um. fielded 1.000 IS a one-season stat. Your guess contradicted your premise. Your guess was wrong. More importantly, your premise was wrong.

No, nothing that obscure. This is an achievement/stat that is more simple, a stat you would find on a baseball card without other metrics getting in the way.

Simple stat: Home Runs in a season.

Other metrics getting in the way: Home runs with runners on base. Leadoff home runs. Home runs with two outs. Home runs with runners in scoring position.

This is a simple stat for which he would receive recognition.

(MVP is not a stat. Golden Glove is not a stat).

2 hours ago, Human without the bean said:

Anyone?  For sure WordWolf, and probably Raf know this one.

And then there was one. WordWolf?

Curb Your Enthusiasm

I try not to get too excited about it when it comes on.

Miami Marlins second-baseman Luis Arraez did something in 2023 that had never been done in the history of Major League Baseball. It took him two years to do it.

What was it?

if only it were that interesting.

The Webcam was pointed at a coffee pot, so people going on break would know whether it was full.

you are

Patrick Swayze

Pot.

J/K.

Almost.

Ok, free post. 

"Ok, this might help, might not. I know most book-to-movie adaptations don't get this convoluted, but that's part of the fun."

The name of the movie is Adaptation.

Ok, this might help, might not. I know most book-to-movie adaptations don't get this convoluted, but that's part of the fun.

Anyway: There are a couple of scenes in which the screenwriter is on the (fictitious) set of another movie (let's call it BJM). That other movie (BJM) is real, written by the same screenwriter and made by the same director. In real life, the screenwriter was tasked with adapting the book while production was underway for BJM. So having a scene set on the set of BJM brought everything back full circle.

Now listen carefully, I've given you the name of the movie, and then some.

I wanna be like Louie.

No, Stranger Than Fiction is more surreal, about a man who realizes he's a character in an author's book.

First came the book. Then came the movie rights. A screenwriter was hired to turn the book into a movie. He failed. Couldn't do it. So he turned in a script, expecting to be fired. The script was about his failed effort to write a script based on the book. He became a character in the script. So did the author. The screenwriter even invented  a collaborator, his own twin brother, who, it must be noted, does not exist in real life. The actor they got to play the screenwriter played the twin brother, too. In one scene where they both appear in the same frame, we're actually seeing the actor, who is facing the camera, and the back of the actual screenwriter, standing in for his twin brother, who doesn't exist. He does exist in the movie, though.

And, peculiarly, he was given an onscreen credit for his work on the screenplay.

It may be the first time in which the Academy nominated someone for an Oscar knowing full well he does not exist. The existing brother was nominated too. They both lost.

The actor who played them was also nominated and lost. 

Name the movie.