RealGM Top 100 List -- 2011

Moderators: tsherkin, nate33, rrravenred, Doctor MJ, penbeast0

User avatar
Dr Positivity
RealGM
Posts: 31,559
And1: 1,315
Joined: Apr 29, 2009
       

Re: RealGM Top 100 List 

Post#701 » by Dr Positivity » Sat Oct 27, 2012 10:02 pm

Lightning25 wrote:I really have no clue how McGrady got so high in the top 100 list. He shouldn't be in the top 50 but he shouldn't be too far away from it either. I would say in the 55-65 range for me.

Based off of the threads I see, the Top 100 in this project is similar to the top 50 in the peaks. The voting/discussion dies down and eventually people just vote for who they like. I'm more than positive the same happened and that is why McGrady got to 37. People don't want to discuss past 25 usual.


There was 10 pages in the thread Tmac got in so I wouldn't say the discussion amount was the issue

I would label two things as leading to Tmac getting too high

- Anti Pierce votes - Since the top 100 people have gotten a lot more used to Pierce being a consensus top 40 player, but the time it blindsided people to see him in the conversation with Gervin, Drexler, Payton, etc. who had been considered superstar players a lot longer, because Pierce has never had the reputation as a dominant player. In the summer 2008 list Pierce had ranked 76th for example, even after the Finals MVP and his best statistical years. So I think people were hesitant to jump from thinking of Pierce as a "60+" type of career top a top 40 one and had a hard time voting for him over Kidd and Tmac when the latter 2 had been recognized much more as superstar/MVP caliber players in the 2000s

- A number of posters were pushing high peak, short longevity players particularly hard. ElGee was making a lot of posts about how title odds and SRS favored having players like Tmac and Paul for a very short peak, over players with longer careers ie your McHale, Wilkins, etc. A number of posters had Paul in their top 35-40 even though his longevity (at the time) was even worse than Tmac's
Lightning25
Banned User
Posts: 1,309
And1: 29
Joined: Nov 09, 2011
Location: The Windy City

Re: RealGM Top 100 List 

Post#702 » by Lightning25 » Sat Oct 27, 2012 10:05 pm

Dr Positivity wrote:I would label two things as leading to Tmac getting too high

I would probably add to the fact that certain players couldn't have been voted in unless they were nominated. I thought that was a dumb rule but I wasn't even on this site when this project was made.

For example, James Worthy wasn't even nominated when Dominique won and I know plenty of people that would believe Worthy was better and should be ranked above him. It wasn't fair to Worthy.

I think the next time this site does a top 100, there shouldn't be the nomination rule. I'd also like to be apart of the voting panel this time around.
User avatar
Dr Positivity
RealGM
Posts: 31,559
And1: 1,315
Joined: Apr 29, 2009
       

Re: RealGM Top 100 List 

Post#703 » by Dr Positivity » Sat Oct 27, 2012 10:09 pm

Marques Johnson getting in before James Worthy got nominated was hands down the weirdest thing that happened on the top 100 list
Lightning25
Banned User
Posts: 1,309
And1: 29
Joined: Nov 09, 2011
Location: The Windy City

Re: RealGM Top 100 List 

Post#704 » by Lightning25 » Sat Oct 27, 2012 10:11 pm

I also say that some of those threads extended and had as many pages as it did because people were discussing who to nominate next. I think I've seen threads where the entire topic was on who to nominate rather than who to vote for.

I mean similar to the peak project people would like to know which players should come up next and ideas on who to vote for. However, an entire thread shouldn't be filled with talking about who should be nominated.
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 33,835
And1: 3,499
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Treys are for Kicks!
     

Re: RealGM Top 100 List 

Post#705 » by Doctor MJ » Sat Oct 27, 2012 11:00 pm

Lightning25 wrote:
Dr Positivity wrote:I would label two things as leading to Tmac getting too high

I would probably add to the fact that certain players couldn't have been voted in unless they were nominated. I thought that was a dumb rule but I wasn't even on this site when this project was made.

For example, James Worthy wasn't even nominated when Dominique won and I know plenty of people that would believe Worthy was better and should be ranked above him. It wasn't fair to Worthy.

I think the next time this site does a top 100, there shouldn't be the nomination rule. I'd also like to be apart of the voting panel this time around.


Funny, as the guy running the Peak 50 project without nomination threads, I miss them. To me their biggest impact is that they make everyone go through the thought process with a given player twice which is a good thing.

You say "Worthy might have beat Nique!", but Worth did have chances to beat Nique when they competed for the nomination. If we had no nomination thread, then that nomination would have been the actual enshrinement vote, and so by definition, Nique would have still won.
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 33,835
And1: 3,499
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Treys are for Kicks!
     

Re: RealGM Top 100 List 

Post#706 » by Doctor MJ » Sun Oct 28, 2012 12:01 am

Lightning25 wrote:I also say that some of those threads extended and had as many pages as it did because people were discussing who to nominate next. I think I've seen threads where the entire topic was on who to nominate rather than who to vote for.

I mean similar to the peak project people would like to know which players should come up next and ideas on who to vote for. However, an entire thread shouldn't be filled with talking about who should be nominated.


If conversation happens about a player, who cares if its about nomination or enshrinement? The criteria for nomination is exactly the same as the criteria for enshrinement. We're talking about basically the exact same conversation being able to happen in both place. Now in practice people don't simply repeat themselves of course, which is all the more a good thing, because it means that any continued debate means new points to some degree.

So I still don't get your perspective. What is it exactly you are afraid that happens with the two-pronged approach?
User avatar
ardee
Head Coach
Posts: 6,405
And1: 1,526
Joined: Nov 16, 2011
Location: Caught in the undertow
   

Re: RealGM Top 100 List 

Post#707 » by ardee » Wed Oct 31, 2012 4:48 pm

We really should do another list in the summer of 2013 :D
User avatar
MacGill
Starter
Posts: 2,314
And1: 299
Joined: May 29, 2010
Location: Rollin in my 5.0
     

Re: RealGM Top 100 List 

Post#708 » by MacGill » Wed Oct 31, 2012 5:12 pm

ardee wrote:We really should do another list in the summer of 2013 :D


I would like to take part in the next project although I always have to balance work along with it.

However, new information and arguments have been presented, even since the last 100 list to me, so I could see some definite shifting here.
Image
User avatar
JordansBulls
RealGM
Posts: 48,415
And1: 1,286
Joined: Jul 12, 2006
Location: HCA (Homecourt Advantage)

Re: RealGM Top 100 List 

Post#709 » by JordansBulls » Wed Oct 31, 2012 5:51 pm

ardee wrote:We really should do another list in the summer of 2013 :D

I'd say 2014. Not that many players have done enough for the list to change that much. Only guy who probably moves up a bit is Lebron. Wade was already voted #22, so he can move up to maybe 18 or so. The only other guy who moves up signficantly is Kevin Durant and maybe Derrick Rose as neither were on the list in 2011.
Image
"Talent wins games, but teamwork and intelligence wins championships."
- Michael Jordan
User avatar
ardee
Head Coach
Posts: 6,405
And1: 1,526
Joined: Nov 16, 2011
Location: Caught in the undertow
   

Re: RealGM Top 100 List 

Post#710 » by ardee » Wed Oct 31, 2012 8:03 pm

JordansBulls wrote:
ardee wrote:We really should do another list in the summer of 2013 :D

I'd say 2014. Not that many players have done enough for the list to change that much. Only guy who probably moves up a bit is Lebron. Wade was already voted #22, so he can move up to maybe 18 or so. The only other guy who moves up signficantly is Kevin Durant and maybe Derrick Rose as neither were on the list in 2011.


It's not only about the moving up or down, don't you think it's also about our new views on players and different ways to judge them?

Oh and I think Tony Parker should definitely be on the list if he has another season like last year.
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 33,835
And1: 3,499
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Treys are for Kicks!
     

Re: RealGM Top 100 List 

Post#711 » by Doctor MJ » Thu Nov 1, 2012 6:41 am

ardee wrote:
JordansBulls wrote:
ardee wrote:We really should do another list in the summer of 2013 :D

I'd say 2014. Not that many players have done enough for the list to change that much. Only guy who probably moves up a bit is Lebron. Wade was already voted #22, so he can move up to maybe 18 or so. The only other guy who moves up signficantly is Kevin Durant and maybe Derrick Rose as neither were on the list in 2011.


It's not only about the moving up or down, don't you think it's also about our new views on players and different ways to judge them?

Oh and I think Tony Parker should definitely be on the list if he has another season like last year.


Yes but you also have to look at the passion bucket. As we go through these big project, people get tired, and passion wanes. I think it takes some time to build back up, and this is related to why there is less enthusiasm for the current project.

We'll see what happens. I'll participate in a Top 100 project next summer if someone I think can pull it off is running it, but I wouldn't run it myself.
User avatar
MacGill
Starter
Posts: 2,314
And1: 299
Joined: May 29, 2010
Location: Rollin in my 5.0
     

Re: RealGM Top 100 List 

Post#712 » by MacGill » Thu Nov 1, 2012 7:02 pm

Doctor MJ wrote: Yes but you also have to look at the passion bucket. As we go through these big project, people get tired, and passion wanes. I think it takes some time to build back up, and this is related to why there is less enthusiasm for the current project.

We'll see what happens. I'll participate in a Top 100 project next summer if someone I think can pull it off is running it, but I wouldn't run it myself.


All I heard in Charlie Brown teacher voice was Ardee volunteering to make it happen ;)

Although you didn't hear it from me 8-)
Image
User avatar
Laimbeer
RealGM
Posts: 12,662
And1: 2,119
Joined: Aug 12, 2009

Re: RealGM Top 100 List 

Post#713 » by Laimbeer » Thu Nov 8, 2012 4:03 pm

Re-doing the list so often would pretty much prove we put too much emphasis on recent accomplishments. One season shouldn't make for many dramatic changes. Every three years is probably about right, you could go five.
Trippinskarlo wrote:White people are smarter on average.
User avatar
ardee
Head Coach
Posts: 6,405
And1: 1,526
Joined: Nov 16, 2011
Location: Caught in the undertow
   

Re: RealGM Top 100 List 

Post#714 » by ardee » Fri Nov 9, 2012 4:04 pm

MacGill wrote:
Doctor MJ wrote: Yes but you also have to look at the passion bucket. As we go through these big project, people get tired, and passion wanes. I think it takes some time to build back up, and this is related to why there is less enthusiasm for the current project.

We'll see what happens. I'll participate in a Top 100 project next summer if someone I think can pull it off is running it, but I wouldn't run it myself.


All I heard in Charlie Brown teacher voice was Ardee volunteering to make it happen ;)

Although you didn't hear it from me 8-)


I'll be completely free until university begins in September. I doubt it'll be a three-month project, considering the last one ran until January, but I'd give it a shot :D I think penbeast would be the ideal choice though if Doc can't.
User avatar
JordansBulls
RealGM
Posts: 48,415
And1: 1,286
Joined: Jul 12, 2006
Location: HCA (Homecourt Advantage)

Re: RealGM Top 100 List 

Post#715 » by JordansBulls » Fri Nov 9, 2012 7:10 pm

Laimbeer wrote:Re-doing the list so often would pretty much prove we put too much emphasis on recent accomplishments. One season shouldn't make for many dramatic changes. Every three years is probably about right, you could go five.

Or just do it like the Olympics or presendential elections every 4 years.
Image
"Talent wins games, but teamwork and intelligence wins championships."
- Michael Jordan
User avatar
penbeast0
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 15,367
And1: 1,093
Joined: Aug 14, 2004
Location: Hoping for a ride on the John Wall Bandwagon

Re: RealGM Top 100 List 

Post#716 » by penbeast0 » Mon Nov 12, 2012 1:51 pm

I'd rather do the GOAT coaches list again . . . been a few years for that; and another GOAT team playoff series which was a lot of fun and, unlike the lists, doesn't suffer from enthusiasm as it moves toward the end as much.

But those are offseason projects. Who knows? And we have rrravenred on board now who will have a new perspective and new ideas. :)
[quote="Nivek"] This post could come only from a Wizards fan. It somehow combines delusional optimism with soul-crushing pessimism.
User avatar
ardee
Head Coach
Posts: 6,405
And1: 1,526
Joined: Nov 16, 2011
Location: Caught in the undertow
   

Re: RealGM Top 100 List 

Post#717 » by ardee » Mon Nov 12, 2012 8:28 pm

penbeast0 wrote:I'd rather do the GOAT coaches list again . . . been a few years for that; and another GOAT team playoff series which was a lot of fun and, unlike the lists, doesn't suffer from enthusiasm as it moves toward the end as much.

But those are offseason projects. Who knows? And we have rrravenred on board now who will have a new perspective and new ideas. :)


I really think a Retro OPOY/DOPY is the way to go, there'd be a lot of perspective and new information to be gained from that.
Deus-DaRkJaWs
Banned User
Posts: 10
And1: 0
Joined: Dec 09, 2012

Re: RealGM Top 100 List 

Post#718 » by Deus-DaRkJaWs » Mon Dec 10, 2012 10:58 pm

What's the point? all you're doing with this project is seeing who can influence who in determining what ranking someone should get, and those influences can be completely wrong. even worse, you guys are influenced by your personal biases and act like you're being objective. I personally think we should not be allowed to talk about any player post 1990, and only allowed to debate players from before then. Why? Because the current generation of players are already getting the benefit from younger (and dumber) fans, the ones we need to talk about are the older players. Point is, we've already seen this generation of players, and everyone has their own opinion based on what their eyes saw, we don't need advanced statistics or an accurate story to have a rating, I'd much rather depend on everyone's subjective rankings because then you know their biases loud and clear. It doesn't matter whether the list is only a subjective ranking, because that's all that it can be. To think this Top 100 list can possibly be objective is laughable, as is the notion that if you do it again it might tell us something different about the players.
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 33,835
And1: 3,499
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Treys are for Kicks!
     

Re: RealGM Top 100 List 

Post#719 » by Doctor MJ » Tue Dec 11, 2012 3:09 am

Deus-DaRkJaWs wrote:What's the point? all you're doing with this project is seeing who can influence who in determining what ranking someone should get, and those influences can be completely wrong. even worse, you guys are influenced by your personal biases and act like you're being objective. I personally think we should not be allowed to talk about any player post 1990, and only allowed to debate players from before then. Why? Because the current generation of players are already getting the benefit from younger (and dumber) fans, the ones we need to talk about are the older players. Point is, we've already seen this generation of players, and everyone has their own opinion based on what their eyes saw, we don't need advanced statistics or an accurate story to have a rating, I'd much rather depend on everyone's subjective rankings because then you know their biases loud and clear. It doesn't matter whether the list is only a subjective ranking, because that's all that it can be. To think this Top 100 list can possibly be objective is laughable, as is the notion that if you do it again it might tell us something different about the players.


The reality that people do care overly much about the actual rankings is not in dispute. It's a problem, in the sense that I wish that weren't the case, but not a very big one. What exactly are the consequences of this issue?

Beyond that, I suppose what stands out to me most about you is how you completely dismiss facts as if they are someone something that gets in the way of something else that is somehow more important to you. It's pretty insane.

I mean I understand that you basically don't trust stats at all, but you added "an accurate story" to the things that we don't need. It seems to me like an ideal discussion for you would involve nothing more relishing in mythology, and this to me seems entirely pointless as far as it relates to a project of this scale.

Clearly my perspective of what can get accomplished by these projects is very different. For me the point is education, and certainly not simply the education of others. The fact that what I learn cannot always be known to be absolutely true does not make the education impossible. Were that the case there would never be any point to really any form of education. And indeed, when I hear you talk, and see how badly you miss the point of what we do here, I do wonder at just what else in life you take such a vicious stand on. How many other areas do you develop a hardline opinion on so earlier in your educational process that you aren't even close to really understanding the actual debate?

Cheers
therealbig3
RealGM
Posts: 16,859
And1: 3,580
Joined: Jul 31, 2010

Re: RealGM Top 100 List 

Post#720 » by therealbig3 » Mon Jan 7, 2013 7:49 am

So, I have to say, I'm thinking Dwight Howard was seriously overrated both here and in the peaks project, myself included. His portability and his defense has been overstated, based on what we've seen from him this season so far. And his offense is really not that impressive imo. And looking at Orlando, they haven't completely fallen apart without him like many expected they would. Their defense has actually held up admirably, 14th so far.

So, thoughts on Dwight after considering Orlando's and Los Angeles's seasons?

I do understand that he's still not 100% physically, but I figured an 80% Dwight Howard would be better than this.

Return to Player Comparisons