2024 Retro Player of the Year Project UPDATE [Discussion Thread]

[IlikeSHAIguys]

Do we vote here now?

[AEnigma]

Do we vote here now?

Either that, DM, or wait a few hours.

[DCasey91]

Not having Bird POY in 86 and Jordan in 93 is lol worthy.

2022 Bird got ranked 9th all time peak wise in your own Project Board

I agree with 88 Magic though

But y'all keep doing ya'll no need for consistencies... Just keep on data crunching. At some point relativity will be replaced with who is the better arguer cool. Rhetoric, Rhetoric, and Rhetoric
good luck

Some poster thought Bird could be replaced by an All Star level wing and they would have won.....

Yeah let me just find one that cranks out 7+ assists, 10+ boards or 25 or more points on a consistent basis, forget the intangibles, leadership etc etc..... Hmm I'm going to have to wait until Bron comes along then.

Please stuff like that isn't shooting close to the mark. That is flat negative bias.
We all have this just don't apply it to any truth. Look at the above. Really an All Star level wing? Is that objective analysis (which I thought this was) or your own subjective bias?

P.S Still waiting on Dirk to get the Garnett treatment

[IlikeSHAIguys]

Not having Bird POY in 86 and Jordan in 93 is lol worthy.

2022 Bird got ranked 9th all time peak wise in your own Project Board

I agree with 88 Magic though

But y'all keep doing ya'll no need for consistencies... Just keep on data crunching. At some point relativity will be replaced with who is the better arguer cool. Rhetoric, Rhetoric, and Rhetoric
good luck

Some poster thought Bird could be replaced by an All Star level wing and they would have won.....

Yeah let me just find one that cranks out 7+ assists, 10+ boards or 25 or more points on a consistent basis, forget the intangibles, leadership etc etc..... Hmm I'm going to have to wait until Bron comes along then.

Please stuff like that isn't shooting close to the mark. That is flat negative bias.
We all have this just don't apply it to any truth. Look at the above. Really an All Star level wing? Is that objective analysis (which I thought this was) or your own subjective bias?

P.S Still waiting on Dirk to get the Garnett treatment

I've been trying to get this but what is relativity supposed to mean?

[DCasey91]

Not having Bird POY in 86 and Jordan in 93 is lol worthy.

2022 Bird got ranked 9th all time peak wise in your own Project Board

I agree with 88 Magic though

But y'all keep doing ya'll no need for consistencies... Just keep on data crunching. At some point relativity will be replaced with who is the better arguer cool. Rhetoric, Rhetoric, and Rhetoric
good luck

Some poster thought Bird could be replaced by an All Star level wing and they would have won.....

Yeah let me just find one that cranks out 7+ assists, 10+ boards or 25 or more points on a consistent basis, forget the intangibles, leadership etc etc..... Hmm I'm going to have to wait until Bron comes along then.

Please stuff like that isn't shooting close to the mark. That is flat negative bias.
We all have this just don't apply it to any truth. Look at the above. Really an All Star level wing? Is that objective analysis (which I thought this was) or your own subjective bias?

P.S Still waiting on Dirk to get the Garnett treatment

I've been trying to get this but what is relativity supposed to mean?

Relativity in consistency

If the proposition of paragraphs from a poster is not congruent with objective truths then how can it be taken seriously as opposed to an ones own opinions which everyone is entitled too.

Lets say poster A says Bird is just a good passer (which Poster A did say that) what constitutes great in this basis if Bird is just good on their own grading scale? Forget all the other things, is that just a throwaway like word to diminish, is it a semantics thing (oh he's good not great) what is the objective reasoning? Is it purely looking at a sheet and going via Tov%, box creation, what?

I laid out the relative argument in the comparison between All Star Level wing as opposed to Bird and they would win. If Poster A truely wholeheartedly believes that there's where the substantial evidence to be true?

Do you know why post modern framing can get so much traction? Because its already baked into formal/informal structural discussion. It goes from objective truth to a subjective one.

How much is the weighted between RS/PS across the board. Is it okay and a green light for one and not the other? That then scream bias which I have an issue with

So what changed between now and 2022 with a 9th highest peak

1. Change of mind
2. Subjective bias
3. New concrete data
4. Rhetoric traction (I.e just like politics a party can vote in a flavour of the month rep and the sad part about it the rep doesn't matter it's the populist approach that drives it in)

Someone already here has the numbers of "swing votes" what is the hard changing factors?

I assume the majority like data, discussion, argumentative recourse, theory, models etc

I'm all for that, what I'm not for is belitting one and then championing another based on weak basis that in of itself already creates a superficial gap before better more thought out responses are created

If Poster A truely believes this is the case (All Star replacement same results) that is close to an exact same narrative that media uses to change people's minds.

It's just doesn't look pretty the drop off between the two results (Peak 9 until now)

Marcus Aururelies warns about this. The objective truth does not matter what matters is winning over the crowd.

[capfan33]

Damn bird was that high, may need to redo the peaks project as well

[AEnigma]

Marcus Aururelies warns about this. The objective truth does not matter what matters is winning over the crowd.

Where exactly is the “objective truth” in speculating that the 1986 Celtics could not possibly win the title with someone like Terry Cummings or Adrian Dantley or Alex English in place of Bird. How exactly would you provide “substantial evidence” to validate that?

[DCasey91]

Marcus Aururelies warns about this. The objective truth does not matter what matters is winning over the crowd.

Where exactly is the “objective truth” in speculating that the 1986 Celtics could not possibly win the title with someone like Terry Cummings or Adrian Dantley or Alex English in place of Bird. How exactly would you provide “substantial evidence” to validate that?

Wait really, Really?

I'm pointing out the inconsistency across the board

Where is the evidence to support this if there is any? Adrian Dantley. C'mon now do you think they are similar players?

I'm not the one saying if you replace Kobe for example with xyz they would still win

Where is the minimum qualitative evidence that suggests thy would win without Bird with replacement? You cannot just say that type of stuff and think it would slip past.

Do not put this on me trying to prove something

I laid out my points clear as can be

That's hypocrisy. Yeah wait before he provides concrete evidence, you do, no, nope first you have to provide the evidence they wouldn't win with xyz replacement.

That is not the point I'm trying to make do not misconstrued my words

I'm literally asking for evidence to support this supposed hypothesis. Not the other way around

Once again do not under any circumstance miscomprehend my words

Completely missed the mark here. Did I say they wouldn't win if they had an All Star Wing replacement?

NO. Once again NO I did not, I would have said that then

I'll say once and finally I'm asking to provide substantial evidence to the poster's corner if he believes this to be the case

Two very very different things and two very very different propositions

My guy you do this again and I'll tell you again as clear as can be

This is my position, you read the argument wrongly.

[DCasey91]

Larry Bird wasn't All Star Level

He was 1st Team All NBA
MVP

Let me say it again 1st Team All NBA, MVP

By the poster's assumption on his theory I have the right to replace Larry Bird with Andrew Wiggins. or back then for scope of group potential the worse performing All Level Star Wing/PF that year. Because he did not in fact incur the All Star level ranges (let's keep it wings or PF's for arguments sake postionally).
Wouldn't that also incur All Star level but doesn't have to be an All Star at all? Poster said All Star Level lets remember

See how reductionist and exhaustive this all sounds?
We all know All Star impact or level has a wider range than proceeding higher accomplishments we know this don't undermine it either. That is objective truth

If the group comes up with a near approximation of All Star level wings/pfs in of itself would be project to do for all positions btw, and have hardcore backing from the data coming in and consensus. some good can come of this. Instead of the verbatim "He was All Star level or should have been an All Star then now you guys would actually have that model/approximation/perimeters set in stone or continual updates. That is what's called being objective

You'll see how the reductionist approach happens. Oh that's the worse one on consensus or actually average picked out of the bunch, the best one whoever it may be then after the fact the evidence of winning the title of replacement begins.

Like give me break.

[IlikeSHAIguys]

Not having Bird POY in 86 and Jordan in 93 is lol worthy.

2022 Bird got ranked 9th all time peak wise in your own Project Board

I agree with 88 Magic though

But y'all keep doing ya'll no need for consistencies... Just keep on data crunching. At some point relativity will be replaced with who is the better arguer cool. Rhetoric, Rhetoric, and Rhetoric
good luck

Some poster thought Bird could be replaced by an All Star level wing and they would have won.....

Yeah let me just find one that cranks out 7+ assists, 10+ boards or 25 or more points on a consistent basis, forget the intangibles, leadership etc etc..... Hmm I'm going to have to wait until Bron comes along then.

Please stuff like that isn't shooting close to the mark. That is flat negative bias.
We all have this just don't apply it to any truth. Look at the above. Really an All Star level wing? Is that objective analysis (which I thought this was) or your own subjective bias?

P.S Still waiting on Dirk to get the Garnett treatment

I've been trying to get this but what is relativity supposed to mean?

Relativity in consistency

If the proposition of paragraphs from a poster is not congruent with objective truths then how can it be taken seriously as opposed to an ones own opinions which everyone is entitled too.

Lets say poster A says Bird is just a good passer (which Poster A did say that) what constitutes great in this basis if Bird is just good on their own grading scale? Forget all the other things, is that just a throwaway like word to diminish, is it a semantics thing (oh he's good not great) what is the objective reasoning? Is it purely looking at a sheet and going via Tov%, box creation, what?

I laid out the relative argument in the comparison between All Star Level wing as opposed to Bird and they would win. If Poster A truely wholeheartedly believes that there's where the substantial evidence to be true?

Do you know why post modern framing can get so much traction? Because its already baked into formal/informal structural discussion. It goes from objective truth to a subjective one.

How much is the weighted between RS/PS across the board. Is it okay and a green light for one and not the other? That then scream bias which I have an issue with

So what changed between now and 2022 with a 9th highest peak

1. Change of mind
2. Subjective bias
3. New concrete data
4. Rhetoric traction (I.e just like politics a party can vote in a flavour of the month rep and the sad part about it the rep doesn't matter it's the populist approach that drives it in)

Someone already here has the numbers of "swing votes" what is the hard changing factors?

I assume the majority like data, discussion, argumentative recourse, theory, models etc

I'm all for that, what I'm not for is belitting one and then championing another based on weak basis that in of itself already creates a superficial gap before better more thought out responses are created

If Poster A truely believes this is the case (All Star replacement same results) that is close to an exact same narrative that media uses to change people's minds.

It's just doesn't look pretty the drop off between the two results (Peak 9 until now)

Marcus Aururelies warns about this. The objective truth does not matter what matters is winning over the crowd.

I don't want mean to be mean here but honest to god what the ****. I've read this all this stuff a couple times now and wowee my brain hurts.

What is Marcus Aurelius have to do with Larry Bird. What does ROME have to do with 1986. Why is it some OBJECTIVE TRUTH that Bird is the 9th best peak because some people said he was. Why does it matter more how Bird was voted than who actually makes the best points for their takes?

I don't know or care what an allstar would have done or not done but it seems like a bunch of people are just mad people are voting for players in ways they wouldnt and are now trying to come up with all this fancy reasoning for why its bad people have different opinions from the ones they aren't even defending.

Everyone who talks about Bird or MJ talks about how you had to watch them play and then wow people watch them play and the eyetest is actually just meaningless and stupid and how dare you use it. I don't know what you guys think fritziing out is going to do because all this just made me care less about any of these votes or old opinions I'm supposed to care about.

All star all star all star. I don't care. People made pretty good points to show Bird and Jordan weren't that good and then you guys just made 100 posts saying no please stop being mean to the guy I watched in highschool and oh look heres this stat that isnt even ready to be used and wow everyone thought he was better back in the day! Reductionist exhaustive marcus aurelieus consistency in relativity? Stop trying to sound so fancy holy ****.

If you can't square up to people who disagree with you then just leave it. Why all this wow look how many posts this voter has wow they're gimmick wow this vote doesn't mean anything wow this vote is inconsistent in relativity.

I know i only have 126 posts so my opinion doesn't matter or anything but maybe if you're bringing out Rome here because holy **** MJ isn't 1 or Bird isn't 1 and I guess they're Julius Caesar or something the opinion that's lol is yours.

[DCasey91]

My man you are just further proving my points.

You're saying who cares, then citing where is the objective truth in the peaks project. Completely missing what I warned about in the first place. You are doing exactly what I said I think would happen

Disregard relative consistency and this happens all the time.

Look at the next post in regards to All Star level/impact. I literally just wrote down verbatim Larry Bird was not an All Star Level he was All NBA and MVP level. Two higher level trees to go from

That is an objective truth. I don't really know how to make it as simple as that.

You weren't even doubling down just complaining.

Look at this:
Rightly or wrongfully he got voted in at 9th peak through consensus if Keem wins out then he must have a pretty damn high peak no? I wonder what the consensus was back then vs now... I literally just wrote that out and some reasons for change

Poster X claims if he could be replaced by All Star level
I asked where's the evidence
I also said and I quote what is the basis of your range on All Star, by that token you can have the worst performing All Star before the evidence even begins. Loosely suggested a model or formula for this you know umm trying to be objective about it

Can you see the step by step methodology?

My man I laid out a half a dozen points in there trying to be objective as possible. Not my fault you can't understand it

It's like whatever it doesn't matter I can put the tennis court in argumentative conversation where I like.... Actually no hey if you're more persuasive then me and win over the crowd cool

But I threw the ball back and said if you think that then show me the evidence? Still no response.

And the counterpoint is laughable and completely missed the mark when I never stated they wouldn't win, I stated show me they would.... Still no answer and its been awhile.

Sometimes silence tells a lot more than words

2 + 2 = 4
2 + * = 4 ... okay show me that to be true

No wait you have to show me first 2 + * doesn't equal 4

Huh? Wtf is that logic

[IlikeSHAIguys]

My man you are just further proving my point.

You're saying who cares, then citing where is the objective truth in the peaks project. Completely missing what I warned about in the first place. You are doing exactly what I said I think would happen

Disregard relative consistency and this happens all the time.

Look at the next post in regards to All Star level/impact. I literally just wrote down verbatim Larry Bird was not an All Star Level he was All NBA and MVP level. Two higher level trees to go from

That is an objective truth. I don't really know how to make it as simple as that.

You weren't even doubling down just complaining.

Look at this:
Rightly or wrongfully he got voted in at 9th peak through consensus if Keem wins out then he must have a pretty damn high peak no? I wonder what the consensus was back then vs now... I literally just wrote that out and some reasons for change

Poster X claims if he could be replaced by All Star level
I asked where's the evidence
I also said and I quote what is the basis of your range on All Star, by that token you can have the worst performing All Star before the evidence even begins. Loosely suggested a model or formula for this you know umm trying to be objective about it

Can you see the step by step methodology?

My man I laid out a half a dozen points in there trying to be objective as possible. Not my fault you can't understand it

It's like whatever it doesn't matter I can put the tennis court in argumentative conversation where I like.... Actually no hey if you're more persuasive then me and win over the crowd cool

But I threw the ball and said if you think that then show me the evidence? Still no response.

And the counterpoint is laughable and completely missed the mark when I never stated they wouldn't win, I stated show me they would.... Still now answer an its been awhile.

Sometimes silence tells a lot more than words

Yeah so I'm no major in english and I don't have a phd in marcus aurelias but I'm pretty sure a bunch of guys voting Larry Bird all nba or MVP in 1986 doesn't make him being all nba or MVP level objectively true.

[DCasey91]

Alright man I can't help you have a nice day. Your'e just clutching at straws

You do know All Star has wider quality ranges than higher accomplishments? You do know that right hopefully you do.

2+2 = 4
2+*= 4 ... Okay show me that to be true

No you have to show me first that 2 + * doesn't equal 4 before I do anything

Nah I'm good this where I would leave conversation.

[AEnigma]

Poster X claims if he could be replaced by All Star level
I asked where's the evidence
I also said and I quote what is the basis of your range on All Star, by that token you can have the worst performing All Star before the evidence even begins. Loosely suggested a model or formula for this you know umm trying to be objective about it

Can you see the step by step methodology?

My man I laid out a half a dozen points in there trying to be objective as possible. Not my fault you can't understand it

It's like whatever it doesn't matter I can put the tennis court in argumentative conversation where I like.... Actually no hey if you're more persuasive then me and win over the crowd cool

But I threw the ball back and said if you think that then show me the evidence? Still no response.

And the counterpoint is laughable and completely missed the mark when I never stated they wouldn't win, I stated show me they would.... Still no answer and its been awhile.

Sometimes silence tells a lot more than words

2 + 2 = 4
2 + * = 4 ... okay show me that to be true

No wait you have to show me first 2 + * doesn't equal 4

Huh? Wtf is that logic

[LA Bird]

Correct me if i am wrong but i thought the situation you mean was a poster who wrote her votes for further years ahead of time which i believe to be allowed per the vote rules?

To suggest someone being an alt for not being on the site seems premature and somewhat baseless when is not a unusual thingh for people here to leave the project for long periods of time

I laid out several factors that made it very clear my issue with the situation was more than just about 'a poster voting in advance'.
There was even a link posted for convenience so if you want to have a genuine discussion about this, at least read that first before misrepresenting the situation.

Kola is real.

Cool. So it shouldn't be difficult for them to show up anytime now.

If I understand the proxy voting is only because someone like you decided to report them. Why shouldn’t they count?

They were never banned per the commissioner's own words and were proxy voting because of so called "reoccurring issues with their computer and their phone". You mean to tell me someone in today's world haven't fixed that for the past 3 months? Seriously? As for the why, I will direct you to the link above so I don't repeat myself.

And since this seems to be the go to accusation, I should point out my reasons for excluding proxy ballots from a brand new poster did not once depend on who they vote for. Nor am I a Jordan stan, which should be obvious from my votes in the top 100 projects dating back to 2017. But like I said before, while I disagree with the final decision from AEnigma, it doesn't ultimately affect the project much and I was fine with moving on ... until someone dug it up again months later to try to discredit me.

[OhayoKD]

Correct me if i am wrong but i thought the situation you mean was a poster who wrote her votes for further years ahead of time which i believe to be allowed per the vote rules?

To suggest someone being an alt for not being on the site seems premature and somewhat baseless when is not a unusual thingh for people here to leave the project for long periods of time

I laid out several factors that made it very clear my issue with the situation was more than just about 'a poster voting in advance'.
There was even a link posted for convenience so if you want to have a genuine discussion about this, at least read that first before misrepresenting the situation.

You listed 2, the first being blatantly false:

I haven't been up to date on the forum lately so maybe I missed the deleted posts but
to my knowledge, this poster made one post to request entry and was approved immediately with zero history.

They did have history: A thread which several posts including the person you're replying to saw and reacted to which was deleted with apparently nothing on the moderator notes done in the same format as the ballots they submitted for a project they signed up for a month later.

If you had actually bothered to "read first" before casting aspersions on someone you didn't know, you would know this (generously assuming your ignorance is genuine and not feigned).

A month following their actual debut (unrelated to the project), they signed up for the RPOY, and submitted 9 ballots having told me and the project-runner beforehand their computer and phone had died and in the case that tech died again, they would appreciate being allowed to pre-vote. The project runner agreed and extended that to Eminence and Paul and McBubbles, probably in part because "you can't have discussion about votes unless the person responds to your criticisms" is dumb.

When, as instructed they voted their post was mysteriously deleted again. Mysterious until a person admitted outright they reported their ballots as bait. Reasonable parties rightly assessed that as a farce and a majority were in favor of those votes being unconditionally counted. You typed out a whole lot of words to say: "So their votes are detailed, provide unique insight, and they're paying homage to a show they and several people in this project are familiar with? That's outrageous! It's unfair!"

And then you tried to frame this outrage as "evidence". A word come to mind.

your behavior here is pathetic.

Not the only time you "misrepresent the situation" of course:

OhayoKD's best friend will have no access to the internet the rest of their life and can only vote through proxy.

Perhaps if you had "read first" you would have noticed they only are voting "through proxy" for the ballots they submitted and the project runner as well as several other voters were witnesses to. The 84 thread being the first. And the 98 thread being the last. Of course for those interested in seeing young and talented people have a platform to spread their wings(along with relevant knowledge), that this is potentially their last ballot contribution, is a shame. You're probably giddy about it. How "respectable". Not your last misunderstanding by the way.

They were never banned per the commissioner's own words

The commissioner simply said there was no confirmation. And asked for confirmation. repeatedly, and received none. None of us know what happened and no one here claimed to know. But again "read first" for thee, but not me. I have a narrative to push, and if I use enough polysyllabic words and commas, maybe just maybe, no one will notice this narrative's roots in reality is paper-thin:

They were never banned per the commissioner's own words and were proxy voting because of so called "reoccurring issues with their computer and their phone". You mean to tell me someone in today's world haven't fixed that for the past 3 months? Seriously?

Yes, actually, people in today's world, especially highschoolers, may end up taking a few months to replace a computer. And replace is really what needs to happen here because when things go dead they become harder and more expensive to repair. Your privileges are not universal. Nor is the lack of imagination that had you considering a new poster being informative and fun unrealistic.

And of course whether you find it to be a reason to be a skeptical is besides the point. You attacked and inspired various others to continually attack someone you presumed wasn't going to defend themselves without any real evidence, hiding behind the veneer of "respectability". You don't need to be someone's best friend to stand up to that. You just need to have principles. Even if that has "respectable" folks calling you Aengima in 2022 and thestrongestgrainer in 2024

And since this seems to be the go to accusation, I should point out my reasons for excluding proxy ballots from a brand new poster did not once depend on who they vote for. Nor am I a Jordan stan, which should be obvious from my votes in the top 100 projects dating back to 2017.

If one talks like
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=116084344#p116084344
And they walk like
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=116084344#p116084344
They may as well be
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=116084344#p116084344

until someone dug it up again months later to try to discredit me.

Uh...no.

You called normal behavior weird and then were provided an example of actual weird behavior at which point I encouraged you to stick to basketball. Instead you unironically doubled down on attacking a highschooler (and myself) on the basis of **** all.

A few too many people are trying the Baller-vow bit so I propose a variant. Baller-choice

Express regret for attacking a highschooler on the basis of **** all

or

Triple-down and live with I (and I'd imagine many others) crossing you off their "respectable" poster list.

Up to you.

[eminence]

Mind removing me from the quote list on this thing?

Y'all can finish your thing without me just fine.

[Djoker]

Duncan with five 1st place votes in 1998 is the biggest shock of the project thus far. I wish someone would respond to my last post in that thread and actual provide some solid reasoning if there is any because I'm genuinely interested.

[OhayoKD]

Duncan with five 1st place votes in 1998 is the biggest shock of the project thus far. I wish someone would respond to my last post in that thread and actual provide some solid reasoning if there is any because I'm genuinely interested.

A bigger shock than Hakeem easily winning in 86?

[One_and_Done]

Duncan with five 1st place votes in 1998 is the biggest shock of the project thus far. I wish someone would respond to my last post in that thread and actual provide some solid reasoning if there is any because I'm genuinely interested.

You mean the reasons that require me to care about the same advanced stats you do? There's your answer right there.