RealGM Top 100 LIST- 2014

[Dr Positivity]

I see you and john are both posting in this one.

Oh, and Baller . . . "the coma?"

When I first read it I thought "the coma" was a sexual position I'd never heard of

[therealbig3]

Sure, almost word for word paragraphs, ideas, and overall rankings of players is just you happening to read the older project.

I don't think I can assume good faith when that's pretty convincing evidence to the contrary.

[ThaRegul8r]

Sure, almost word for word paragraphs, ideas, and overall rankings of players is just you happening to read the older project.

I don't think I can assume good faith when that's pretty convincing evidence to the contrary.

Evidence >> everything else.

[MacGill]

BTW, is it possible to put a closing time on each vote thread? I may only get an opportunity to look a few times so I want to be sure I can work around this?

thanks.

[penbeast0]

2 days for each, sometime after 5PM Eastern USA time depending on when I have the opportunity that night.

[penbeast0]

Guys, we have a lot of people in this project doing long, serious, involved posts. If you are going to quote a post more than, say, 20 lines, either edit it to just quote the lines you wish to respond to or use the spoiler key to minimize it so people reading through the thread won't see the same page long posts repeated.

We might get more people reading the threads if they aren't intimidated so much by the sheer number of pages.

[andrewww]

@Penbeast

Please kindly advise if my vote will being to matter for #5.

I feel I've more than contributed my fair share while keeping an open mind as the discussion beginning for #4 onwards has been most compelling.

Thanks.

[Baller2014]

I have a query about how we turn a plurality into a majority. In the case of breaking the tie between Russell and Kareem it was obvious, because there were only 2 candidates. But what if we face a situation with 3-4 very close candidates?

This seems to be the case in the #4 thread at the moment. By the current count it looks like we'll get another day to cast our next best preference. In this instance we could unfairly screw Shaq or Duncan or Hakeem by eliminating them from the voting. Sure, Magic has 2 extra votes on Shaq right now, but it's possible all 9 of the KG/Hakeem/Duncan voters prefer him to Magic. Maybe we should do preferences 1-5 with reverse points like the RPOY project, in order to break the tie? Or we could eliminate the minority voters in reverse order (so if KG finished with the fewest votes we'd eliminate him first, and let those 3 voters cast their preferences, and so on, until only 2 candidates remained).

What are people's thoughts on the process that should be used? Just the same as Russell/KAJ, or different?

[ceiling raiser]

I have a query about how we turn a plurality into a majority. In the case of breaking the tie between Russell and Kareem it was obvious, because there were only 2 candidates. But what if we face a situation with 3-4 very close candidates?

This seems to be the case in the #4 thread at the moment. By the current count it looks like we'll get another day to cast our next best preference. In this instance we could unfairly screw Shaq or Duncan or Hakeem by eliminating them from the voting. Sure, Magic has 2 extra votes on Shaq right now, but it's possible all 9 of the KG/Hakeem/Duncan voters prefer him to Magic. Maybe we should do preferences 1-5 with reverse points like the RPOY project, in order to break the tie? Or we could eliminate the minority voters in reverse order (so if KG finished with the fewest votes we'd eliminate him first, and let those 3 voters cast their preferences, and so on, until only 2 candidates remained).

What are people's thoughts on the process that should be used? Just the same as Russell/KAJ, or different?

I'm opposed to preferences 1-5 or any sort of batch voting. I wouldn't want to limit the conversation. The goal IMO is to limit the voting so that it encompasses as little of the discussion as possible. But we still want a proper selection.

It's obviously up to penbeast0, but I think, based on what I've seen so far, the best strategy would be to go to a runoff if the votes for the second and third candidates don't exceed the votes of the leading votegetter. It's obviously too late for this spot (wouldn't be fair IMO to change it while a vote is in progress), but I think going forward, this would eliminate the need to have runoffs for every position. That way we minimize time spent discussing voting, and maximize the time on the conversation. Too much talk about voting/runoffs etc. stagnates the conversation IMO, and will cause participation to drop off by artificially extending the duration of each thread.

[Dr Positivity]

I have a query about how we turn a plurality into a majority. In the case of breaking the tie between Russell and Kareem it was obvious, because there were only 2 candidates. But what if we face a situation with 3-4 very close candidates?

This seems to be the case in the #4 thread at the moment. By the current count it looks like we'll get another day to cast our next best preference. In this instance we could unfairly screw Shaq or Duncan or Hakeem by eliminating them from the voting. Sure, Magic has 2 extra votes on Shaq right now, but it's possible all 9 of the KG/Hakeem/Duncan voters prefer him to Magic. Maybe we should do preferences 1-5 with reverse points like the RPOY project, in order to break the tie? Or we could eliminate the minority voters in reverse order (so if KG finished with the fewest votes we'd eliminate him first, and let those 3 voters cast their preferences, and so on, until only 2 candidates remained).

What are people's thoughts on the process that should be used? Just the same as Russell/KAJ, or different?

I'm opposed to preferences 1-5 or any sort of batch voting. I wouldn't want to limit the conversation. The goal IMO is to limit the voting so that it encompasses as little of the discussion as possible. But we still want a proper selection.

It's obviously up to penbeast0, but I think, based on what I've seen so far, the best strategy would be to go to a runoff if the votes for the second and third candidates don't exceed the votes of the leading votegetter. It's obviously too late for this spot (wouldn't be fair IMO to change it while a vote is in progress), but I think going forward, this would eliminate the need to have runoffs for every position. That way we minimize time spent discussing voting, and maximize the time on the conversation. Too much talk about voting/runoffs etc. stagnates the conversation IMO, and will cause participation to drop off by artificially extending the duration of each thread.

I like this idea, another one could be that if the leader is doubling 2nd place, he just gets voted in.

[Baller2014]

That would mean he didn't have a majority, which should be a minimum bar to get in.

[Texas Chuck]

Top 5 suggestions for fixing the voting:


5.

Spoiler:

It must be unanimous-- a simple majority just won't do.

4.

Spoiler:

Have someone self-appoint themselves to change the procedure on a case by case basis based solely on what helps their personal agenda.

3.

Spoiler:

Actually the simplest solution would be to form the first ever RealGM electoral college. First we need to elect electors which will be a simple 14 step process where we.....

2.

Spoiler:

Like any good pick-up game, first to 11, win by 2

1.

Spoiler:

Seriously guys its about the discussion. We can arrive at a very good list using any number of different procedures so relax and let the guys running this run it.

[ceiling raiser]

Like any good pick-up game, first to 11, win by 2

Literally LOLed from that one.

Apologies if I derailed the conversation at all, wasn't my intention. As you said, I'm sure the voting will sort itself out.

[therealbig3]

Yeah, I pretty much agree with ronnymac2. I mentioned Robinson a few times as a modern big that was a lot like Russell, but I don't think his offense was that great...I mean, it was great, but for what you want out of a big man offensively, you want the following:

-back to the basket game...Robinson was lacking here

-hands and finishing ability...Robinson was elite in terms of catching and finishing

-jumper...Robinson was ok in terms of his midrange jumper, nothing that special though, and he certainly didn't have great range with it

-passing...Robinson was again just ok, not great


As a big man, Robinson's one elite offensive skill was catching and finishing (as well as taking opposing big men off the dribble and attacking the basket, but this isn't that important of a skill for a big man, especially when you don't have great passing or great shooting to complement it, because it's something that opposing defenses can shut down, which is what actually happened quite a few times throughout Robinson's playoff career).

Compare that to Russell, who was an elite finisher and passer...compare that to Duncan, who was elite at everything except with his jumper, and even there, he was pretty decent. Compare that to KG, who was elite at everything except for a back to the basket game. Compare that to Hakeem, who was elite at pretty much everything...well, maybe his passing wasn't quite elite, but it was better than Robinson's. Compare that to Shaq, who was elite at everything except for jump shooting...but he was SO elite at everything else, particularly his back to the basket game, that his ability to hit a jumper was irrelevant.

Robinson really provides just one awesome skill when he's used optimally, other big men are pretty multi-dimensional in their skills, which gives them the edge over Robinson imo.

So offensively, I'm actually not that impressed with Robinson, and wouldn't really give him a huge edge over Russell...not enough of one that I wouldn't pick Russell based on his better defense. I would take Duncan, Garnett, and Hakeem over Russell though, because they're VERY valuable offensive big men (especially Hakeem), to the point where I can't really ignore their advantage over Russell on that end of the floor, despite slightly inferior defense. The "slightly" is what's open to debate though, and I can understand if people pick Russell because they feel his defensive advantage is a lot more than "slight".

[DQuinn1575]

[quote="Texas Chuck"]Top 5 suggestions for fixing the voting:


Actually the simplest solution would be to form the first ever RealGM electoral college. First we need to elect electors which will be a simple 14 step process where we.....


Good stuff - made me smile.

Seriously though, we are in for a series of run-offs - I think we will have one for most evey spot going forward.

[penbeast0]

Thanks Chuck

[ElGee]

Sure, almost word for word paragraphs, ideas, and overall rankings of players is just you happening to read the older project.

I don't think I can assume good faith when that's pretty convincing evidence to the contrary.

He also felt compelled to move to Australia and start spelling things exactly the same way ("tonne").

I kid Gilmore Fan. Don't take it so seriously and you might not get banned repeatedly.

[sp6r=underrated]

Top 5 suggestions for fixing the voting:


5.It must be unanimous-- a simple majority just won't do.

The liberum veto (Latin for "the free veto") was a parliamentary device in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. It was a form of unanimity voting rule that allowed any member of the Sejm (legislature) to force an immediate end to the current session and nullify any legislation that had already been passed at the session by shouting Nie pozwalam! (Polish: "I do not allow!") . . . Many historians hold that the principle of liberum veto was a major cause of the deterioration of the Commonwealth political system—particularly in the 18th century, when foreign powers bribed Sejm members to paralyze its proceedings

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberum_veto

[Doctor MJ]

Hey people are talking about runoffs in the #4 thread but it's not clear to me if there's something official there.

It makes a difference to me as a voter. I'm willing to accept pluralities and in such cases I'm not looking to tactically vote. However if there is a run off between two candidates I do want to participate.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[ceiling raiser]

Hey people are talking about runoffs in the #4 thread but it's not clear to me if there's something official there.

It makes a difference to me as a voter. I'm willing to accept pluralities and in such cases I'm not looking to tactically vote. However if there is a run off between two candidates I do want to participate.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Indeed there is my friend:

viewtopic.php?p=40447861#p40447861