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

[Gregoire]

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

This board is very Shaq-friendy - a lot of posters have him in their top3.

[JordansBulls]

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

I think having only 1 MVP is the reason.

[Hawk]

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

I have him #3 on my list. GOAT caliber peak, great prime, great PO performer, nice longevity

[Texas Chuck]

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

I have him on the next tier down from Russell, Kareem, and Mike. He shares that tier with Duncan and Magic and I would currently have Shaq just behind Duncan and ahead of Magic, but certainly I see the argument for Shaq ahead of Timmy. So I have Shaq 5th, but would consider him for 4th and might even listen to arguments for him against Kareem at 3 tho it becomes a tougher sell.


Of course I put less emphasis on peak and a lot more on sustained play. Those who value one year peaks more than me might consider Shaq even higher. Of course if I emphasized peaks more I'd be joining Dr Spaceman in pushing Admiral up the list because I think he peaked higher than Shaq.

[Quotatious]

I'm wondering - how high do you guys have Moses in terms of peak? I'm pretty sure I'll support him in the top 20, but not sure how high exactly.

[eminence]

I'm wondering - how high do you guys have Moses in terms of peak? I'm pretty sure I'll support him in the top 20, but not sure how high exactly.

Only really looked at my top dozen or so in great depth yet, but I imagine top 25, but no higher than 15 for me (as of now).

[SideshowBob]

I'm wondering - how high do you guys have Moses in terms of peak? I'm pretty sure I'll support him in the top 20, but not sure how high exactly.

High teens - 25. I think this is going to be the toughest part of the list.

[70sFan]

I think Moses would be around 15 spot, but I need to think more about it.

[trex_8063]

I'm wondering - how high do you guys have Moses in terms of peak? I'm pretty sure I'll support him in the top 20, but not sure how high exactly.

I feel similarly. Probably he's in the top 20 (22-24 at the worst). Seems like he should at least be considered (if not actually inducted) in the same general vicinity as guys like Barkley, K.Malone, Wade, Nowitzki.

[mysticOscar]

Hey RealGM'ers, was thinking of starting up a Peaks Project (top 50??) this fall, maybe beginning in early September.

Am posting this thread (penbeast0 is going to sticky it for us) to get an idea if there is adequate interest. I figure we should allow for a voter pool of at least 15-20 people, especially noting how turnout drops off once you get past the top 10-20 places; if there isn't at least that much interest, then it's probably a no go.

Similar to the top 100 project, voters must register here to participate (just state your interest in participating within this thread). Regular/known posters will be allowed in immediately. Though I don't intend to set a minimum post-count requirement, newer (and thus relatively unknown) posters will have to show a willingness (and ability) to contribute meaningful discourse before being officially entered into the voting pool (there's time to prove this willingness and ability before the voting actually starts, since we likely won't get underway for at least a couple weeks).

Here are my thoughts/intentions on other rules and format (open to comments/changes):

a) Top 50 sound in-depth enough to everyone?
b) Reasoning/statistical support, etc required for votes to be counted. A simple list of names will not be counted.
c) As with the top 100 project, I was planning an approximately 48-hour window for voting for each place.
d) Instead of the format we used in the top 100 project (where everybody voted for ONE candidate, and if no consensus was reached we had a 24-hour run-off between the top two vote recipients), I was thinking more like this:
Everyone gives their 1st-ballot choice, 2nd-ballot choice, and 3rd-ballot choice. I'll award 3 pts for a 1st ballot, 2 for a 2nd ballot, and 1 for a 3rd. Highest point-total wins the spot (24-hour run-off will then only be done in the unlikely event of a tie). In this way I'm hoping to cut down the length of time this project will run, as I think that was part of the issue with poor voter turn-out in the late stages of the top 100 project. This format should probably keep each place down to ~48 hours.
e) I noticed on the last project a specified year for each player peak was stated. As there can be disagreement on which year is the peak for certain players (e.g. Lebron--->many think it's '09, many think it's '13 or '12), I propose that player gets credit for all votes he receives in a round, regardless of the year designated. For instance, if in a given round '09 Lebron received 17 pts, and '13 Lebron received 16 pts, and '12 Lebron received 12 pts.....we'll just count that as 45 pts for Lebron. Otherwise it's as though we're penalizing a player for having a longer sustained peak. Anyone disagree?
***I still think it would be worthwhile to designate a year you think is a player's peak, as I'll likely include this info in the list. Just wrt scoring each round, we'll add all vote-receiving years up. Then as we move on, we'll conduct a side thread to debate and vote for the consensus year which represents a player's peak in all instances where there is NOT at least 75% consensus for a specific year.


Please post any thoughts/suggestions, as well as any intent to participate within this thread.

VOTER POOL
trex_8063
Quotatious
70sFan
RSCD_3
Mutnt

SKF_85
Clyde Frazier
eminence
NyCeEvO
Dr. Positivity

SideshowBob
Gregoire
Moonbeam
JordansBulls
PaulieWal

theonlyclutch
The-Power
thizznation
mischievous
LA Bird

yoyoboy
fpliii
MyUniBroDavis
Narigo
PCProductions

Joao Saraiva
BallerHogger
GoldenFrieza21
drza
urnoggin


RealGM Greatest Player Peaks of All-Time List
1. Michael Jordan ('91--unanimous)
2. Shaquille O'Neal ('00--unanimous)
3. Lebron James ('13--non-unanimous ('09))
4. Wilt Chamberlain ('67--non-unanimous ('64))
5. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (year to be determined)

I am fairly new to realgm, but looking through these little projects on the side, i find there has been a lot of great research done and collaboration of ideas from posters of different view points which I really do find interesting. I also find it really does elevate the knowledge of the whole forum to a degree, even for older NBA watchers (even tho they might not admit it )

Just wondering, does RealGM have a youtube channel where they can post the results of these side projects? If not...wondering perhaps it might be a neat idea to have a video that puts the result all together in a video, in a easy to follow package. I see a lot of other videos about NBA player comparisons, but i find a lot of these videos do not go in depth enough and uses a lot of cliche arguments. I just find that there has been a lot of great input from different knowledgeable posters....it would be nice to see it all come together in a video Just my 2 cents

[SideshowBob]

I am fairly new to realgm, but looking through these little projects on the side, i find there has been a lot of great research done and collaboration of ideas from posters of different view points which I really do find interesting. I also find it really does elevate the knowledge of the whole forum to a degree, even for older NBA watchers (even tho they might not admit it )

I think this is the inherent goal of these projects, fostering good debate, discussion and research. It helps educate folks, sticks around for posterity, and can help open people up to new perspectives or refine their thought-processes. The lists and rankings are all good fun too, but the real value lies in all the minds working together and leaving an imprint.

[mischievous]

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

I have him 5th. I can't go much higher due to all the regular season games he missed. He had a lot of seasons in his prime where he played well under 70 games.

[SideshowBob]

Criteria

My criteria for peak focuses on skillset/ability. What I'm concerned with is evaluating how much I believe player X improves the odds of any random team's title chances (I typically use the SRS/portability scale for this as Elgee has done/provided research on how much players can shift the needle).

Evaluation Period/Health

The in-season time-frame I like to evaluate/weight the most is the late RS and the postseason (though I don't penalize players for missing the playoffs, unless they are unable to play due to health). RS health (missed time) does not concern me too much, but if health has a negative effect on level of play during that crucial time-frame, I do account for that.

Era

Kind of throws me off. I want to stick to worrying about what players did within their era. Trying to consider them transferred across eras seems like a logistical nightmare.

Portability

A good player lifts a team's overall level of play. The better the team plays the better the chance at a title, thus I prefer skillsets that mesh well on already talented/well-built teams, or skills that tend to avoid easy overlap (defense as a whole is by nature is additive, on offense OTOH more particular skills are preferable). I use a 5 point scale, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, with -2 being the least portable and 2 being the most. Ideally, in the future I'd like to split this up for off/def as even now I think there's room for more nuance in the differences, and I think I could be a bit more precise. There are some situations where I may have preference for a less portable player at the same listed SRS level as well - this is usually because of the limitation of using 0.25 increments.

Ballot (Top 30)

An * indicates that I have multiple seasons of this player at the listed SIO level, and have gone with a year of preference.

Code: Select all

Rk.   Player   Season   SIO   Health   Port

1.    Shaq     2000    +8.00  100%     1
2.    Jordan   1991*   +8.00  100%    -1
3.    James    2013*   +8.00  95%      1
4.    Bird     1986    +7.25  100%     2
5.    Hakeem   1993*   +7.25  100%     2
6.    Wilt     1967    +7.25  100%     1
7.    Russell  1964*   +7.00  100%     2
8.    Duncan   2002    +7.00  100%     2
9.    Garnett  2004*   +7.00  100%     2
10.   Walton   1977    +7.25  80%      2



Code: Select all

11.   Robinson 1994    +6.75  100%     2
12.   Magic    1987    +6.75  100%    -1
13.   Jabbar   1977    +6.50  100%     1
14.   Erving   1976    +6.75  100%     0
15.   Curry    2015    +6.25  100%     2
16.   Wade     2009    +6.25  95%      0
17.   West     1968    +6.75  60%      1
21.   Dirk     2006*   +5.75  100%     1
19.   Barkley  1990    +5.75  100%     0
20.   Oscar    1964    +5.75  95%      1



Code: Select all

21.   Kobe     2008*   +5.75  100%    -1
22.   Paul     2008    +5.75  100%     0
23.   Durant   2014    +5.50  100%     1
24.   Ewing    1990    +5.50  100%     1
25.   Malone   1998*   +5.50  100%     0
26.   Nash     2007    +5.50  95%     -1
27.   McGrady  2003    +5.50  90%     -1
28.   Moses    1982    +5.25  100%     1
29.   GOAT     2015    +5.50  80%     -1
30.   Mourning 2000    +5.00  95%      2


*Pretty undecided on Dirk, I'm higher on his offense in later years but I don't know that that makes up for the defense earlier.

**Ballot not set in stone by any means. There are a lot of places where I'm iffy, particularly the 5.5-5.75 area, that group is a mess, (Durant could be the cream of the crop here, but I've cooled on him with some separation).

I'll also eventually try to expand out to 50 if I have the time.

[E-Balla]

Criteria

My criteria for peak focuses on skillset/ability. What I'm concerned with is evaluating how much I believe player X improves the odds of any random team's title chances (I typically use the SRS/portability scale for this as Elgee has done/provided research on how much players can shift the needle).

Evaluation Period/Health

The in-season time-frame I like to evaluate/weight the most is the late RS and the postseason (though I don't penalize players for missing the playoffs, unless they are unable to play due to health). RS health (missed time) does not concern me too much, but if health has a negative effect on level of play during that crucial time-frame, I do account for that.

Era

Kind of throws me off. I want to stick to worrying about what players did within their era. Trying to consider them transferred across eras seems like a logistical nightmare.

Portability

A good player lifts a team's overall level of play. The better the team plays the better the chance at a title, thus I prefer skillsets that mesh well on already talented/well-built teams, or skills that tend to avoid easy overlap (defense as a whole is by nature is additive, on offense OTOH more particular skills are preferable). I use a 5 point scale, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, with -2 being the least portable and 2 being the most. Ideally, in the future I'd like to split this up for off/def as even now I think there's room for more nuance in the differences, and I think I could be a bit more precise. There are some situations where I may have preference for a less portable player at the same listed SRS level as well - this is usually because of the limitation of using 0.25 increments.

Ballot (Top 30)

An * indicates that I have multiple seasons of this player at the listed SIO level, and have gone with a year of preference.

Code: Select all

Rk.   Player   Season   SIO   Health   Port

1.    Shaq     2000    +8.00  100%     1
2.    Jordan   1991*   +8.00  100%    -1
3.    James    2013*   +8.00  95%      1
4.    Bird     1986    +7.25  100%     2
5.    Hakeem   1993*   +7.25  100%     2
6.    Wilt     1967    +7.25  100%     1
7.    Russell  1964*   +7.00  100%     2
8.    Duncan   2002    +7.00  100%     2
9.    Garnett  2004*   +7.00  100%     2
10.   Walton   1977    +7.25  80%      2



Code: Select all

11.   Robinson 1994    +6.75  100%     2
12.   Magic    1987    +6.75  100%    -1
13.   Jabbar   1977    +6.50  100%     1
14.   Erving   1976    +6.75  100%     0
15.   Curry    2015    +6.25  100%     2
16.   Wade     2009    +6.25  95%      0
17.   West     1968    +6.75  60%      1
21.   Dirk     2006*   +5.75  100%     1
19.   Barkley  1990    +5.75  100%     0
20.   Oscar    1964    +5.75  95%      1



Code: Select all

21.   Kobe     2008*   +5.75  100%     0
22.   Paul     2008    +5.75  100%     0
23.   Durant   2014    +5.50  100%     1
24.   Ewing    1990    +5.50  100%     1
25.   Malone   1998*   +5.50  100%     0
26.   Nash     2007    +5.50  95%     -1
27.   McGrady  2003    +5.50  90%     -1
28.   Moses    1982    +5.25  100%     1
29.   GOAT     2015    +5.50  80%     -1
30.   Mourning 2000    +5.00  95%      2


*Pretty undecided on Dirk, I'm higher on his offense in later years but I don't know that that makes up for the defense earlier.

**Ballot not set in stone by any means. There are a lot of places where I'm iffy, particularly the 5.5-5.75 area, that group is a mess, (Durant could be the cream of the crop here, but I've cooled on him with some separation).

I'll also eventually try to expand out to 50 if I have the time.

If you only compare players in their own era why so low on Russell? I think by that criteria any case for Russell outside of that top tier (which in you case is the top 3) is crazy. Say what you want about the guy's offense but his impact was tremendous.

[SideshowBob]

But my thought process is not "how much impact did player X have in his era?". My thought process is player X did (or didn't do) A B C and D to W X Y Z degree, and in his era this sums up to +5 or +7 or whatever. I'm not trying to make an "impact in their era" list.

[RSCD3_]

But my thought process is not "how much impact did player X have in his era?". My thought process is player X did (or didn't do) A B C and D to W X Y Z degree, and in his era this sums up to +5 or +7 or whatever. I'm not trying to make an "impact in their era" list.

Quoting this section because it's shooter

I'm confused on how you have Jordan at -1 with less portability than either Wade or Kobe at 0.

Jordan is a much more willing passer than Kobe, his midrange is about the same, probably worse than peak Jordan and wasn't demonstrateably better at off ball.

Wade was even worse of a shooter and while his off ball cuts were really good and he certainly wasn't a ball dominator I can't see either being above Jordan. At most they should be tied IMO. But what's your reasoning

[SideshowBob]

But my thought process is not "how much impact did player X have in his era?". My thought process is player X did (or didn't do) A B C and D to W X Y Z degree, and in his era this sums up to +5 or +7 or whatever. I'm not trying to make an "impact in their era" list.

Quoting this section because it's shooter

I'm confused on how you have Jordan at -1 with less portability than either Wade or Kobe at 0.

Jordan is a much more willing passer than Kobe, his midrange is about the same, probably worse than peak Jordan and wasn't demonstrateably better at off ball.

Wade was even worse of a shooter and while his off ball cuts were really good and he certainly wasn't a ball dominator I can't see either being above Jordan. At most they should be tied IMO. But what's your reasoning

I'm on the cusp of Wade (and even Paul) at -1 and Kobe's a typo. Relative to Jordan - it's because IMO a greater fraction of Wade's overall is made up of defense than Jordan's (Wade at ~25%, Jordan <20%). I don't have a hard threshold there. As I remarked, I recognize the lack of precision in my portability ratings - but know that its not really causing any dramatic shifts in positioning here so I lack the motivation to do so (and in some cases I end up having preference for a less portable player anyway).

[ElGee]

Since I've been quoted a bunch, I thought I'd add some context by sharing a ranking I made last fall after going through some offensive and defensive peaks. Some players might have multiple years at the same peak. Jerry West's best year was 1968, but missing 40% of the season dropped his value below his 1966 season.

Another thing I did was separate offensive and defensive portability. Defensive portability is fairly consistent -- players don't run into redundancy a lot -- but offensive portability is more variable and can have a larger impact. It's also important for people to understand that your portability rating (5-point likert scale from -2 to +2) is related to your offensive SIO. This is because portability is a concept to describe how much your value carries through as you scale up onto better teams (are your returns diminishing?).

Steph Curry would definitely replace David Thompson if I updated from this year.

[SideshowBob]

Since I've been quoted a bunch, I thought I'd add some context by sharing a ranking I made last fall after going through some offensive and defensive peaks. Some players might have multiple years at the same peak. Jerry West's best year was 1968, but missing 40% of the season dropped his value below his 1966 season.

Another thing I did was separate offensive and defensive portability. Defensive portability is fairly consistent -- players don't run into redundancy a lot -- but offensive portability is more variable and can have a larger impact. It's also important for people to understand that your portability rating (5-point likert scale from -2 to +2) is related to your offensive SIO. This is because portability is a concept to describe how much your value carries through as you scale up onto better teams (are your returns diminishing?).

Steph Curry would definitely replace David Thompson if I updated from this year.

Thoughts on 15 Curry's offense? Given you missed out on the POY thread. Seems like you regard him quite a bit lower than a lot of us (given he's getting traction in this project already), but I recall you saying you had a tough time gauging just how valuable he could be on offense.

EDIT: And 15 Harden and Westbrook while we're at it

[trex_8063]

Since I've been quoted a bunch, I thought I'd add some context by sharing a ranking I made last fall after going through some offensive and defensive peaks. Some players might have multiple years at the same peak. Jerry West's best year was 1968, but missing 40% of the season dropped his value below his 1966 season.

Another thing I did was separate offensive and defensive portability. Defensive portability is fairly consistent -- players don't run into redundancy a lot -- but offensive portability is more variable and can have a larger impact. It's also important for people to understand that your portability rating (5-point likert scale from -2 to +2) is related to your offensive SIO. This is because portability is a concept to describe how much your value carries through as you scale up onto better teams (are your returns diminishing?).

Steph Curry would definitely replace David Thompson if I updated from this year.

Any chance you could post a link to all the details on your WOWY studies? I seem to have misplaced that.