RealGM Greatest Peaks Project---List, Interest, Metathinking thread

[trex_8063]

And regarding point two, I think the former problem - splitting votes would be more of an issue than the second - what if people really did split votes because they think the other year is substantially worse, and a different player would be preferable to that particular year.

Agree. This is a substantial concern for me with players that have very statistically dissimilar peaks (Dirk and Wilt come to mind).

[Dr Spaceman]

Rating some of the elder guys might prove more abstract than what we want for healthy discussions. Take someone like Russell for example. How can we accurately compare Russell's peak when we have almost zero information + his case is made on the defensive end which is even harder to gauge.

At any rate, I think Russell was voted way too high. What made him great was his unbelievable consistency on a year-by-year basis, but there's no way he peaked higher than Wilt, Kareem, Hakeem or Duncan.

Huh. I mean Russell was voted #2 and #3 on the last two Top 100 projects. Considering his career was 13 years, I actually find it hard to believe there's "no way" he was better than Duncan or Kareem, two guys who parallel his consistency (esp. Duncan) and did it for WAY longer. Unless you believe Russell was truly at or near peak level for basically all his seasons, but in that case how do we rectify this with a sudden surge on defense in 64 (which coincides I believe with age 28, a time when most player's peak occurs) or his greater offensive efficacy post-65 when he took over playmaking duties from Cousy. I mean a granular analysis would show his last couple years to be pretty ridiculously low value, considering he basically took portions of the RS off and coasted when he did play, and his lack of focus due to the responsibilities that come with being a head coach.

[RSCD3_]

I'll say it once again nominate singles years for clarity sake but add the votes between different peaks of players.

AKA if it's 4 votes for 94 Hakeem, 3 Votes for 93 Hakeem, and 3 Votes for 95 Hakeem and there's 8 Votes for 03 Duncan thats show more people have hakeem as having a higher peak and than either 94 Hakeem gets in via plurality or it if it was 5 votes for 94 and 5 votes for 95 than a rapid fire vote for what hakeem year is better could be done with of course more than 10 participants.

[trex_8063]

I'll say it once again nominate singles years for clarity sake but add the votes between different peaks of players.

AKA if it's 4 votes for 94 Hakeem, 3 Votes for 93 Hakeem, and 3 Votes for 95 Hakeem and there's 8 Votes for 03 Duncan thats show more people have hakeem as having a higher peak and than either 94 Hakeem gets in via plurality or it if it was 5 votes for 94 and 5 votes for 95 than a rapid fire vote for what hakeem year is better could be done with of course more than 10 participants.

Nominate a player and a year first.

Count all the votes by player name. After said winner has been determined, have everyone willing even people who didn't vote for who won choose a peak.

Example

3 players

12 Votes Dirk 2011
6 Votes Dirk 2006
17 Votes Jerry West 1969
10 Votes Charles Barkley 1993
6 Votes Charles Barkley 1990

Dirk wins the vote and said total amount of voters decide on dirks peak years not just the people who voted for him.

Let's say 33-18

2011 Dirk wins





Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

I really like your idea. We wouldn't even have to create separate threads to determine a player's peak if there is no consensus. It'll make things easier and allow to project to run more smoothly. I hope Trex accepts it.

What RSCD_3 has proposed was exactly what I was suggesting. I DO think it will be in a separate thread, though, in an effort to keep the main project moving (e.g. suppose Lebron gets voted in as the #4 peak with opinions split up between '09, '12, and '13......can initiate a separate thread to determine consensus on the peak year, and meanwhile---at the same time---start the #5 peak thread).

This appears to be what the consensus wants, too.

Still waiting to hear some opinions on whether or not to include the pre-shotclock era, though.

[The-Power]

Still waiting to hear some opinions on whether or not to include the pre-shotclock era, though.

Not only the comparability and agreeing to a common approach (at least in the form of a lowest common denominator) are going to cause problems, I also believe the lack of data available combined with the lack of knowledge many voter have about the pre-60's makes including the pre-shotclock era pointless. Or let's say: the results won't be satisfying for anyone (for both parties, the one who includes players like Mikan because of their criteria and the one who simply disregards them because of them). It's already some kind of a problem when we're talking about the '60's but it's going to get even worse the further one goes back in time.

[eminence]

I'll say it once again nominate singles years for clarity sake but add the votes between different peaks of players.

AKA if it's 4 votes for 94 Hakeem, 3 Votes for 93 Hakeem, and 3 Votes for 95 Hakeem and there's 8 Votes for 03 Duncan thats show more people have hakeem as having a higher peak and than either 94 Hakeem gets in via plurality or it if it was 5 votes for 94 and 5 votes for 95 than a rapid fire vote for what hakeem year is better could be done with of course more than 10 participants.

I really like your idea. We wouldn't even have to create separate threads to determine a player's peak if there is no consensus. It'll make things easier and allow to project to run more smoothly. I hope Trex accepts it.

What RSCD_3 has proposed was exactly what I was suggesting. I DO think it will be in a separate thread, though, in an effort to keep the main project moving (e.g. suppose Lebron gets voted in as the #4 peak with opinions split up between '09, '12, and '13......can initiate a separate thread to determine consensus on the peak year, and meanwhile---at the same time---start the #5 peak thread).

This appears to be what the consensus wants, too.

Still waiting to hear some opinions on whether or not to include the pre-shotclock era, though.

I'm leaning towards no on the pre-shotclock era. It was the single most important addition to basketball since the game began, but it completely changed the game, before it games were just weird with how stalling 4th quarters could get.

[SactoKingsFan]

I agree with counting all votes that a player receives.

I'd leave pre-shotclock era out of the project.

[sp6r=underrated]

And regarding point two, I think the former problem - splitting votes would be more of an issue than the second - what if people really did split votes because they think the other year is substantially worse, and a different player would be preferable to that particular year.

Agree. This is a substantial concern for me with players that have very statistically dissimilar peaks (Dirk and Wilt come to mind).

I agree there are players who inspire deep debate about what actually there peak year was. Dirk is a good example. I don't understand the rationale for foreclosing discussion about the topic by just allowing combined votes. If that wasn't an option the Dirk 06 (my camp) would be forced to debate the Dirk 11 camp (RAPM heads). Instead the discussion won't take place at all which is a shame.

The majority wants this approach but it will lead to worse discussion by shutting down debate. The debate is what makes PC Board lists valuable. Compromising that validity because people are considered about ranking is deeply misguided.

[trex_8063]

And regarding point two, I think the former problem - splitting votes would be more of an issue than the second - what if people really did split votes because they think the other year is substantially worse, and a different player would be preferable to that particular year.

Agree. This is a substantial concern for me with players that have very statistically dissimilar peaks (Dirk and Wilt come to mind).

I agree there are players who inspire deep debate about what actually there peak year was. Dirk is a good example. I don't understand the rationale for foreclosing discussion about the topic by just allowing combined votes. If that wasn't an option the Dirk 06 (my camp) would be forced to debate the Dirk 11 camp (RAPM heads). Instead the discussion won't take place at all which is a shame.

The majority wants this approach but it will lead to worse discussion by shutting down debate. The debate is what makes PC Board lists valuable. Compromising that validity because people are considered about ranking is deeply misguided.

The bolded are not true, imo. We've already established that we will have side-threads for discussion and voting with the aim of establishing a consensus on which year is (in this project's participants' collective opinion) a player's best year. The result will then be cited in the project proper. And even with this in place, I'm sure discussion/debate about which year is his best will spill over within the primary voting thread anyway.

So I suspect we will not "cheat" ourselves out of meaningful discussion on this point. Meanwhile, we hopefully won't see anyone cheated out of his appropriate spot on an all-time peak list (e.g. a guy who the consensus believes is a top 15 peak won't find himself ranked #16 or #17 for no other reason than there is a big divide on which year was his best).

[trex_8063]

Rating some of the elder guys might prove more abstract than what we want for healthy discussions. Take someone like Russell for example. How can we accurately compare Russell's peak when we have almost zero information + his case is made on the defensive end which is even harder to gauge.

At any rate, I think Russell was voted way too high. What made him great was his unbelievable consistency on a year-by-year basis, but there's no way he peaked higher than Wilt, Kareem, Hakeem or Duncan.

Huh. I mean Russell was voted #2 and #3 on the last two Top 100 projects. Considering his career was 13 years, I actually find it hard to believe there's "no way" he was better than Duncan or Kareem, two guys who parallel his consistency (esp. Duncan) and did it for WAY longer. Unless you believe Russell was truly at or near peak level for basically all his seasons, but in that case how do we rectify this with a sudden surge on defense in 64 (which coincides I believe with age 28, a time when most player's peak occurs) or his greater offensive efficacy post-65 when he took over playmaking duties from Cousy. I mean a granular analysis would show his last couple years to be pretty ridiculously low value, considering he basically took portions of the RS off and coasted when he did play, and his lack of focus due to the responsibilities that come with being a head coach.

I'm kinda with Quotatious on this point.

fwiw, I don't think he had to "be better" than Duncan or Kareem (given the respective lengths of careers) to be ranked higher. When it comes to overall all-time rankings, I think there are many factors which relate to what I'll loosely define as "legacy" (e.g. reshaped the defensive role of a center) and "career accomplishments" (e.g. 11 rings, 5-time MVP, etc) which play into overall rankings. And to some degree (perhaps a large-ish degree in some instances), these things are influenced by circumstance or luck.
Favorable circumstance plays a pretty big role in the outcomes of most players' careers; and try as we might, we cannot filter this out of our ranking/criteria entirely.


otoh, a peaks project is somewhat a different animal (for many posters, anyway).

[NyCeEvO]

Hey trex_8063,

I hate to do this but I'm going to have to bow out of being an official voter. After several discussions today, I've confirmed that I'll be way too busy to keep up with this project, let alone be able to give informed, critical opinions.

I'll check in and give my thoughts when I can but I don't think it would be smart of me nor fair to others if I even tried to participate. These next few months are going to be pretty brutal for me work wise.

I hope everything works out! I'll definitely be around when I can sneak a few minutes on the board.

[SideshowBob]

Don't know if it's been mentioned but I'd like to suggest that we not go beyond the top 25-30 range. The last project stopped at like 36 and had really begun to fizzle out like 10 spots before.

Also, are we doing ballots?

[Quotatious]

Don't know if it's been mentioned but I'd like to suggest that we not go beyond the top 25-30 range. The last project stopped at like 36 and had really begun to fizzle out like 10 spots before.

Going for top 30 would be a good start, then we can see how much interest people still have, and maybe go for top 40 or 50 if the interest is still high. If not, then end it at 30 (assuming we go for top 30, we should be able to finish it before the season begins, if we start the project within the next couple of days).

[Hawk]

Really really interested in this project. I won't participate in it but I will for sure read it.

[Texas Chuck]

Really really interested in this project. I won't participate in it but I will for sure read it.

yeah me too. I place a lot less emphasis on "peak" than I do the totality of a career so I've never put in the work on peaks to be qualified to participate intelligently in the discussion, but I will definitely be following the project.

[The-Power]

I would recommend to compile interesting/useful sites and sets of data here. We want to see informed and detailed analysis which requires studying players and teams - and all information available can help to do so. Most of you probably know where to look for game footage, basic stats, plus-minus data, literature for retired players based on peers, great articles etc., but a) maybe not everyone does, b) sometimes someone can provide useful links many participants might not knew about and c) it's always easier to deal with an overview.

Unless you dislike the idea/do not see the benefit, I'd like you to add everything useful you have/know about, post it here and I'll edit this post. Especially every kind of plus/minus data available might be useful to gather since it's very widespread over the internet. We could just link several threads (on APBRmetrics, realgm or wherever) but it would be even better to code the sheets directly here (and then I would put it in spoiler tags of course) - but I don't know if anyone is willing to put that much effort into it. In this case we could stick to posting useful links and deal with the plus/minus data (or lack thereof), say PI RAPM for a specific year, in the discussion-/voting-threads when it becomes necessary.

Note: the links aren't supposed to focus on a single player or team, stuff like this should be used separately in the respective threads when a certain player is discussed. This is meant to provide a general overview.

I would divide it into the following categories:
- Game Footage (e.g. Youtube Channels)
- Statistical Websites (don't necessarily need to contain comprehensive historical information but it should at least track data a few years back, imo)
- Plus/Minus Data/Stats
- Literature / Articles

Any suggestions, critical feedback, different ideas? Do you consider it to be helpful or is it not worth the effort?

--------

Game Footage

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCC93jloX71ky-6gkaj6otWQ/featured
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-044bto1AXpoC6xiH5ntA
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCo6OfBwxOb89-e0S-GXWxyw/featured
https://www.youtube.com/user/Hal15Greer
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCio3Yej1qXnqYRmB0THRELQ

Statics

http://www.basketball-reference.com (1946/47 to 2014/15)
http://www.hoopsstats.com (1997/98 to 2014/15)
http://nbawowy.com (2012/13 to 2014/15)
http://nbasavant.com/index.php (2010/11 to 2014/15)
http://www.nbaminer.com (currently the site isn't working for me)
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1xTcce_cLHEmvG6Dft5QwsYnhzh_dBk4gyYXoJiWY4T8/edit?pli=1#gid=0 (per 100 possession data from pre-1974 and rTS%; courtesy of @trex_8063)

Plus/Minus

http://stats-for-the-nba.appspot.com (from J.E., currently not available)
http://www.gotbuckets.com (APM since 2004, RAPM since 2008, FFAPM since 2005)
https://sites.google.com/site/rapmstats/97-14-rapm-2 (different years with RAPM, NPI RAPM, multiyear RAPM)
http://ascreamingcomesacrossthecourt.blogspot.de (RAPM (NPI and RPI) from 97/98, 98/99 and 99/00 IIRC)
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Z-0DQCSQr5vMLUp1zY4DbsmzBM4UFghqG4dc1eHfBh4/edit?pli=1#gid=1672058251 (spreadsheet of raw on/off back to 1987/88, from lorak)

[PaulieWal]

Do we have a start date for the project? Also, I agree with the others saying that it will be better to make it a Top 25 or 30 Peaks project. Even the Top 100 project started fading after the first 30ish guys and that had a lot more participants from the start. I am sure we will lose participants along the way as well.

[Clyde Frazier]

Do we have a start date for the project? Also, I agree with the others saying that it will be better to make it a Top 25 or 30 Peaks project. Even the Top 100 project started fading after the first 30ish guys and that had a lot more participants from the start. I am sure we will lose participants along the way as well.

I’d still be interested in trying to go for top 50. Think you’d get some interesting candidates in the last 15 spots or so. Maybe make a judgement call as we approach the 30 range?

Btw, as someone else said yesterday, you and Quotatious having the same avatar is kinda confusing. No big deal, just something to think about.

[The-Power]

Do we have a start date for the project? Also, I agree with the others saying that it will be better to make it a Top 25 or 30 Peaks project. Even the Top 100 project started fading after the first 30ish guys and that had a lot more participants from the start. I am sure we will lose participants along the way as well.

An option would be to set 30 as the first goal, and after the top 30 one targets 50 as the next if there are enough - however defined - voters of the pool left who haven't lost interest/time capacities. In case a good percentage of voters won't continue, the second part of the list could be listed separately and named 'extended list' or something along these lines in order to hint at the smaller pool of voters. But I don't think we should constrain ourselves a priori in such a manner.

We could also ponder on extending the voter pool. I've seen some posters, iirc, who mentioned that they won't participate because they don't have much time to be active in such a project (I will go on research this month myself and don't know about internet-access and time left yet). But I would simply allow 'quality-users' to vote whenever they can regardless of their activity-level. One other option would be to contact the knowledgeable and reasonable posters of the team-boards - although I don't know how many guys there are when it comes to historical players who aren't active on the PC board already. And even on this board there are some usually active and good posters left who neither confirmed their participation nor declared their non-participation - are we sure they know about the project?

[Quotatious]

Btw, as someone else said yesterday, you and Quotatious having the same avatar is kinda confusing. No big deal, just something to think about.

Paulie wanted to see how many people will fall for that trap, lol.