Top 50 Project: Seasons or Peaks?

[ardee]

One way we could do this is have the players highest win share season count as peak and then we vote on whose peak we want based on that highest win share season.

No... Just no.

Magic Johnson's '87 season had 15.9 win shares. I'm willing to bet there's NOBODY who would deny that's his peak season. However, '89 had 16.1 win shares and '90 had 16.5 win shares.

We can't judge how good a player was based on convoluted advanced stats. I really like PER but win shares is a train wreck, at least in my opinion.

[JordansBulls]

One way we could do this is have the players highest win share season count as peak and then we vote on whose peak we want based on that highest win share season.

No... Just no.

Magic Johnson's '87 season had 15.9 win shares. I'm willing to bet there's NOBODY who would deny that's his peak season. However, '89 had 16.1 win shares and '90 had 16.5 win shares.

We can't judge how good a player was based on convoluted advanced stats. I really like PER but win shares is a train wreck, at least in my opinion.

Well you could do highest Win Share Season along with league and finals mvp combined. In that case then 1987 Magic wins out as it was his highest Win Share while winning league and finals mvp.

[lorak]

This whole "which season was peak" problem is overblown. In most cases 99% of people would agree which season was peak. Problem would only be with several players like Jordan or Russell.

[Doctor MJ]

Okay, posting in red just so it's really easy to see the dividing line here.

So the majority is clearly going for peaks here. Sorry about that ardee, I do think both ideas have merit, but I have to go with the one we can get more participation in.

Since you guys pretty quickly decided that, and then went straight into specifics, I'll just discuss that here. I'm going to propose something, take more feedback, and then make a decision.

So people are debating about whether people need to specify the year, and then they are debating about whether a player should be competing against himself. My thoughts:

-I'd like people to specify the year, to me it's a kind of sanity check for people, and it's also interesting. Simply put people who don't really have an idea in their mind of when a player peaked really shouldn't be participating. I say that not to keep people from participating, so much as I think everyone here should focus on that if they haven't already, and I think you'll be able to make it crystalize in your mind.

-The debate about whether a player's seasons should compete against each other, and risk another player winning is a VERY good one. I'm open to some arguments about this but I'm inclined to say that the correct way to do this is to let this happen because it's actually the most accurate way to do the project in theory.

However, I think it would be insane to do it without allowing vote changes. Practically speaking, people are going to find a way to strategize here no matter what we do, simply because there will be times people just aren't that attached to specific seasons. I think of Nash, who y'all know I'm fond of, but I don't have a firm opinion about which was better between '04-05 and '06-07. So when it gets down to whatever level he's a candidate for, I'll make arguments, but in the end, I'll probably go with the flow.

So, what I'd propose is a system where you give a vote to a player and a season (with arguments of course), and at the deadline, the votes get tallied up. Also, so far, it appears we're doing this with no nomination process. I actually think it would be cool to try that (since Top 100 hasn't operated that way), but speak up if you strongly disagree.

[ardee]

Okay, posting in red just so it's really easy to see the dividing line here.

So the majority is clearly going for peaks here. Sorry about that ardee, I do think both ideas have merit, but I have to go with the one we can get more participation in.

Since you guys pretty quickly decided that, and then went straight into specifics, I'll just discuss that here. I'm going to propose something, take more feedback, and then make a decision.

So people are debating about whether people need to specify the year, and then they are debating about whether a player should be competing against himself. My thoughts:

-I'd like people to specify the year, to me it's a kind of sanity check for people, and it's also interesting. Simply put people who don't really have an idea in their mind of when a player peaked really shouldn't be participating. I say that not to keep people from participating, so much as I think everyone here should focus on that if they haven't already, and I think you'll be able to make it crystalize in your mind.

-The debate about whether a player's seasons should compete against each other, and risk another player winning is a VERY good one. I'm open to some arguments about this but I'm inclined to say that the correct way to do this is to let this happen because it's actually the most accurate way to do the project in theory.

However, I think it would be insane to do it without allowing vote changes. Practically speaking, people are going to find a way to strategize here no matter what we do, simply because there will be times people just aren't that attached to specific seasons. I think of Nash, who y'all know I'm fond of, but I don't have a firm opinion about which was better between '04-05 and '06-07. So when it gets down to whatever level he's a candidate for, I'll make arguments, but in the end, I'll probably go with the flow.

So, what I'd propose is a system where you give a vote to a player and a season (with arguments of course), and at the deadline, the votes get tallied up. Also, so far, it appears we're doing this with no nomination process. I actually think it would be cool to try that (since Top 100 hasn't operated that way), but speak up if you strongly disagree.

Exactly.

If there are, say, 35 votes.

15 vote for '91 Jordan. 10 vote for '00 Shaq, 10 vote for '01 Shaq.

'91 Jordan should win. Why? Because it's not necessary that those 10 people who voted for '00 Shaq also think that '01 Shaq is better than '91 Jordan.

Pretty simple, I think we should not complicate the process further and just start.

[Rapcity_11]

I'd suggest everyone vote for what season they want to, tally up the vote count, examine who the top 2 are and those who voted for guys outside the top 2 should consider changing their vote.

Create an informal runoff voting system.

[PDXKnight]

I would choose peaks out of the two options but I could also see some merit to averaging out a player's 3 best consecutive seasons in a row.

[ardee]

I would choose peaks out of the two options but I could also see some merit to averaging out a player's 3 best consecutive seasons in a row.

That's a little situational.

For example, Bill Walton had one year that's arguably a top 10 all time peak, and then he was gone. So none of the other two years could find a place.

Then take Magic for example. He was brilliant in '85, a little worse in '86, GOAT in '87, dropped off a little bit again in '88, and then GOAT again from '89 to '90. It's too inconsistent. We're better off picking single years.

[PDXKnight]

I would choose peaks out of the two options but I could also see some merit to averaging out a player's 3 best consecutive seasons in a row.

That's a little situational.

For example, Bill Walton had one year that's arguably a top 10 all time peak, and then he was gone. So none of the other two years could find a place.

Then take Magic for example. He was brilliant in '85, a little worse in '86, GOAT in '87, dropped off a little bit again in '88, and then GOAT again from '89 to '90. It's too inconsistent. We're better off picking single years.

That thought crossed my mind as well. I think in some cases (like Walton's) it might be hard to justify the system I suggested. That said, it would be a lot closer than career averages. Even peak seasons has its flaws considering that longevity should count for something.

[C-izMe]

Rapcity's idea is the best IMO if we're going with option 1.

[Dr Positivity]

Peak. Seasons is a bit messy even with the caveat of every 3rd year. Peak is player vs player

I do like the idea of tieing in each peak to a season. So maybe when a peak is voted in everyone gives their vote for which season should be the "representative"