RealGM Top 100 List -- 2011

ardee · Post #691 » by **ardee** » Mon Oct 15, 2012 2:42 pm

Dipper 13 wrote:
The inflation of current / recent players in these lists is horrific, in the worst 20 yrs of the watered down nba. Embarassing.

We even saw a guy like Odom mentioned ahead of HOF'er Chet Walker.

Please link me

Dipper 13 · Post #692 » by **Dipper 13** » Mon Oct 15, 2012 3:31 pm

Odom came up towards the end of the project that I feel Walker was neglected in. Not that the two were directly compared with each other.

AlphaWolfAWBA · Post #693 » by **AlphaWolfAWBA** » Wed Oct 17, 2012 6:35 pm

Kobe at #10..

lol

psst

next

Dr Positivity · Post #694 » by **Dr Positivity** » Sun Oct 21, 2012 5:39 am

Peaks project is proving Frazier at #23 was a huge mistake. Not even being mentioned by #31 AND a shortened peak/career... hard to justify him getting near the top 25 on the ATL with that combination IMO

Post #695 » by **Doctor MJ** » Sun Oct 21, 2012 11:26 pm

Dr Positivity wrote:Peaks project is proving Frazier at #23 was a huge mistake. Not even being mentioned by #31 AND a shortened peak/career... hard to justify him getting near the top 25 on the ATL with that combination IMO

I don't know about proving, but it's remarkable the difference.

Kobe Bean · Post #696 » by **Kobe Bean** » Thu Oct 25, 2012 9:05 pm

What did McGrady do to put him ahead of Iverson/Reggie? The man rarely ever played a full season after his Magic days, and even there the only thing he did was score a lot and make it look smooth.

Kobe behind Hakeem is also just ridiculous. No need to even get further into that, I'll only get flamed anyway.

CP3 also has no buisness being over Ray Allen, Rodman and Ginobli at this point. He hasn't played nearly as long as the others, and lacks any real postseason success.

SDChargers#1 · Post #697 » by **SDChargers#1** » Fri Oct 26, 2012 8:57 pm

Kobe Bean wrote:What did McGrady do to put him ahead of Iverson/Reggie? The man rarely ever played a full season after his Magic days, and even there the only thing he did was score a lot and make it look smooth.

Kobe behind Hakeem is also just ridiculous. No need to even get further into that, I'll only get flamed anyway.

CP3 also has no buisness being over Ray Allen, Rodman and Ginobli at this point. He hasn't played nearly as long as the others, and lacks any real postseason success.

It is interesting because during the top 100 project peaks were valued really highly, yet the top peaks project has put some interesting twists on it.

T-Mac got voted in remarkably high considering he never really accomplished anything. And his whole argument was essentially his peak. Which makes it interesting that in the top peak project he ranked so low.

Post #698 » by **Doctor MJ** » Sat Oct 27, 2012 8:49 pm

SDChargers#1 wrote:It is interesting because during the top 100 project peaks were valued really highly, yet the top peaks project has put some interesting twists on it.

T-Mac got voted in remarkably high considering he never really accomplished anything. And his whole argument was essentially his peak. Which makes it interesting that in the top peak project he ranked so low.

Well, stating up front that I wasn't someone voting for TMac either time, he did get voted in far earlier in the Peak 50 project (25) than in the Top 100 project (37). No he didn't make the kind of leap that Walton made (47 to 12), but then he also didn't have longevity issues anywhere near as bad as Walton.

Lightning25 · Post #699 » by **Lightning25** » Sat Oct 27, 2012 9:02 pm

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.

Post #700 » by **Doctor MJ** » Sat Oct 27, 2012 9:24 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.

Conversation is typically more lively at this stage in a Top 100 project than it is now in the Peak 50 to be honest. Doesn't mean that guys don't get in despite only have a small plurality, but normally conversation stays pretty lively through the first 50.

The current project seems a bit weaker, but here's hoping new debates will emerge.

Dr Positivity · 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 · 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.

Dr Positivity · 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 · 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.

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.

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?

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

We really should do another list in the summer of 2013

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

ardee · 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

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.