RealGM Top 100 LIST- 2014

[G35]

Malone's dip from RS to PS hurts him as much as his lack of a ring, I think.

For a long time, he was considered the best pf ever and he really was a remarkable player who had the misfortune to face a dynasty with a pair of old guard with unremarkable athleticism in their mid-30s, neither of whom were strong scoring threats against athletic wing D. I feel bad that Malone never had his Penny/Kobe, because he really was awesome. Erving will get traction, but later on.

See but the same post season drop exist with KG, but no body cares due to this wave of KG momentum to me it's a huge double standard

Once KG get's voted in much of the bias will be gone. The only other player's that will get controversial will be when Stockton/Nash have their battle. I'm actually thinking of voting for KG just to get his name on the board and not have to hear his arguments anymore. I will be able to "appreciate" some new arguments with different players, I am looking forward to Barkley, DRob, Malone, Ewing, Oscar, West, Dr J now......

[Doctor MJ]

See but the same post season drop exist with KG, but no body cares due to this wave of KG momentum to me it's a huge double standard

For the record, I consider Malone a very strong candidate, and even while we were still in the Top 10.

[Doctor MJ]

I think my last comment on RAPM is that it seems it is something still being argued on as far as value and impact (ha!) it has. There doesn't even seem to be a standard, and some things labeled RAPM were being shouted down as really being something else. It may be an interesting tool, but without uniform standardization it seems like it should be way down in importance for the time being. Certainly I think it has come to a head here, with contemporaries Kobe and Kevin since we all saw their battles play out in real time. I can't even say it's wrong that Garnett is getting in over Kobe. It just feels weird how it is happening. I don't know, I might revisit the thread tonight, it might make more sense then.

Incidentally, we are looking at 5 of the top 12 (or 13) hitting their peaks in this millennium. Duncan, Shaq, and Lebron seem great of course in the top, but I wonder about the recency bias. I know there was a some Oscar v West debate, and I wonder if other era players would benefit from more debate of this nature. Like the next best of the 90s (Robinson v Malone) or maybe late ABA/early 80s era (Dr J vs Moses). There would be several debates going on in each thread, that of hoping to find the next choice in the varying eras as well as comparing those choices against one another to find the next placement in an all-time list.

There was a moment a couple of years ago where there was a serious issue with RAPM because the guy that had been providing the data started making changes, and folks like me complained loudly. He didn't listen, and so his site is problematic still today, and basically every time you see anyone say "oh but that's not real RAPM", it's because they are using his site.

So it's not a general issue with the stat, it's that one guy was problematic. He's not the guy who invented the stat, and now there are others who are making the actual stat again, so it's important not to blow things out of proportion. It might feel confusing, but it's largely the same issue with the same guy over and over again.

If KG does get in over Kobe, that's certainly something unusual. It's not the public generally sees it. Obviously I don't see that as any reason to feel uncomfortable with it.

Re: Recency bias. An understandable fear. I think Duncan and his placement is the most telling thing to look at.

1 - He probably falls back down to earth once he and the Spurs aren't looming so large in people's minds.

2 - His argument over basically everyone in spots 6 through 10 is his longevity, and you know who else is going to strike people with their longevity? Kobe, KG, Dirk, Kidd, etc. Guys are playing longer now than they used to, and that's probably going to favor more recent stars without it being a true bias.

[JeepCSC]

I think I need to go back to read up on RAPM. Things like 'making the stat' make it sound, well, created to be flawed. It has been fascinating to watch play out, but I'm on a steep learning curve and it makes it troublesome to follow along completely. But I definitely enjoy these threads. Have made the off-season much more enjoyable.

[Doctor MJ]

I think I need to go back to read up on RAPM. Things like 'making the stat' make it sound, well, created to be flawed. It has been fascinating to watch play out, but I'm on a steep learning curve and it makes it troublesome to follow along completely. But I definitely enjoy these threads. Have made the off-season much more enjoyable.

There's certainly more depth that we can get into, but just quick hits:

You can "make the stat" using nothing but NBA play-by-play data and ready-made functions in things like R and MATLAB. It's just using commonly used data analysis tools and applying them to the NBA.

What the guy with the site did that was problematic:
1. He made a version of the stat he called XRAPM which factored in box score stats (nothing wrong with that)...and he replaced his actual RAPM data with the XRAPM data without changing his labels (PROBLEM!)
2. He used his RAPM data from the '00s to develop a statistical +/- tool that estimated RAPM from the box score, and then he applied that to the '90s calling it "Fake RAPM" (nothing wrong with that)...and then he added those years to his "RAPM" table without any mention that it was fake.

It's just incredibly stupid stuff. There's nothing wrong with any of the data he has, the problem is in his refusal to label it properly on the site even though elsewhere he always calls it by its right name. He just doesn't care if people on the internet are confused.

So you see, there's really nothing about any of this that makes RAPM particularly problematic in terms of there being deviating standards. The standards don't deviate, there's just one guy knowingly mislabeling things.

Now, you might point out "Yeah but he was THE guy. There was only one guy you were using, which made you vulnerable to these issues.", and you're right. He was the only guy at the time giving us this data...because NBA teams hire these guys away and then they stop making the stat for the public. That makes it suck for the public, but it certainly doesn't make the stat look bad.

And as far as the fear of "We're just trusting these guys! They could totally make it all up!", well there's truth in that, but to what end? Even with this guy, he's not trying to mess with people, he just doesn't care about people who find his website through the internet that much. He's putting stuff out there for proof-of-concept, puts no effort into making the site pretty, doesn't have any ads, and he spends his explanations on how it works to the people he thinks are important.

And it should be noted, the people here who really use this sort of data we're aware of the issues instantly. It's not like we were using the data for a year and then found out we were confused. He explained what he was doing on the APBRmetrics forum, we immediately saw it and objected. He didn't change, and that's all there was too it.

The frustrating thing is really just that you've got people who aren't really following things that closely who somehow make their way over to his site and come back thinking an apple was an orange. And I'll admit here while I try to put blame squarely on the guy running the confused site, I do get frustrated with the RealGM posters sometimes too. Maybe it's totally unfair, but I've been giving the exact same message on these boards from the moment the confusion began around two years ago. The explanation is so simple, and I & others have been so verbal telling it everywhere we can, but somehow people still often either (1) go to that site unphased or (2) end up thinking it's all just superconfusing and you don't know who to trust. It's like trying to push against the tide when it doesn't seem like it should be that hard.

[JeepCSC]

I appreciate that. Thanks.

[lorak]

Yeah, exactly. I don't see any problem with some people putting a lot of emphasis on RAPM, and others even completely disregarding it. To me, such variety of criteria is a great thing - we have posters whose methodology varies greatly and everyone is entitled to their own perspective and way of evaluating players, so it should more or less balance everything out. That's why I didn't really like lorak's idea that we should establish consistent criteria and evaluate players accordingly. If everyone can choose how they want to judge a player, other participants can not only convince him that an other player may be more deserving of being selected, but also change that person's thought process, arguing why a different perspective might make more sense.

Well, in ideal world that's how it would work. But look at situation with KG and how so many people completely lost minds, because he would be chosen too soon in their opinion. They react that way, because of different criteria. And that's problematic, because without agreement on "meta level" (so what criteria and why are the best to decide who is greater player) there wouldn't be agreement (or changing of persons thought process) when we discuss particular players. And that would bring bad emotions, like it's happening right now with KG.

[Reservoirdawgs]

Well, in ideal world that's how it would work. But look at situation with KG and how so many people completely lost minds, because he would be chosen too soon in their opinion. They react that way, because of different criteria. And that's problematic, because without agreement on "meta level" (so what criteria and why are the best to decide who is greater player) there wouldn't be agreement (or changing of persons thought process) when we discuss particular players. And that would bring bad emotions, like it's happening right now with KG.

I don't think it's due to a lack of criteria (who decides such a criteria?). I think it's because for some, sports are highly emotional and people are very committed to their "player of choice". They might have grown up following a player from their rookie year, that player plays for their team of choice, etc, and everyone wants their player to be recognized as "great". As some have already admitted, they are very invested in where their player is ranked. Their perception that their player of choice is being disrespected or not recognized where they feel the person should be is frustrating to them, which is leading to emotional (and in my opinion, occasionally irrational) posts. Setting vague and arbitrary criterias wouldn't change that.

[therealbig3]

I really take offense to when people say that the RAPM train rolled around and propped KG up over everyone else. That was only a part of the argument.

Context was explained, other non-box score metrics were used, the box score itself was used, and qualitative analysis of KG's actual game on both offense and defense was used.

Take away RAPM, and KG's case is still there. Posters that used RAPM intentionally left it out and made analyses for KG just to satisfy the "death to RAPM" crowd. Why are you guys acting like literally every post about KG was about RAPM? It was not. And if you don't accept RAPM, fine...don't. Debate the other points then...because there WERE other points.

Unless you want to ban all forms of +/- analysis...in that case, let's just rank everyone by PER, or PPG+TS. Because that definitely wouldn't miss the point the way RAPM does!

[HeartBreakKid]

I really take offense to when people say that the RAPM train rolled around and propped KG up over everyone else. That was only a part of the argument.

Context was explained, other non-box score metrics were used, the box score itself was used, and qualitative analysis of KG's actual game on both offense and defense were used.

Take away RAPM, and KG's case is still there. Posters that used RAPM intentionally left it out and made analyses for KG just to satisfy the "death to RAPM" crowd. Why are you guys acting like literally every post about KG was about RAPM? It was not. And if you don't accept RAPM, fine...don't. Debate the other points then...because there WERE other points.

Unless you want to ban all forms of +/- analysis...in that case, let's just rank everyone by PER, or PPG+TS. Because that definitely wouldn't miss the point the way RAPM does!

It's not fair, but hey, have to expect some of the people who are anti-KG party to vent frustrations over things that aren't in their control.


Can't wait till the next advance stat argument, probably be about where Manu needs to be included.

[lorak]

Spoiler:

Well, in ideal world that's how it would work. But look at situation with KG and how so many people completely lost minds, because he would be chosen too soon in their opinion. They react that way, because of different criteria. And that's problematic, because without agreement on "meta level" (so what criteria and why are the best to decide who is greater player) there wouldn't be agreement (or changing of persons thought process) when we discuss particular players. And that would bring bad emotions, like it's happening right now with KG.

I don't think it's due to a lack of criteria (who decides such a criteria?). I think it's because for some, sports are highly emotional and people are very committed to their "player of choice". They might have grown up following a player from their rookie year, that player plays for their team of choice, etc, and everyone wants their player to be recognized as "great". As some have already admitted, they are very invested in where their player is ranked. Their perception that their player of choice is being disrespected or not recognized where they feel the person should be is frustrating to them, which is leading to emotional (and in my opinion, occasionally irrational) posts. Setting vague and arbitrary criterias wouldn't change that.

No, not arbitrary criteria, but objective Of course it's not easy task to do, but I think it's possible.

[ThaRegul8r]

Re: Recency bias. An understandable fear. I think Duncan and his placement is the most telling thing to look at.

Which was why I said in my prediction about Duncan's place on this list:

Duncan will rise, benefiting from the drop of Magic, Wilt and Bird, and also from the fact that his fifth title win is fresh in everyone's minds.

This list came at the perfect time for him.

I think it's because for some, sports are highly emotional and people are very committed to their "player of choice". They might have grown up following a player from their rookie year, that player plays for their team of choice, etc, and everyone wants their player to be recognized as "great". As some have already admitted, they are very invested in where their player is ranked. Their perception that their player of choice is being disrespected or not recognized where they feel the person should be is frustrating to them, which is leading to emotional (and in my opinion, occasionally irrational) posts.

This. As I've said before, people get overly emotional on sports forums. When people talk about their blood pressure rising when they read posts by anonymous posters on an online sports forum on the subject of a mythical, subjective list, it's time to take a deep breath and back away from the computer. I'm wondering how people normally handle everyday life if this is enough to get people so frustrated.

[Doctor MJ]

Re: Recency bias. An understandable fear. I think Duncan and his placement is the most telling thing to look at.

Which was why I said in my prediction about Duncan's place on this list:

Duncan will rise, benefiting from the drop of Magic, Wilt and Bird, and also from the fact that his fifth title win is fresh in everyone's minds.

This list came at the perfect time for him.

Yup, as it did for Dirk in 2011.

[Texas Chuck]

Re: Recency bias. An understandable fear. I think Duncan and his placement is the most telling thing to look at.

Which was why I said in my prediction about Duncan's place on this list:

Duncan will rise, benefiting from the drop of Magic, Wilt and Bird, and also from the fact that his fifth title win is fresh in everyone's minds.

This list came at the perfect time for him.

to be fair I have been championing Duncan on this board since I registered. Before either 13 or 14 happened. Some of us thought extremely highly of Duncan as a player all along.

Just like its not fair KG is getting targeted with --he's only liked by the RAPM crowd, its not fair to suggest Duncan is so high because of recency bias.

Frankly both are insulting to the panel.

edite: sigh and now the Dirk was only thought highly of last time because of the title.

Guess Lebron is only high because of 4 straight Finals trips(oh wait maybe that stuff matters a little).

Shaq is only high because of his visible presence on TNT.

Mike is high because of commercials and he owns a team

Russell is only high because a trophy got named after him.

Magic is high because 3 guys saw movies in his theatres last night.

Rodman will soon get a big bump thanks to his recent Korean diplomacy


It is maybe just maybe possible that Tim Duncan and Kevin Garnett and Lebron and anyone who moved is actually worthy of their place?

[Purch]

Chuck since you were speaking about Nash's game on Dallas, and what it meant about his role, I thought you might wanna check out his game 3 vs the Kings in 2003, I uploaded to my channel like 2 years ago if you hadnt seen it.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QjSqjH3s6M[/youtube]

[Doctor MJ]

Just like its not fair KG is getting targeted with --he's only liked by the RAPM crowd, its not fair to suggest Duncan is so high because of recency bias.

Frankly both are insulting to the panel.

I don't mean to insult Duncan, he's an absolute legend, but I just don't think there's any doubt that the title this year changed people's perspective, and not just on Duncan.

Had LeBron led the Heat to the title in dominant fashion, I bet you he gets ranked above Duncan...and so does Magic and maybe Bird. I personally would have ranked Duncan ahead of all 3 any way, but before this year people weren't really holding Magic & Bird's longevity against them in these lists. LeBron reaching a point where his longevity matched theirs while at the same time seeing Duncan win yet another title I think definitely made people feel like they couldn't rank LeBron ahead of him, and when they applied that logic across the board, it shifted Duncan relative to Magic & Bird too.

Now, I can't prove any of this, and it will be tough to say I can predict anything going forward either. Short of something drastic, LeBron's going to pass up Duncan in 3 years no matter what, and it's quite likely that people's longevity stance relating to Magic & Bird here will be essentially perfect.

My guess though is that if Duncan is a part of nothing more significant after last year, Shaq will probably surpass him again.

Of course, what if the Spurs become a dynasty! What if they win the next two titles and then Duncan retires? Well, good chance he permanently stays ahead of Shaq then and you start seeing folks on ESPN seriously talk about Jordan vs Duncan for the first time.

[Doctor MJ]

edite: sigh and now the Dirk was only thought highly of last time because of the title.

Keep in mind I'm not saying Dirk's placement was wrong! It's just that I make note of narrative shifts.

In 2008 Dirk ranked 41st in this project BEHIND LeBron.
In 2011 Dirk ranked 17th in the project AHEAD OF LeBron.

There's no plausible way to argue that Dirk should have surpass LeBron based on those 3 years, but he did. No way it would happen if not for the 2011 finals.

Thing is, I think the later ranking makes much more sense than the earlier one. Dirk's reputation suffered mightily as a result of his performance in the '06 finals and '07 playoffs. Too much. The '11 results helped correct that overreaction, and I don't think acknowledging this cheapens what Dirk did.

[Texas Chuck]

Chuck since you were speaking about Nash's game on Dallas, and what it meant about his role, I thought you might wanna check out his game 3 vs the Kings in 2003, I uploaded to my channel like 2 years ago if you hadnt seen it.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QjSqjH3s6M[/youtube]

Yeah Nash had his moments in the playoffs in Dallas and this was actually one of his better series. Of course the real stories of that series from Dallas' side where NVE and Dirk dominating the series and Rafe hurting Webber.

[Texas Chuck]

edite: sigh and now the Dirk was only thought highly of last time because of the title.

Keep in mind I'm not saying Dirk's placement was wrong! It's just that I make note of narrative shifts.

In 2008 Dirk ranked 41st in this project BEHIND LeBron.
In 2011 Dirk ranked 17th in the project AHEAD OF LeBron.

There's no plausible way to argue that Dirk should have surpass LeBron based on those 3 years, but he did. No way it would happen if not for the 2011 finals.

Thing is, I think the later ranking makes much more sense than the earlier one. Dirk's reputation suffered mightily as a result of his performance in the '06 finals and '07 playoffs. Too much. The '11 results helped correct that overreaction, and I don't think acknowledging this cheapens what Dirk did.

Cmon its obvious rankign Lebron ahead of Dirk in 2008 was the greater wrong. But Dirk did develop his post game starting in 08 so its not like there wasnt a significant growth in Dirk's game and not just the title.

[Purch]

Chuck since you were speaking about Nash's game on Dallas, and what it meant about his role, I thought you might wanna check out his game 3 vs the Kings in 2003, I uploaded to my channel like 2 years ago if you hadnt seen it.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QjSqjH3s6M[/youtube]

Yeah Nash had his moments in the playoffs in Dallas and this was actually one of his better series. Of course the real stories of that series from Dallas' side where NVE and Dirk dominating the series and Rafe hurting Webber.

I always remember that when I was breaking down the tape, the commentators were already referring to Nash as a top 5 point guard in the game