RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #53 (Gary Payton)

[AEnigma]

If we are preoccupied with outside perception, Isiah Thomas out of the top 50 (when his previous low was #43) has pretty much killed that.

I do not mean to harp on his name so much, but that more than anything reflects the atypicality of this bloc to me. I have never been a fan of Isiah and have typically found myself arguing against those who insist he was a transformational figure well beyond ringless players like Steve Nash or Chris Paul, so it is strange that I am pretty sure I will need to start championing him in the next couple of rounds just to give him a shot at top 60.

[WintaSoldier1]

This list is so inherently political in scope, I’ll be changing my tactics back to advocating for specific people not based on pure “ability” as in who’s better but as in who needs to get in more as of right now.

Honestly I’m getting a bit salty the two players who were just nominated got in… And I don’t see the trend of players who flat out don’t deserve to be in before some of their other contemporaries ending soon, But I cannot sit around doing nothing and voting for who deserves it “aimlessly” anymore due.

So felt I should go back and hit this specifically.

When you talk about "political in scope", this is a very abstract statement that I'm not sure I know what you mean.

What I do know is that strategic voting is certainly a thing in any project like this unless we go to a Condorcet voting system like trex used last time. The problem with doing that, aside from the extreme workload it put on trex, is that tends to kill discussion in later stages of the project worse than a system like the one I've chosen to use here because people prioritize making long lists rather than just picking a few players to vote for.

So if being "political" means being strategic/tactical, I get it, and I don't mean to knock it. But I'll say a few things:

1. I mostly try to avoid this in my own voting. I find it unpleasant and unhelpful to my own historical analysis to get caught up too much with this. Time spent thinking about "the list" means time spent not thinking about the basketball.

2. I think it's important not to try to craft a list that looks "acceptable" to the outside world. Your post here makes me worry about a "We have to have Player X in the Top Y or we'll look crazy!" type of of motivation, and I'd just say there are worse things than looking crazy. Spending the better part of a year on a project and realizing that in the end you tried to approximate the thinking of other people is really a waste of time.

3. When I talk about focusing on something other than the list results and focusing more on the actual basketball talk, it makes sense if you want to counter, "But there's not that much basketball talk going on that I see right now?", but do keep in mind that we're in the later stages of the project. Early on there's always tons of discussion, but it quiets down as a) people get less passionate about the players getting debated, b) some folks drop out of the project, and c) those in the project have already expressed their views on a given player and had the interactions with others that disagree.

4. None of this is stuff I like, and so I'm really glad when someone comes in midway through and wants to challenge the viewpoints of the people already here. And so I'd encourage you and anyone else to look at what people are posting and try to respond to them in specific. Just keep in mind when you do so that you doing this is less about you looking for discussion that others aren't, and more about you having fresh eyes and ears. Had you been here the whole time, you probably would have already had those interactions with people and beyond a certain point, it wouldn't make sense to keep re-hashing it over and over.

Thank you for the post, it was insight in an articulate way.

I agree with you whenever you politicize a matter of interest you ultimately just make it harder for yourself, as you taint your interest in the matter with a concern of being more “successful” in regards to your goals( Getting the player you want inducted in)

It is tough I do enjoy thinking of this as a think process, but at the same time I do invest a portion of my attention into the results of the project, recently the 51st and 52nd spot I voted for people I thought were the “best” player out of all the options, both circumstances I could’ve voted for “better options” that would’ve swayed the inductions in a way I deemed more favorable to my opinion personal perspective about the players abilities.[ If you’re consistently voting for guys who nobody is paying attention to… You can feel alienated from the process itself]

I think your message has good points of emphasis about individuality of perspective over acceptability of the public too, those are heavy points that can be forgone if circumstance is right.

Basically it all comes down to weighing your points of interest… Having the opportunity to voice your opinion about the matter of concern( the project) while still making your voice relevant( Voting for people who actually have a CHANCE at the moment).



I got extra salty too because I was on the Anti-Draymond Parade( The OLB can only be effective if the D-Line and Secondary are Good Rhetoric) and Anti-Jimmy B ( His career is more than two post seasons… and his game is personally to me not as impressive as the other contemporaries on the list).

Thank you for taking time to respond to me, I may not respond to everyone who quotes/references me or my points of interest but in general I do read nearly all posts.

[Samurai]

Same votes as previous round:

Vote for #53: Gary Payton. GOAT-level defensive guard but was more than just a one-trick pony. Finished in the top ten in points/game 7 times and assists/game 13 times. Nine-time all star, DPOY, and nine times made the various All NBA Teams as well as nine times on the All Defensive First Team.

Alternate vote: Paul Arizin. Entering the league in 1950 when the game was based on 2-hand set shots and very slow offensive sets, Arizin emphasized a fairly new weapon that continues to be a mainstay in the NBA today: the jump shot. In addition to his shooting proficiency (led the league in FG% once and finished in the top five in TS% 5 times), he was also known as a great leaper, slick ballhandling and tough defense. And while he wasn't an elite rebounder at only 6-4, he still managed to finish in the top twenty in rebounds/game 6 times. And while he doesn't have great longevity consistent with most players of his era with the much more limited knowledge of nutrition, physical training and sports medicine compared to later eras, I do not penalize him for his 2 years of military service during his prime.

Nomination: Dave Cowens. Terrific all-around big who could score (averaged around 20 ppg in his prime), rebound (5 years in the top ten in trb%), pass (averaged around 4.5 assists/game in his prime), and defend (three-time All Defensive Team, one on the first team). Two rings. Named MVP in 73 and while I do not at all feel this was the correct vote, being in the top 4 four times shows how highly regarded he was in his own time. While he wasn't a great pure shooter, he had 4 seasons with a TS+ over 100 so he wasn't really inefficient. While some may have had more sheer talent, no one, in any era, would ever out-hustle Big Red when he was on the court.

Alternate nomination: Ray Allen. Solid all-around offensive game to complement his all-time great 3-point shooting skill. Excellent longevity. Two-time All NBA (one second, one third) with two rings. 7 seasons with a VORP above 4.0 (more than Dwight and Draymond combined, both of who have already been voted in).

[penbeast0]

Vote: Joel Embiid Best of the bigs on both ends and in a tougher era. Multiple MVP; main concern is limited games and a lack of a powerful playoff run.

Alternate vote: Gary Payton -- one of the short list for GOAT PG defender (after Jason Kidd and Walt Frazier but competitive after that), solid scorer and playmaker, team leader on a bunch of very talented, very good teams that just came up short.


Nominate: Bobby Jones. More than a decade of straight 1st team All-Defense votes combined with high efficiency, though not high volume scoring, and good playmaking. Not a great rebounder for his position but could play 2-5 at either end. Probably the greatest glue guy in NBA history and in his time where he was the best player on his team (75 and 76 for example), his team was the best in the league both years though they came up short in the playoffs. The most 1st team All-Defense awards, best player on two Nugget teams that had the best record in the NBA (though both came up short in the playoffs), great efficiency without being just an inside scorer, excellent passer, decent offensive rebounder, defensively good at blocking out rather than getting the board, good shot blocker for a forward, good steals, could play up to the 5 or down to the 2, limited minutes because of a physical condition but probably the greatest glue guy in the history of the NBA.

Basically a more consistent version of Draymond Green defensively with efficient offense and a great attitude but in a weaker era.

Alt: Pau Gasol: Even without international play, taking the Lakers to those titles with Kobe is impressive and a strong #2 which I prefer to a bad #1.

[AEnigma]

Here is a playoff-specific question: what qualifies Embiid as a clear step above someone like 1993-2000 Alonzo Mourning?

[penbeast0]

Here is a playoff-specific question: what qualifies Embiid as a clear step above someone like 1993-2000 Alonzo Mourning?

The ability to make a pass. Zo was a great defender, decent scorer, but an unwilling and problematic passer. Embiid isn't a strong passer, but he's at least competent in that regard. I tend to find bad passing a major limiting factor to a player's ability to contribute to an offense even when they can score. It's one reason I haven't supported George Gervin yet.

[Rishkar]

Vote 1: Gary Payton. I'm really high on the defensive value of perimeter players and Payton is one of the best ever in that regard. Solid offensive player, feels like a poor man's version of Jason Kidd to me. Top 55 feels right. Really good longevity and health, and led some high level contenders.
Vote 2: Nate Thurmond. Goat man to man defender in NBA history (which is a take that might get me persecuted after I just finished talking about Payton). Freakishly long wingspan, mobile on the perimeter, and a strong 275 pounds. If I needed one guy to guard Wilt, Jokic, or Shaq in a playoff series, I want Thurmond. His mediocre offense and inneficent scoring hurt his value, but I struggle to see super-Gobert not thriving in many situations.
Nomination 1: Ben Wallace. Another top 5 all time defender who bled value on the offensive end. Elite rim protection is one of the most impactful skills in basketball, and Wallace was fantastic at it.
Nomination 2: Ray Allen. Can someone explain to me where the large gap between Reggie Miller and Ray Allen is?

[Rishkar]

People voting based on their own limited scope of knowledge(This isn't an attack to someone specific, It's about the culture) isn't going to produce a good list, we as a collective need to be challenged in order for us to produce a more refined version of the list from here-forth. Also, my last bit of insufferably I'd probably point to "Thinking Basketball" as a huge influence over this list( It's why Reggie, Nash, & Manu are so high... That's not the limitations of the influence either.... The entire top 30 is probably skewed in a direction that highlights thinking basketballs' influence over non-casual discussion).

Well, Ben Taylor has a link to this very project on his blog that led me to discovering this forum over a year ago. However, it doesn't always mean I agree with him. I do think this forum helped shape Ben's views, and I think Ben's views have helped shape this forum's. I am super grateful for his writeups and film analysis (which is infinitely more valuable than his rankings) and yet I put Mikan, a player not even in his top 40, in my top 10. He helped me see how talented KG was, Doc's blog helped convince me on Nash, I convinced myself on Robinson, and I still haven't came around on some of the other "advanced stat players".

[HeartBreakKid]

This list is so inherently political in scope, I’ll be changing my tactics back to advocating for specific people not based on pure “ability” as in who’s better but as in who needs to get in more as of right now.

Honestly I’m getting a bit salty the two players who were just nominated got in… And I don’t see the trend of players who flat out don’t deserve to be in before some of their other contemporaries ending soon, But I cannot sit around doing nothing and voting for who deserves it “aimlessly” anymore due.

This vote needs to be Gary Payton, And people need to discuss more here; I read the conversation about Thurmond was really good perspectives being thrown around. But it’s strange how we as a collective can have a 20+ Post about Thurmond but the person who gets nominated is… Jimmy Butler??? Who nearly nobody was talking about in scope since 4~ Selections ago? Same for Draymond, the same posters came and posted the advanced analytics rhetoric 10 nominations in a row until he got in.

I have failed to be more astute about my voting and nominations. I’m not mad nor do I have ill will to any one here or group, just kinda of confused the way we sit here and spend time doing one thing and then another happens, because clearly people have a set agenda and their mind made up.

I changed my vote many times. You're drawing way too many conclusions on very little information.

This is a marathon not a sprint. We're not going to repeat the same exact arguments in every thread. People are posting their votes because they haven't changed their opinion, just because they did not comment on new information does not mean that they did not read it.


Most players have their largest debates 3-4 threads before they are inducted. It's also not a competition.



Lastly, I don't know what "needs to get in now". Needs to get in based on what merit?


Just vote for who you want to get in. People who you think should not get in when they do are going to get in earlier than expected. It wouldn't be much of a project if everyone had the same opinion.

[HeartBreakKid]

Here is a playoff-specific question: what qualifies Embiid as a clear step above someone like 1993-2000 Alonzo Mourning?

I think strictly playoffs, not much qualifies him as a player above Alonzo. Embiid hasn't had a post season that resembles his RS success, but I would say his PS is not necessarily worse than the other top contenders while having kind of god tier MVP seasons (I guess this season does not count, but it's nice to see the pattern).

[trex_8063]

So felt I should go back and hit this specifically.

When you talk about "political in scope", this is a very abstract statement that I'm not sure I know what you mean.

What I do know is that strategic voting is certainly a thing in any project like this unless we go to a Condorcet voting system like trex used last time. The problem with doing that, aside from the extreme workload it put on trex, is that tends to kill discussion in later stages of the project worse than a system like the one I've chosen to use here because people prioritize making long lists rather than just picking a few players to vote for.

So if being "political" means being strategic/tactical, I get it, and I don't mean to knock it. But I'll say a few things:

1. I mostly try to avoid this in my own voting. I find it unpleasant and unhelpful to my own historical analysis to get caught up too much with this. Time spent thinking about "the list" means time spent not thinking about the basketball.

2. I think it's important not to try to craft a list that looks "acceptable" to the outside world. Your post here makes me worry about a "We have to have Player X in the Top Y or we'll look crazy!" type of of motivation, and I'd just say there are worse things than looking crazy. Spending the better part of a year on a project and realizing that in the end you tried to approximate the thinking of other people is really a waste of time.

3. When I talk about focusing on something other than the list results and focusing more on the actual basketball talk, it makes sense if you want to counter, "But there's not that much basketball talk going on that I see right now?", but do keep in mind that we're in the later stages of the project. Early on there's always tons of discussion, but it quiets down as a) people get less passionate about the players getting debated, b) some folks drop out of the project, and c) those in the project have already expressed their views on a given player and had the interactions with others that disagree.

4. None of this is stuff I like, and so I'm really glad when someone comes in midway through and wants to challenge the viewpoints of the people already here. And so I'd encourage you and anyone else to look at what people are posting and try to respond to them in specific. Just keep in mind when you do so that you doing this is less about you looking for discussion that others aren't, and more about you having fresh eyes and ears. Had you been here the whole time, you probably would have already had those interactions with people and beyond a certain point, it wouldn't make sense to keep re-hashing it over and over.

Thank you for the post, it was insight in an articulate way.

I agree with you whenever you politicize a matter of interest you ultimately just make it harder for yourself, as you taint your interest in the matter with a concern of being more “successful” in regards to your goals( Getting the player you want inducted in)

It is tough I do enjoy thinking of this as a think process, but at the same time I do invest a portion of my attention into the results of the project, recently the 51st and 52nd spot I voted for people I thought were the “best” player out of all the options, both circumstances I could’ve voted for “better options” that would’ve swayed the inductions in a way I deemed more favorable to my opinion personal perspective about the players abilities.[ If you’re consistently voting for guys who nobody is paying attention to… You can feel alienated from the process itself]

I think your message has good points of emphasis about individuality of perspective over acceptability of the public too, those are heavy points that can be forgone if circumstance is right.

Basically it all comes down to weighing your points of interest… Having the opportunity to voice your opinion about the matter of concern( the project) while still making your voice relevant( Voting for people who actually have a CHANCE at the moment).



I got extra salty too because I was on the Anti-Draymond Parade( The OLB can only be effective if the D-Line and Secondary are Good Rhetoric) and Anti-Jimmy B ( His career is more than two post seasons… and his game is personally to me not as impressive as the other contemporaries on the list).

Thank you for taking time to respond to me, I may not respond to everyone who quotes/references me or my points of interest but in general I do read nearly all posts.

Regarding feeling like you're on an island with who you MOST want to support (because no one else appears ready for him), and thus placing your votes or nominations strategically (or "politically", as you say): I think this is fine to a degree, mostly in regards to nominations.

e.g. Maybe there's someone you'd really LIKE to nominate, whom you think is the most deserving player to be added to the list, but no one else seems to agree. Meanwhile, maybe the 2nd or 3rd-most deserving player [in your opinion] DOES have support from other posters.......so you opt to nominate that player to help ensure he's added.
Personally, I think that's fine. You're still nominating according to your own beliefs, and thus using your voice to push outcomes to better align with them.
It's fine if you want to make a "protest nomination" to someone who has no shot, too (just to get people thinking of him, perhaps).


Being "political" in your actual induction votes in a manner of, for example, voting for a candidate who is NOT your preferred pick, and instead giving your pick to perceived front-runner in the hopes that he'll beat another front-runner whom you're dead-set AGAINST........idk. That feels a pinch more shady to me somehow, though maybe it's an ethical grey area.



Some general comments regarding people seeming to have their minds all made up.......

It's true this is often the case, and hence the copy/paste votes. But I note that most of us [humans] are resistant to change......including in our own minds. Just because another person presents a pretty sound argument (perhaps better and more complete than your own), doesn't mean we [most of us] will go, "Huh, I thought I was right, but his arguments make a ton of sense and seem more well-rounded than my own.......so I guess I'm wrong." And then immediately change our position/opinion on a player hierarchy.

Whether it's for reasons of pride and self-identity (cannot [easily] admit when wrong and/or are more interested in "winning" the argument), habit, or simply intellectually cautious (don't want to jump to new conclusions too quickly, so have intention of looking into the matter more deeply [often at a later date] before switching positions)........most of us will not change his mind that easily.

And so most keep voting the way they were before, as though the excellent arguments [against their opinion] were ignored.........but I'd like to think that those arguments WERE heard. It may not change that person's vote on THIS project......but it might affect how they feel by the time the next one rolls around (after they've had time to mull it over, perhaps research a little more themselves, etc).

I'm reminded of a line from Anatomy of a Murder (1959) [great movie, btw].....

Jimmy Stewart plays the defense attorney for a guy on trial for murder (played by Ben Gazzaro). Stewart has just gone on and stated some manner of rhetoric to the court [I don't remember what], and the proscecution objects (on grounds that it's speculative, rhetorical, whatever). The judge rules "sustained" and instructs the jury to disregard the last statement made.

Gazzaro's character then leans over and whispers to Stewart, "How can they disregard something they've already heard?"
Jimmy Stewart smiles slyly and says, "They can't."

I'd like to think it's the same with some of the arguments/discussions had here.


It's appropriate that Doctor MJ is involved in this discussion.......he and I have disagreed on so many players/ranks/hierarchies over the years, including a number within this very project. And I have argued at great length (even in this project) to convince him to see things differently.

Yet he's [seemingly] continued to advocate just exactly as he was before our discussions.

But----and perhaps this is pure ego---I'd like to think that I've reached him on some level; and that maybe at some future date he will have softened or become less certain in some of his stances as result of our disagreements.

I know that this has happened to me over the years, anyway.

[Doctor MJ]

It's appropriate that Doctor MJ is involved in this discussion.......he and I have disagreed on so many players/ranks/hierarchies over the years, including a number within this very project. And I have argued at great length (even in this project) to convince him to see things differently.

Yet he's [seemingly] continued to advocate just exactly as he was before our discussions.

But----and perhaps this is pure ego---I'd like to think that I've reached him on some level; and that maybe at some future date he will have softened or become less certain in some of his stances as result of our disagreements.

I know that this has happened to me over the years, anyway.

Indeed we have (argued at great length), and I'd expect you have (convinced me to see things differently) though it's a bit tricky because in my experience with myself, it's often unclear when exactly I changed my opinion. More often I'm left chewing on others' perspectives and then over time those perspectives become part of my holistic assessment.

The most obvious thing I can point to historically for me came with the Retro POY project and Kevin Garnett. The arguments of others literally didn't make a dent on my votes at the time, but gradually I began seeing things more their way.

I expect there are all sorts of situations like this with the long-time core of this board, but pinpointing the cause and effect isn't so easy most of the time.

[f4p]

If we are preoccupied with outside perception, Isiah Thomas out of the top 50 (when his previous low was #43) has pretty much killed that.

I do not mean to harp on his name so much, but that more than anything reflects the atypicality of this bloc to me. I have never been a fan of Isiah and have typically found myself arguing against those who insist he was a transformational figure well beyond ringless players like Steve Nash or Chris Paul, so it is strange that I am pretty sure I will need to start championing him in the next couple of rounds just to give him a shot at top 60.

Ha, I hadn't even noticed that Isiah hadn't been brought up. I am quite low on him as well as his numbers do not only not suggest greatness, but sometimes barely suggest above-averageness. with his efficiency being especially shocking at times (same TS+ as westbrook basically). he seems to have been the floor-raising iverson of a better version of the sixers. on the other hand, he was by all accounts the spiritual force behind those teams, he stepped up in the playoffs as much as anyone ever, and was the best player on a team that was one foul call or rolled ankle away from a 3-peat, with a dominant 15-2 run thrown in there. so yeah it's probably time to start thinking of him.

[WintaSoldier1]

So felt I should go back and hit this specifically.

When you talk about "political in scope", this is a very abstract statement that I'm not sure I know what you mean.

What I do know is that strategic voting is certainly a thing in any project like this unless we go to a Condorcet voting system like trex used last time. The problem with doing that, aside from the extreme workload it put on trex, is that tends to kill discussion in later stages of the project worse than a system like the one I've chosen to use here because people prioritize making long lists rather than just picking a few players to vote for.

So if being "political" means being strategic/tactical, I get it, and I don't mean to knock it. But I'll say a few things:

1. I mostly try to avoid this in my own voting. I find it unpleasant and unhelpful to my own historical analysis to get caught up too much with this. Time spent thinking about "the list" means time spent not thinking about the basketball.

2. I think it's important not to try to craft a list that looks "acceptable" to the outside world. Your post here makes me worry about a "We have to have Player X in the Top Y or we'll look crazy!" type of of motivation, and I'd just say there are worse things than looking crazy. Spending the better part of a year on a project and realizing that in the end you tried to approximate the thinking of other people is really a waste of time.

3. When I talk about focusing on something other than the list results and focusing more on the actual basketball talk, it makes sense if you want to counter, "But there's not that much basketball talk going on that I see right now?", but do keep in mind that we're in the later stages of the project. Early on there's always tons of discussion, but it quiets down as a) people get less passionate about the players getting debated, b) some folks drop out of the project, and c) those in the project have already expressed their views on a given player and had the interactions with others that disagree.

4. None of this is stuff I like, and so I'm really glad when someone comes in midway through and wants to challenge the viewpoints of the people already here. And so I'd encourage you and anyone else to look at what people are posting and try to respond to them in specific. Just keep in mind when you do so that you doing this is less about you looking for discussion that others aren't, and more about you having fresh eyes and ears. Had you been here the whole time, you probably would have already had those interactions with people and beyond a certain point, it wouldn't make sense to keep re-hashing it over and over.

Thank you for the post, it was insight in an articulate way.

I agree with you whenever you politicize a matter of interest you ultimately just make it harder for yourself, as you taint your interest in the matter with a concern of being more “successful” in regards to your goals( Getting the player you want inducted in)

It is tough I do enjoy thinking of this as a think process, but at the same time I do invest a portion of my attention into the results of the project, recently the 51st and 52nd spot I voted for people I thought were the “best” player out of all the options, both circumstances I could’ve voted for “better options” that would’ve swayed the inductions in a way I deemed more favorable to my opinion personal perspective about the players abilities.[ If you’re consistently voting for guys who nobody is paying attention to… You can feel alienated from the process itself]

I think your message has good points of emphasis about individuality of perspective over acceptability of the public too, those are heavy points that can be forgone if circumstance is right.

Basically it all comes down to weighing your points of interest… Having the opportunity to voice your opinion about the matter of concern( the project) while still making your voice relevant( Voting for people who actually have a CHANCE at the moment).



I got extra salty too because I was on the Anti-Draymond Parade( The OLB can only be effective if the D-Line and Secondary are Good Rhetoric) and Anti-Jimmy B ( His career is more than two post seasons… and his game is personally to me not as impressive as the other contemporaries on the list).

Thank you for taking time to respond to me, I may not respond to everyone who quotes/references me or my points of interest but in general I do read nearly all posts.

Regarding feeling like you're on an island with who you MOST want to support (because no one else appears ready for him), and thus placing your votes or nominations strategically (or "politically", as you say): I think this is fine to a degree, mostly in regards to nominations.

e.g. Maybe there's someone you'd really LIKE to nominate, whom you think is the most deserving player to be added to the list, but no one else seems to agree. Meanwhile, maybe the 2nd or 3rd-most deserving player [in your opinion] DOES have support from other posters.......so you opt to nominate that player to help ensure he's added.
Personally, I think that's fine. You're still nominating according to your own beliefs, and thus using your voice to push outcomes to better align with them.
It's fine if you want to make a "protest nomination" to someone who has no shot, too (just to get people thinking of him, perhaps).


Being "political" in your actual induction votes in a manner of, for example, voting for a candidate who is NOT your preferred pick, and instead giving your pick to perceived front-runner in the hopes that he'll beat another front-runner whom you're dead-set AGAINST........idk. That feels a pinch more shady to me somehow, though maybe it's an ethical grey area.



Some general comments regarding people seeming to have their minds all made up.......

It's true this is often the case, and hence the copy/paste votes. But I note that most of us [humans] are resistant to change......including in our own minds. Just because another person presents a pretty sound argument (perhaps better and more complete than your own), doesn't mean we [most of us] will go, "Huh, I thought I was right, but his arguments make a ton of sense and seem more well-rounded than my own.......so I guess I'm wrong." And then immediately change our position/opinion on a player hierarchy.

Whether it's for reasons of pride and self-identity (cannot [easily] admit when wrong and/or are more interested in "winning" the argument), habit, or simply intellectually cautious (don't want to jump to new conclusions too quickly, so have intention of looking into the matter more deeply [often at a later date] before switching positions)........most of us will not change his mind that easily.

And so most keep voting the way they were before, as though the excellent arguments [against their opinion] were ignored.........but I'd like to think that those arguments WERE heard. It may not change that person's vote on THIS project......but it might affect how they feel by the time the next one rolls around (after they've had time to mull it over, perhaps research a little more themselves, etc).

I'm reminded of a line from Anatomy of a Murder (1959) [great movie, btw].....

Jimmy Stewart plays the defense attorney for a guy on trial for murder (played by Ben Gazzaro). Stewart has just gone on and stated some manner of rhetoric to the court [I don't remember what], and the proscecution objects (on grounds that it's speculative, rhetorical, whatever). The judge rules "sustained" and instructs the jury to disregard the last statement made.

Gazzaro's character then leans over and whispers to Stewart, "How can they disregard something they've already heard?"
Jimmy Stewart smiles slyly and says, "They can't."

I'd like to think it's the same with some of the arguments/discussions had here.


It's appropriate that Doctor MJ is involved in this discussion.......he and I have disagreed on so many players/ranks/hierarchies over the years, including a number within this very project. And I have argued at great length (even in this project) to convince him to see things differently.

Yet he's [seemingly] continued to advocate just exactly as he was before our discussions.

But----and perhaps this is pure ego---I'd like to think that I've reached him on some level; and that maybe at some future date he will have softened or become less certain in some of his stances as result of our disagreements.

I know that this has happened to me over the years, anyway.

The general thing I took from this is you’re very human. It’s enthralling to see people who are working on a project with me have interests in the behavioral and psychological procession in reference to this project, or more generally when it comes to interacting with people of interest!

I saw your idea of questioning moral principality, I don’t have much to say about it here that’s beneficial to you but I have thoughts about it.

Also, What do you consider to be “Winning a argument”, Is it having more “concrete/evidence” or is it about having more influence over the audience/the person you’re arguing against.

I’d also like to know from everyone/anyone here how they got into looking at basketball from this perspective/lense.

Personally for me it’s once I subconsciously realized I didn’t enjoy the sport of basketball, but the art form and approach to basketball you can take. I view it as a heightened version of Chess, where the pieces you have are more animated and alive and are effected in real time by the position you place them in.

^This is pretty pretentious, in reality I was a AAU basketball player with anger issues in basketball related activities[ At the time I didn’t know my frustration came from my displeasure from the environment basketball put me in]; In real time I was playing Roblox basketball, where the players had heightened basketball intelligence compared to real life because each player had a similar level of ability ( as in it’s a video game every character has the accessibility to cap out and every character caps out at a similar Level), so players had to rely on execution in order to be a better player than their peers. Eventually the game progressed from deliberate zone breaks as the height of intelligence, to early help in defensive rotations, Usage of off-ball screening on offense with a non shooting big( because every shooter is like curry sadly) to open up space for the main handler to operate, Involving multiple players in a action, ( Screen the Screener-esque). And a lot more… The Roblox basketball intelligence surpassed IQ what NBA/college teams could do… [ Probably mostly due to the lack of physical investment a video game takes compared to a irl basketball game… critical thinking may operate at a much higher lvl in general when playing video games than a physical activity for most contemporaries]

Sorry for going on a tangent and I left out a lot of things and probably made the game sound better than it actually is( The current meta last time I played was repetitive high PNR with shooters and occasionally flow into a off ball); But the appreciation I was able to muster for basketball due to my interactions with basketball outside of actually playing the true real sport is real.

[LA Bird]

This list is so inherently political in scope, I’ll be changing my tactics back to advocating for specific people not based on pure “ability” as in who’s better but as in who needs to get in more as of right now.

There is nothing inherently political about this project if you just vote for which player you like without worrying about how the final list would look. Ironically, you trying to game the system by voting strategically last round was the reason Payton didn't win.
viewtopic.php?f=64&t=2338897#p109819369

Honestly I’m getting a bit salty the two players who were just nominated got in…

Neither Butler nor Draymond were "just" nominated. Both were nominated before Payton and Draymond in particular was nominated back in round #41 long before any other remaining candidates.

And I don’t see the trend of players who flat out don’t deserve to be in before some of their other contemporaries ending soon, But I cannot sit around doing nothing and voting for who deserves it “aimlessly” anymore due.

It might be helpful if you provide arguments for/against these deserving/undeserving players instead of passive aggressively throwing jabs. For someone who wants people to discuss more, you seem averse to these discussions yourself.

because clearly people have a set agenda and their mind made up.

Is the problem that people have a set agenda or that they have a set agenda different from yours? I get the feeling you wouldn't be complaining if the outcome of the voting in the last two rounds were different.

[penbeast0]

All right, let's back off and not talk about how other people are voting but rather about the players and the reasons for voting. That's the point of this project, after all, not to make some definitive list.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

Induction Vote #1: Paul Arizin

Induction Vote #2: Gary Payton

From last thread:

I'm going with Arizin here. In era-relative terms, his individual numbers were consistently good, he had a solid ten years, and he was the main guy on a champion.

Payton's got the lead here, and I don't feel strongly enough about any of the candidates over him to go against that - the arguments made for him have been good(though I hope we're not downplaying Shawn Kemp's role in that 1996 Finals run).

Nomination Vote #1: Ray Allen

It feels like the right time for Ray. Great longevity, consistent efficiency, elite shooter, was a big part of winning teams in Milwaukee(2001 ECF), Boston(2008 Championship, 2010 Finals, 2012 ECF), and Miami(2013 title winning shot, 2014 finals), very good impact metrics, just a very, very good resume.

Nomination Vote #2: Pau Gasol

Not entirely sure here, but he was the other one I was looking at. Went with Allen because his impact metrics looked enough better to warrant it. But Gasol was a great #2 on back-to-back champions and had positive impact everywhere he went for a long time.

[iggymcfrack]

If we are preoccupied with outside perception, Isiah Thomas out of the top 50 (when his previous low was #43) has pretty much killed that.

I do not mean to harp on his name so much, but that more than anything reflects the atypicality of this bloc to me. I have never been a fan of Isiah and have typically found myself arguing against those who insist he was a transformational figure well beyond ringless players like Steve Nash or Chris Paul, so it is strange that I am pretty sure I will need to start championing him in the next couple of rounds just to give him a shot at top 60.

If there’s one thing you can’t accuse this project of, it’s trying to fit an outside consensus. The tone was set early with Kareem > MJ and at no point has the tone changed away from that. People have constantly been looking to find their own truth wherever it takes them regardless of whether it fits a public consensus.

You bring up an interesting point with Isiah as I’m generally one of the most anti-Isiah people in any discussion and am usually WAY outside the mainstream in terms of how lowly I rank him. One of the things I was “rooting for” most in this project is that we’d manage to keep him outside the top 50.

And yet, while he’s certainly not at the top of my nomination list right now, he’s definitely someone I’m considering. BPM is a stat I value highly and he’s 20th all-time in the playoffs at 6.0. I feel like it’s not out of the question I could give him a nomination vote at some point.

[Clyde Frazier]

Vote 1 - Gary Payton
Vote 2 - George Gervin
Nomination 1 - Willis Reed
Nomination 2 - Ray Allen

Payton had a solid 9 year prime where he excelled on both ends of the floor. I don't think his average efficiency should bring him down that much as he ran some of the best offenses in the NBA during his prime, and he was an elite perimeter defender. His durability is also quite impressive: over his first 14 seasons, he only missed a total of 7 games, playing nearly 37 MPG (from '95-'03, he played 39.6 MPG).

Kinda feel like Gervin is slipping through the cracks at this point.

Even though his playoff success leaves something to be desired, he was still an impressive playoff performer, putting up the following from '75-'83 (65 games):

28.8 PPG, 7.2 RPG, 3 APG, 1.2 SPG, 1.1 BPG, 56% TS, 113 ORtg 

In '79, the spurs faced the defending champion bullets in the ECF, with a heartbreaking 2 pt game 7 loss. Gervin scored 42 pts in the game, including 24 in the 2nd half. The spurs and bullets ranked 1st and 2nd in SRS respectively that season.

In '82, the spurs made a mid season trade for talented scorer Mike Mitchell. He would only appear in 57 games for the spurs, and gervin still led the spurs to the 7th best SRS in the league. For context as owly mentioned, Ron brewer was pretty productive that season before being traded for Mitchell: https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SAS/1982.html. They would fall to the eventual NBA champion lakers (4th in SRS) in the WCF.

In '83, the spurs (6th in SRS) would again fall to the lakers (3rd in SRS) in the WCF. Gervin and Mitchell both had solid performances in the post season that year, but simply weren't enough for a deep lakers roster that featured magic, kareem, nixon, wilkes, mcadoo and cooper.

Had gervin and gilmore had more time together during each other's primes, i'm sure both would have helped each other to further playoff success.

[OhayoKD]

Vote

1. Thurmond


-> Superstar impact based on what we have
-> Impressive postseason performances with and without Rick Barry
-> Best-in-league calibre defender


Alternate

2. Paul Arizin