RealGM Top 100 All-Time (2017)

[Bad Gatorade]

So I don't know if I'd actually be able to participate as a voter... life has taken a busy turn for me, and I've taken some time off from here. But I'll try and throw in my 2c when I can

Bad Gatorade, sorry I forgot about you. We'd definitely benefit from whatever participation you're able to provide. I'll add you to the panel.

I haven't really been using the board, so it's completely understandable

[andrewww]

Would love to participate, thanks.

[colts18]

I am definitely down to participate.

[trex_8063]

.

.

Have added you both to the voter panel.

[Cyrusman122000]

Definitely down to participate!

[trex_8063]

Definitely down to participate!

You're in.

[BasketballFan7]

So I don't know if I'd actually be able to participate as a voter... life has taken a busy turn for me, and I've taken some time off from here. But I'll try and throw in my 2c when I can

Bad Gatorade, sorry I forgot about you. We'd definitely benefit from whatever participation you're able to provide. I'll add you to the panel.

I haven't really been using the board, so it's completely understandable

Contribute when you can, your 2c are always worth listening to.

[Winsome Gerbil]

So I don't know if I'd actually be able to participate as a voter... life has taken a busy turn for me, and I've taken some time off from here. But I'll try and throw in my 2c when I can

Clearly you need to get your priorities straight and take some time off of life so you can get busy here.



P.S. And oh what the heck. If worst comes to worst I can always just recuse myself.

[mikejames23]

Thanks trex for the notification. I won't be voting on this project.

It would take me a ton of time to research many of these pre-80's players and I wouldn't be able to do them all justice in my voting decisions. If possible I would still like to chip in to the discussion every now and then - maybe if you have a separate thread for that or if you don't mind some extra commentary on the discussions.

[trex_8063]

So I don't know if I'd actually be able to participate as a voter... life has taken a busy turn for me, and I've taken some time off from here. But I'll try and throw in my 2c when I can

Clearly you need to get your priorities straight and take some time off of life so you can get busy here.



P.S. And oh what the heck. If worst comes to worst I can always just recuse myself.

You're in.

Thanks trex for the notification. I won't be voting on this project.

It would take me a ton of time to research many of these pre-80's players and I wouldn't be able to do them all justice in my voting decisions. If possible I would still like to chip in to the discussion every now and then - maybe if you have a separate thread for that or if you don't mind some extra commentary on the discussions.

Of course. The discussion is open to everyone, so please do drop in whenever possible.

[ThaRegul8r]

Yeah, just to make it official, since I haven't publicly said anything on the matter, and so no one has to ask me...

I can't do it.

It's too much aggravation when I see someone post something I know for a fact to be false, I post the facts, and then they're going to argue with me. I'm not going to get into it with anonymous people on the internet. I was feeling back in 2012 that what I was doing was pointless, because it doesn't matter how much evidence I post, people will believe what they believe. And I don't even push for a particular player, I post whatever facts need to be posted whenever I see an inaccuracy. But I'm too old for this. And I don't have control over other people, but I do have complete control of myself.

[kayess]

Yeah, just to make it official, since I haven't publicly said anything on the matter, and so no one has to ask me...

I can't do it.

It's too much aggravation when I see someone post something I know for a fact to be false, I post the facts, and then they're going to argue with me. I'm not going to get into it with anonymous people on the internet. I was feeling back in 2012 that what I was doing was pointless, because it doesn't matter how much evidence I post, people will believe what they believe. And I don't even push for a particular player, I post whatever facts need to be posted whenever I see an inaccuracy. But I'm too old for this. And I don't have control over other people, but I do have complete control of myself.

This doesn't preclude you from participating in the discussion though, right?

I know for a fact that many posters will use your input - whether as a voting participant or otherwise.

[Reservoirdawgs]

I was hoping this would happen again...I still re-read the 2011 and 2014 Top 100 All-Time and I am always blown away at how great the discussion is. I do enjoy contributing occasionally even though I do not have the time, nor the knowledge, to always be an active participant.

[ElGee]

Might be proposing some changes to the voting procedure soon. And although this thread has been up for a few days, I wanted to better fill out the voter panel before I talk about changes to the procedure. So am once more pitching to various [mostly] clean record regs and brainy types that I think the project would benefit from their input (some of you I'm bothering for the second time).....any of you guys want to be part of the voter panel for this project?

.

Thanks for the page but I won't have time. I'll definitely check in occasionally to see the results/discussion. I'll also throw out two thoughts on a top-100:

(1) I'm 100% on board with balloted voting methods. We've done this for RPOY (which was about 60 threads) and it was pretty smooth (although that was Borda count so didn't require a script or something to calculate). My recommendation would be IRV with a top-3 for the slot that is being voted on. So for the No. 1 spot in the project, instead of just voting for a winner, participants would submit:

1. Oliver Miler
2. Mikan
3. Jordan

When there is no majority -- eg Kareem is in the lead at only 40% -- any ballots like this transfer those 2nd or 3rd preference to the top candidates (per normal IRV practices that I won't rehash here). Having done two of these I think this does a few key things:

(a) Removes strategic voting!
(b) Keeps conversation focused on the next wave of players (replacing the "nomination" process)
(c) Provides a more accurate reflection of the board

(2) I think having a consistent criteria creates a more valuable list. Now, I understand that's difficult, but reading the criteria post I actually think there's a lot of alignment on this being a kind of "best career" list versus something else (which is amazing -- usually one guy is doing peak and another guy is doing influence on game and another guy is counting rings). As a consumer, I would just always prefer that the voters are talking about the same thing as much as possible, and it looks like you've got that.

With that said, the last thing I'll say to the participants is open-mindedness is critical. You'll end up with better discussion, but you also don't want to censor ideas, which means if Larry Bird ends up 2nd or 15th, you don't judge either just because it's outside the norm. Dogmatism can be toxic in endeavors like this where we're never going to get it perfect.

[trex_8063]

Yeah, just to make it official, since I haven't publicly said anything on the matter, and so no one has to ask me...

I can't do it.

Fair enough. I didn't "page" you because I somewhat anticipated you might decline (after all, you're on record multiple times sort of philosophically asking us why your opinion should matter to us at all). Also figured you're attentive enough to have noticed when this thread went up without me paging you, and wouldn't be sheepish about voicing your intent if you were interested in participating.

If you change your mind, let me know. Otherwise, we'd like it if you imparted some thoughts from time to time if/when you feel motivated to do so.

[THKNKG]

Might be proposing some changes to the voting procedure soon. And although this thread has been up for a few days, I wanted to better fill out the voter panel before I talk about changes to the procedure. So am once more pitching to various [mostly] clean record regs and brainy types that I think the project would benefit from their input (some of you I'm bothering for the second time).....any of you guys want to be part of the voter panel for this project?

.

Thanks for the page but I won't have time. I'll definitely check in occasionally to see the results/discussion. I'll also throw out two thoughts on a top-100:

(1) I'm 100% on board with balloted voting methods. We've done this for RPOY (which was about 60 threads) and it was pretty smooth (although that was Borda count so didn't require a script or something to calculate). My recommendation would be IRV with a top-3 for the slot that is being voted on. So for the No. 1 spot in the project, instead of just voting for a winner, participants would submit:

1. Oliver Miler
2. Mikan
3. Jordan

When there is no majority -- eg Kareem is in the lead at only 40% -- any ballots like this transfer those 2nd or 3rd preference to the top candidates (per normal IRV practices that I won't rehash here). Having done two of these I think this does a few key things:

(a) Removes strategic voting!
(b) Keeps conversation focused on the next wave of players (replacing the "nomination" process)
(c) Provides a more accurate reflection of the board

(2) I think having a consistent criteria creates a more valuable list. Now, I understand that's difficult, but reading the criteria post I actually think there's a lot of alignment on this being a kind of "best career" list versus something else (which is amazing -- usually one guy is doing peak and another guy is doing influence on game and another guy is counting rings). As a consumer, I would just always prefer that the voters are talking about the same thing as much as possible, and it looks like you've got that.

With that said, the last thing I'll say to the participants is open-mindedness is critical. You'll end up with better discussion, but you also don't want to censor ideas, which means if Larry Bird ends up 2nd or 15th, you don't judge either just because it's outside the norm. Dogmatism can be toxic in endeavors like this where we're never going to get it perfect.

Yeah, previously I mentioned STV as a voting option, but I actually think it's more so suited to situations where there are more than one candidates who will be nominated and selected (like seats in the House of Representatives or something). The IRV seems more suited to this (one selected per spot), and would be ideal.

[trex_8063]

Knowing that participation dwindles in the later stages, I was hoping to beef up the size of the panel a little more than this, but it is what it is. Perhaps we'll get a few "Johnny come lately's" after the project starts.

Anyway, I wanted to go over an alternate voting protocol than that which is listed in the OP. Just for clarity (since there apparently was some confusion), the protocol in OP is as follows:
Each panel member submits a vote for ONE player. If a player has, at the end of the 48-hour voting window a majority of the total vote (NOT having more votes than any other one player, but an actual majority; that is: >50% of the total vote), he will be awarded the spot. In the event that no player has >50% of the total vote, we would enter a 24-hour run-off vote where panel members will choose between the top two vote recipients. Winner of the run-off is awarded the spot.


But as voting alternatives have been suggested by more than one poster, I'll propose an alternate ballot method, which would be as follows:
Each panel member will state their 1st ballot choice (that is: your top pick), a 2nd ballot choice, and a 3rd ballot choice. Points will be awarded to each ballot choice----I suggest probably a 3-2-1 weighting (3pts for 1st ballot, 2pts for 2nd ballot, 1pt for 3rd ballot), though that is open for debate. The player with the most points at the end of the 48-hour voting window is awarded the spot.
Or we could also discuss and vote upon some stipulations for when the point totals are really close......e.g. perhaps if the top two are separated by 2pts or less, we enter a 24-hour run-off between the top two, or if the player with the most points doesn't have at least .400 (or whatever) "shares", we must enter a run-off between the top two.

We can hash out those latter details later, if necessary. What I want to know from you guys right now is if you would prefer the ballot method instead of the single-vote method in OP.
The more I think about it, the ballot method does seem potentially better.
Advantages:
***Will likely stimulate more discussion, as there will be more players on the table to discuss.
****Hypothetically it should allow us to get thru the project about a month sooner (by avoiding so many 24-hour run-offs).

Disadvantages:
*Does require a little more time on all our parts, as we now have THREE players to present arguments for instead of just one.
**Easier to manipulate the vote thru "strategic balloting".

I am paging everyone on the voter panel, as well as those on "trial period" (who presumably/hopefully will be on the panel in due time), to get a feel of what you guys want. So please, everyone take a moment to reply here. Which method would you prefer: single-vote or ballot system?

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[ardee]

I like the idea of voting for 1/2/3 at a time. You could present a primary argument for your no. 1 guy and then maybe a more condensed couple for the second and third.

I think as long as the guy has more than .400 of the available points you won't even need a runoff. It may be a little more messy in terms of presenting arguments but it's better than ending up in a runoff, which extends an already long af project.

[ardee]

Also, aside, what do you guys think of a ballot thread where everyone presents their pre-project lists as far as they possibly can? Would be interesting to do a summation of those lists and then compare it to the final project results.

[TheGOATRises007]

I think ballot is better as well.

More discussion. Leads to a quicker finish.