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