RealGM Greatest Peaks Project---List, Interest, Metathinking thread

[SactoKingsFan]

I would like to participate. I know my post count is an issue. But if I posted in the first few and made good contributions could I be added to the list?

It's up to trex, but I'm pretty sure he'd add you to the voting panel if you make solid posts in the first few threads.

[Narigo]

Is it too late to sign up for this? If not I would like to sign up

[Quotatious]

Is it too late to sign up for this? If not I would like to sign up

I don't see why it would be too late. The more people we can get, the better - some people will probably lose interest in late stages of this project, so the more voters we have right now, the more we are likely to have in the end.

Obviously Trex is the commissioner, so he'll decide, but I don't see why not.

[PCProductions]

If it isn't too late, I would love to participate!

[MyUniBroDavis]

Done.
If you haven't already done so, please read thoroughly thru the OP, as well as post #82 (at the very least) to get the gist of how this will work.

Already did. But to get clarity, when a spot is won by a player there won't be a year attached to them because of the disagreements on the year correct?

Correct. A player is going to get credit for all ballots cast for him in a voting round, regardless of the year specified. However, since I would like to recognize which year people attach the most value to, we will generally be having a side-thread to determine consensus on his peak year after he's been voted in (that is: a thread that is running alongside the peaks project at the same time, so that we don't have to delay moving on to the next place/rank in the peaks project while determining the year).

Which reminds me, I meant to put this forth in post #82: I propose that if there is 75+% consensus on a player's peak within the primary thread in which he gets voted in, that we NOT bother with a side-thread. If, otoh, we have less <75% consensus, I'll conduct a side-thread in which people can make their case for one year over another and officially cast their opinion/vote on which year is his best.

Example: suppose when Magic Johnson gets voted in, there are 15 ballots cast for him--->13 are for '87, and two are for '89.....even though it's not unanimous, I propose we simply declare '87 the consensus peak year WITHOUT conducting a side thread (i.e. save the side-threads for when it's actually somewhat close).

Reasonable?

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Hi!
I would like to participate

[drza]

Just saw this, didn't know there was a project coming up. My time may be up-and-down, but if it's cool I'd like to participate where I can.

[ceiling raiser]

trex - Apologies, I have to withdraw from the voting panel. I would have loved to participate (and still intend to share whatever useful information I have when I have free time again), but due to a personal situation, I don't have the time to commit to form an opinion and construct/defend arguments. Sorry for any confusion, good luck voters.

[Gregoire]

trex - Apologies, I have to withdraw from the voting panel. I would have loved to participate (and still intend to share whatever useful information I have when I have free time again), but due to a personal situation, I don't have the time to commit to form an opinion and construct/defend arguments. Sorry for any confusion, good luck voters.

Very bad news. But could you give us your first glance list of top-3?

[urnoggin]

I'd like to participate if possible. Obviously, I'm super new but I'm confident that I can contribute to the discussions. Will understand if I'm not allowed in for this one and need more rep on here to participate. Thanks.

[Quotatious]

I'd like to participate if possible. Obviously, I'm super new but I'm confident that I can contribute to the discussions. Will understand if I'm not allowed in for this one and need more rep on here to participate. Thanks.

I'm not the one who decides, but you've been solid so far. I think you should be accepted.

I think everyone who makes a few decent posts in this project (or even in other threads), should be accepted.

[trex_8063]

Just saw this, didn't know there was a project coming up. My time may be up-and-down, but if it's cool I'd like to participate where I can.

Absolutely you can join! I was hoping (when I saw you post in the #1 thread) that you'd climb aboard and be a consistent participant; your opinion is always welcome (imo ).

trex - Apologies, I have to withdraw from the voting panel. I would have loved to participate (and still intend to share whatever useful information I have when I have free time again), but due to a personal situation, I don't have the time to commit to form an opinion and construct/defend arguments. Sorry for any confusion, good luck voters.

Sorry you won't have the time. I'm going to leave your name on the voter list; feel free to pop in and contribute whatever and whenever you can.

[urnoggin]

Just saw this, didn't know there was a project coming up. My time may be up-and-down, but if it's cool I'd like to participate where I can.

Absolutely you can join! I was hoping (when I saw you post in the #1 thread) that you'd climb aboard and be a consistent participant; your opinion is always welcome (imo ).

trex - Apologies, I have to withdraw from the voting panel. I would have loved to participate (and still intend to share whatever useful information I have when I have free time again), but due to a personal situation, I don't have the time to commit to form an opinion and construct/defend arguments. Sorry for any confusion, good luck voters.

Sorry you won't have the time. I'm going to leave your name on the voter list; feel free to pop in and contribute whatever and whenever you can.

Hey trex, still wondering if I could participate (see post #109). Ready to make a post in the other thread if I am accepted!
Thanks for the consideration

[trex_8063]

If it isn't too late, I would love to participate!

Is it too late to sign up for this? If not I would like to sign up

Can't remember if I'd mentioned it yet, but I've entered you both in the voter pool.

I'd like to participate if possible. Obviously, I'm super new but I'm confident that I can contribute to the discussions. Will understand if I'm not allowed in for this one and need more rep on here to participate. Thanks.

The broader discussion is more or less open to anyone. If you wish to be able to cast ballots, please contribute to the discussion for the first thread or two; if you're providing reasonable content and appear to have "honorable intentions", I'll quickly enter you into the voter pool.
I apologize for the inconvenience, but it's our primary means of avoiding inadvertently green-lighting trolls or agenda-mongers. Not saying you're one of those, but obviously (with <10 posts) we don't quite know who you are. I hope you understand.

[urnoggin]

I'd like to participate if possible. Obviously, I'm super new but I'm confident that I can contribute to the discussions. Will understand if I'm not allowed in for this one and need more rep on here to participate. Thanks.

The broader discussion is more or less open to anyone. If you wish to be able to cast ballots, please contribute to the discussion for the first thread or two; if you're providing reasonable content and appear to have "honorable intentions", I'll quickly enter you into the voter pool.
I apologize for the inconvenience, but it's our primary means of avoiding inadvertently green-lighting trolls or agenda-mongers. Not saying you're one of those, but obviously (with <10 posts) we don't quite know who you are. I hope you understand.

Not a problem. I will be making posts in the first few threads to build my reputation

[Dr Spaceman]

So this thread is closing out, but I want to ask a general question as we move forward:

Those of you relying heavily on box score information, how confident are you that any results are actually measuring something real? For example, is the difference between Michael's scoring statistics and Shaq's really enough for you to proclaim Jordan the better scorer? Are we exactly sure that either guy was actually picking the best shot distribution for his team? I mean we're dripping with evidence for guys like Magic and Nash but for Jordan and Shaq it's not even clear that volume scoring above a certain threshold has any real value at all.

In my opinion there's too much stock being put into numbers and things that are "objective" and thus sort of unassailable. I understand they provide valuable information, but nuanced comparisons like this can't really come down to a difference in a few key statistics that may actually come up as neutral in a global context.

drza is kind of pushing this angle as well, and I hope to see more of it. Because here's something key to understand: stats are used on a scale. If you measure two tables in nanometers, the difference between them appears gargantuan. But in terms of "functional" difference, you can tell just from looking at them they're essentially the same size. Now in this case one table is inarguably "bigger" than another, but to end a discussion of merit there would be foolish.

A difference of ~5 ppg is much, much, much smaller than we realize, and when we consider everything that goes into global impact, it honestly shouldn't register.

[Clyde Frazier]

Just throwing it out there... is anyone interested in going to a 48 hr time limit? The discussion has been great, and I just feel like i haven't had quite enough time to research as much as i'd like. Seems like the ballot system will avoid runoffs, so we typically would be done in 48 hours for each vote.

I'm fine with continuing at 36 hrs if i'm in the minority, though.

[The-Power]

Just throwing it out there... is anyone interested in going to a 48 hr time limit? The discussion has been great, and I just feel like i haven't had quite enough time to research as much as i'd like. Seems like the ballot system will avoid runoffs, so we typically would be done in 48 hours for each vote.

I'm fine with continuing at 36 hrs if i'm in the minority, though.

I agree that more time could help at times. The question is: does the stretching of the project cause less interest for the later spots? The discussions have been great but with the 3-ballots-system those will be carried over to the other threads regardless, because every time only one player will be off the board while we're simultaneously discussing half a dozen players. However, I wouldn't have a problem if we extend the voting-time to 48h at the beginning and speed it up when some people start losing interest. Or we could stick to the 36h window and trex can decide to extend it to 48h every time he feels like the discussion is still productive and some voters are still undecided.

[JordansBulls]

Old list in case anyone is interested.

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1197732

[trex_8063]

Just throwing it out there... is anyone interested in going to a 48 hr time limit? The discussion has been great, and I just feel like i haven't had quite enough time to research as much as i'd like. Seems like the ballot system will avoid runoffs, so we typically would be done in 48 hours for each vote.

I'm fine with continuing at 36 hrs if i'm in the minority, though.

Not sure anyone is more rushed by the 36-hour window than me. Not only do I have read posts, and post my own thoughts, ballots, and responses, etc......I've also got to respond or message new would-be voters who spontaneously show up in the thread or [less commonly, unfortunately] in the metathinking thread to inform them of protocol, count the ballots, create the new thread (and PM penbeast to sticky it for us), and post the most recently voted in on the OP of metathinking thread (with link). I'll also shortly have to post (and get stickied) the side-thread for purpose gaining a consensus on a certain players' peak year.

When life gets busy (like these last couple days), I won't be able to take care of all this and strictly adhere to the 36-hour schedule; so it will happen on occasion (like the #2 thread) where we end up going closer to 48 hours anyway. And besides, as The-Power has stated, we'll get a lot of carry-over from thread to thread with the ballot system.

But I'd like to try to adhere to a 36-hour schedule as often as possible, as there were concerns about participation dwindling as soon as the rs starts, which was the primary reasoning behind the 36-hour schedule: to get as much in as possible before that happens.

[Dr Positivity]

If Shaq has top 2 peak of all time for many I am surprised he doesn't get momentum for top 3-4 on the ATL more often. He doesn't lose much on longevity or playoff performances compared to others