RealGM Top 100 All-Time (2017)

[kayess]

I'm with Doc on this - we need spreadsheets for this! No issues with the voting method itself.

[THKNKG]

RCV is alright but if the preferences on a vote is exhausted and does not transfer to any of the remaining candidates, is it removed from the total vote count? It is not guaranteed we will end up with only 2 candidates after transferring the votes in which case we might not end with a majority.

I still think a single vote with run off for majority is the simplest and most straightforward way to tally up the votes.

Let's say someone is voting for #1 as follows:
1. Duncan 2. Russell 3. Kareem

If Duncan was the least chosen, this person's vote would go to Russell.

However, let's say someone votes:
1. Lebron 2. Garnett 3. Curry

If Lebron was the lowest vote getter, and no one voted for the other two (as well as there being no clear majority), yes this vote would count for nothing at that point. I don't feel that's a bad thing though; it prevents nonsense from skewing things and prevents agendas. The single vote allows for agendas and run offs take foreeeeeeever.

To answer the other question, no matter what there would be a clear majority with the RCV.

[An Unbiased Fan]

RCV is alright but if the preferences on a vote is exhausted and does not transfer to any of the remaining candidates, is it removed from the total vote count? It is not guaranteed we will end up with only 2 candidates after transferring the votes in which case we might not end with a majority.

I still think a single vote with run off for majority is the simplest and most straightforward way to tally up the votes.

Let's say someone is voting for #1 as follows:
1. Duncan 2. Russell 3. Kareem

If Duncan was the least chosen, this person's vote would go to Russell.

However, let's say someone votes:
1. Lebron 2. Garnett 3. Curry

If Lebron was the lowest vote getter, and no one voted for the other two (as well as there being no clear majority), yes this vote would count for nothing at that point. I don't feel that's a bad thing though; it prevents nonsense from skewing things and prevents agendas. The single vote allows for agendas and run offs take foreeeeeeever.

To answer the other question, no matter what there would be a clear majority with the RCV.

In the POY project it led to agendas. People will just leave players off the ballot. The one thing I did really like about the 2014 project was the runoff system because it forced people to make arguments for their choices for the most part. Any close votes will get ugly if 1/2/3 is used. Half the discussion will devolved into why poster A left player A off the ballot, and so on. Then you'll have vote counting and last minute picks based on the math. You guys have a solid panel, for the sake of it..and Penbeast's sanity, just avoid the headache.

[THKNKG]

RCV is alright but if the preferences on a vote is exhausted and does not transfer to any of the remaining candidates, is it removed from the total vote count? It is not guaranteed we will end up with only 2 candidates after transferring the votes in which case we might not end with a majority.

I still think a single vote with run off for majority is the simplest and most straightforward way to tally up the votes.

That so

Let's say someone is voting for #1 as follows:
1. Duncan 2. Russell 3. Kareem

If Duncan was the least chosen, this person's vote would go to Russell.

However, let's say someone votes:
1. Lebron 2. Garnett 3. Curry

If Lebron was the lowest vote getter, and no one voted for the other two (as well as there being no clear majority), yes this vote would count for nothing at that point. I don't feel that's a bad thing though; it prevents nonsense from skewing things and prevents agendas. The single vote allows for agendas and run offs take foreeeeeeever.

To answer the other question, no matter what there would be a clear majority with the RCV.

In the POY project it led to agendas. People will just leave players off the ballot. The one thing I did really like about the 2014 project was the runoff system because it forced people to make arguments for their choices for the most part. Any close votes will get ugly if 1/2/3 is used. Half the discussion will devolved into why poster A left player A off the ballot, and so on. Then you'll have vote counting and last minute picks based on the math. You guys have a solid panel, for the sake of it..and Penbeast's sanity, just avoid the headache.

If it were a points system ballot like the RPOY, agendas and people leaving guys off the ballots would be a real concern. With RCV agendas aren't an issue. If someone wants to vote for someone who will hold no sway, and leave someone else off, it is of no consequence to the final result.

[TrueLAfan]

I think an An Unbiased Fan’s points are valid, as are Doctor MJ’s. One thing we want to keep in mind is to recognize and learn from the examples and experiences of past votes—which we now have a lot of. The runoff system is simple and works. But a (possibly minor) point is that a runoff adds time to what is already a considerable project…if there are 24 hour runoffs in half of the votes, you’re adding a minimum of 7+ weeks to the project. Just noting that.

We could have a rule that discussion only focuses on the number 1 choice of a person's ballot, so no nitpicking their 2nd/3rd choice. If they want to pick an unreasonable 2nd choice, fine - it won't have any effect whatsoever on the voting.

fwiw, I'm not going to place limitations regarding what can or cannot be discussed, as long as it's not obnoxious or derailing (to do so would sort of go against the spirit of the project). If people want to do a write-up about their secondary pick, that's great. And if other posters wish to discuss their secondary picks, fantastic.

However---since "extra work" appears to be a sticking point for some---if we do go with this RCV system, I've decided I will not require people do a write-up for their secondary picks. Presumably these secondary choices will be valid candidates who will be earning discussion (and potentially first ballots) from other posters anyway.

I certainly think that's reasonable.

I'm leaning toward using the RCV; I think the system as outlined/linked by micahclay should provide a type of "paper/spreadsheet" for votes, and trex's decision to not require talking about secondary picks is a (very) good one. In the past, people always began projects by saying they wanted time to explain their picks. As people who participated in the past will tell you, you'll get tired of talking about Jack Sikma in detail nine times if you have him second four times and first five times. Very tired.

The kicker for me is that if RCV doesn't seem to be working for any reason, we can have a 72 hour discussion and revert to simple majority vote/runoff. Better to try something that is new and may be better--especially if there's a reasonable fallback. My .02.

[90sAllDecade]

My time available isn't what it used to be, but if I'm allowed to participate I'd make sure my posts add value and a different perspective to the discusson if possible. It's also a fascinating project for those curious but have never participated.Count me in if the panel permits.

[trex_8063]

My time available isn't what it used to be, but if I'm allowed to participate I'd make sure my posts add value and a different perspective to the discusson if possible. It's also a fascinating project for those curious but have never participated.Count me in if the panel permits.

I'll add you to panel. Please read OP if you haven't yet. We may be adjusting the voting procedure somewhat from what is in OP, however. Will let everybody know if that's to occur. Likely will start in roughly a week or so.

[Wavy Q]

If you have more room for people I'd like in on this project, I haven't posted on the PC board in a while but this is something that I have great interest in

[trex_8063]

I've decided we will give a try to the RCV (ranked choice vote) procedure (details have now been edited into the OP, for anyone who needs to review the procedure). I realize it's a bit experimental, but TrueLAfan summed it up nicely here:

I think an An Unbiased Fan’s points are valid, as are Doctor MJ’s. One thing we want to keep in mind is to recognize and learn from the examples and experiences of past votes—which we now have a lot of. The runoff system is simple and works. But a (possibly minor) point is that a runoff adds time to what is already a considerable project…if there are 24 hour runoffs in half of the votes, you’re adding a minimum of 7+ weeks to the project. Just noting that.

fwiw, I'm not going to place limitations regarding what can or cannot be discussed, as long as it's not obnoxious or derailing (to do so would sort of go against the spirit of the project). If people want to do a write-up about their secondary pick, that's great. And if other posters wish to discuss their secondary picks, fantastic.

However---since "extra work" appears to be a sticking point for some---if we do go with this RCV system, I've decided I will not require people do a write-up for their secondary picks. Presumably these secondary choices will be valid candidates who will be earning discussion (and potentially first ballots) from other posters anyway.

I certainly think that's reasonable.

I'm leaning toward using the RCV; I think the system as outlined/linked by micahclay should provide a type of "paper/spreadsheet" for votes, and trex's decision to not require talking about secondary picks is a (very) good one. In the past, people always began projects by saying they wanted time to explain their picks. As people who participated in the past will tell you, you'll get tired of talking about Jack Sikma in detail nine times if you have him second four times and first five times. Very tired.

The kicker for me is that if RCV doesn't seem to be working for any reason, we can have a 72 hour discussion and revert to simple majority vote/runoff. Better to try something that is new and may be better--especially if there's a reasonable fallback. My .02.

Basically, it might work just fine (and would shave 2 months off the project length); and if it doesn't, we can always revert back to the single-vote system.
As you'll note in edited notes in OP, you'll only have to provide your primary choice (with arguments) for a spot, and then stipulate your secondary choice (who you are NOT required to provide arguments for, fwiw, though you can if you choose; presumably that individual will be getting discussion from other posters anyway).

Given it's not a point system, and we'll only be providing our first and second choices, this system cannot be exploited toward an agenda any more than the single vote system can be; so I'd like to give it a try. Selfishly, a big motivator for me is that it's sure to reduce the length of the project by nearly two months (which is not at all a trivial consideration for the guy running the project....that is: me).

Looking to start in about another week or so (was kinda thinking of waiting until after all end-of-season awards are announced, or at least pretty close to that date).

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[Colbinii]

Trex, thank you for putting this together.

Sent from my SM-G920P using RealGM mobile app

[JordansBulls]

sounds good

[penbeast0]

Okay. With season over, let er rip!

[ardee]

Down to start asap

Sent from my SM-J700F using RealGM mobile app

[EJaggit]

How can you accurately depict who's the 'Greatest of all time' though? Especially with the newer generation selecting LeBron James >Jordan Olajuwon etc, and the older folk would he say not Jordan and company >LeBron and company. Wouldn't it be just be more of a numbers game?

[wojoaderge]

How can you accurately depict who's the 'Greatest of all time' though? Especially with the newer generation selecting LeBron James >Jordan Olajuwon etc, and the older folk would he say not Jordan and company >LeBron and company. Wouldn't it be just be more of a numbers game?

You're making a lot of assumptions here.

[Blackmill]

How can you accurately depict who's the 'Greatest of all time' though? Especially with the newer generation selecting LeBron James >Jordan Olajuwon etc, and the older folk would he say not Jordan and company >LeBron and company. Wouldn't it be just be more of a numbers game?

I don't think the list matters. It's the discussion. Any one joining the project because they want to shape the list to their preference is entirely missing the purpose of this project. Hopefully, that's not too many people.

[An Unbiased Fan]

How can you accurately depict who's the 'Greatest of all time' though? Especially with the newer generation selecting LeBron James >Jordan Olajuwon etc, and the older folk would he say not Jordan and company >LeBron and company. Wouldn't it be just be more of a numbers game?

The bolded is always the fundamental question. No easy answer. Always best to approach a project like this as a learning experience, because really it's all subjective. No different from what you would see in a Top 100 musicians project, or Top 100 actors project, or Top 100 movies project. You'll get some consensus here and there, some outlier opinions, lots of various criteria used, and that's really to be expected.

Only part that makes you do a double take is when you realize how young most posters are. I'm in my 30's, but then I realize a good number didn't even see much of the 3 peat Lakers, and none of the MJ Bulls. I would reference games I saw as a kid of the Showtime Lakers in the old projects and feel really old, lol.

So yeh, expect a lot of recency bias, just the way the World works.

[Texas Chuck]

So yeh, expect a lot of recency bias, just the way the World works.

There will be some recency bias. And some nostalgia bias. But way less actual bias than accused bias. Sadly too many people hear an opinion they disagree with about a player they love and immediately they go into accusations of bias rather than listening to and respecting other viewpoints.

I hope we don't hear a lot of that being thrown around. If someone is clearing showing a bias you can see, everyone else can see it too so you gain nothing by pointing it out. Meantime, you can discredit a poster being objective by throwing around unwarranted accusations.

[An Unbiased Fan]

So yeh, expect a lot of recency bias, just the way the World works.

There will be some recency bias. And some nostalgia bias. But way less actual bias than accused bias. Sadly too many people hear an opinion they disagree with about a player they love and immediately they go into accusations of bias rather than listening to and respecting other viewpoints.

I hope we don't hear a lot of that being thrown around. If someone is clearing showing a bias you can see, everyone else can see it too so you gain nothing by pointing it out. Meantime, you can discredit a poster being objective by throwing around unwarranted accusations.

Older players do get the "highlight" effect(only great plays are showed on YouTube, carer highlights), so I agree about the nostalgia bias to a degree. Recent players get way more scrutiny because we're aware of more tidbits. That said, older players don't have as big of a connection to voters who didn't see them live, and stats getting thinner the further you go back. We don't know what MJ or Magic would have done based on this or that "advanced" stat for example, so they find themselves at a disadvantage.

[EJaggit]

How can you accurately depict who's the 'Greatest of all time' though? Especially with the newer generation selecting LeBron James >Jordan Olajuwon etc, and the older folk would he say not Jordan and company >LeBron and company. Wouldn't it be just be more of a numbers game?

The bolded is always the fundamental question. No easy answer. Always best to approach a project like this as a learning experience, because really it's all subjective. No different from what you would see in a Top 100 musicians project, or Top 100 actors project, or Top 100 movies project. You'll get some consensus here and there, some outlier opinions, lots of various criteria used, and that's really to be expected.

Only part that makes you do a double take is when you realize how young most posters are. I'm in my 30's, but then I realize a good number didn't even see much of the 3 peat Lakers, and none of the MJ Bulls. I would reference games I saw as a kid of the Showtime Lakers in the old projects and feel really old, lol.

So yeh, expect a lot of recency bias, just the way the World works.

That's true. I'm a 22 year old and I'm seeing greatness with LeBron as well as respecting the past legends. Granted I've not studied more than Jordan, Magic and LeBron, maybe you can give me some names or ideas of who's your GOAT and who you could put over the 3 I just listed?