RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project/List

[Baski]

Just quoting some folks we haven't heard from yet, mostly those who were active in the last Top 100 Project (several who I don't know if they're active anymore). Let me know if you want to participate, love to have you along on this....


Hells yeah I would. Feels great to be acknowledged on the board.

Two things though, :
1. I honestly have zero knowledge on players pre-Russell like Mikan and the NBL guys. What's the policy on voting based on crash courses that are likely to be far less informed than the typical votes from longtime voters?

As long as you're willing to take that crash course and give them serious consideration, that's fine.
There are a handful of relevant [to a top 100 project] players who should be considered whose careers took place at least partly before Russell. Mikan is likely the most relevant of them all, though also Dolph Schayes, Paul Arizin, Bob Cousy, as well as Bill Sharman and Neil Johnston. Bob Pettit came into the league two years earlier than Russell, too, iirc.

At the very least try to get a handle on those guys, and consider looking into guys like Ed Macauley, maybe Vern Mikkelsen; Doctor MJ can provide a lot of solid argumentation for Jim Pollard, too.

2. My criteria gets pretty weak from about the 35th spot downwards, where the 70s and 60s players start to feature. From there it'll mainly be based on some combination of limited film, raw box score stats and accolades. Pretty sure anyone looking would find a lot of inconsistencies in there and I think I should be upfront about

Sounds like not necessarily your criteria that's weak, but rather the tools with which to implement your criteria. I think that's fine, though; appreciate the upfront-ness.
fwiw, I'll be presenting some new(ish) info regarding several 60s/70s players both within this project and within my personal Game Logs project [for which I've made the info public access].

Sounds great. Looking forward to it

[Odinn21]

Anyone else experiencing strange outlook on this page? Particularly on this page?
Other pages work just fine and look OK.

[Dutchball97]

Anyone else experiencing strange outlook on this page? Particularly on this page?
Other pages work just fine and look OK.

Yeah Baski's text is super small on page 3, everything after super big. This page seems fine again though.

[Odinn21]

Anyone else experiencing strange outlook on this page? Particularly on this page?
Other pages work just fine and look OK.

Yeah Baski's text is super small on page 3, everything after super big. This page seems fine again though.

I think all is OK now. But that was strange. Tried 3 different browsers and if it weren't for anyone else, I was about to deep in my gpu drivers/settings.

[Baski]

Thought it was just me

[LA Bird]

.

RealGM often crashes when there is a formatting error with the spoilers. I think if you edit your post (#53) to remove the spoiler tag it may be fixed but I am not sure about all the subsequent posts on page 3 that also have messed up formatting as a result.

[2klegend]

I'm BACK on REALGM after a long absence. I'll vote if you allow me to.

[trex_8063]

Just reaching out to a handful more posters I came across, to see if you're interested in participating in the project this year.
Apologies if this is the 2nd time I've quoted you for this.

Spoiler:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[SeniorWalker]

Just reaching out to a handful more posters I came across, to see if you're interested in participating in the project this year.
Apologies if this is the 2nd time I've quoted you for this.

Spoiler:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

I've heard of this project, read the thread. What is required of us?

[SHAQ32]

Stating my desire to vote in the project.

[trex_8063]

I've heard of this project, read the thread. What is required of us?

It's all pretty much there in the OP. Nothing is really "required" if you agree to participate (no penalty for failing to participate after saying you would).
If you do participate it can be purely as part of the discussion, or you can also have a counted vote, in which case you'd cast your votes as everyone does along with whatever supportive arguments you choose [some minimalist amount of supporting arguments is "required" if you want your vote counted]. That's about it.

[scrabbarista]

I am a fan of a nomination system personally. It helps avoid situations like scrab mentioned of voting for the off the board pick for 30 threads in a row, and it allows players to have a "pre-discussion" before their vote comes up.

This should be seriously considered. It did kind of feel like my vote was totally irrelevant for 30 (or however many) straight rounds. The overall experience was a positive one, but that part sucked.

[scrabbarista]

Just to recap what happened as far as having to vote for the same guy over and over again:

I had a guy around 25th that the board was much lower on. As a result, from like 30th to 65th, while the board was busy debating two guys who I also had at 30th, 40th, 50th, 65th, or whatever, I felt that my principles obliged me (rather than just pretending he wasn't the player I wanted to vote for) to argue on behalf of the same guy I had at 25th - every single time. This was pretty frustrating, and it seems like something that could be avoided on this go 'round. I won't complain if it's the same process again, though. I trust whatever decision the mods make. I'm sure there are pros and cons to every approach that I simply don't care enough to make the effort to consider. I'm just giving my input before the process starts.

[ZeppelinPage]

I am convinced that the nomination system should be used.

[Odinn21]

I am a fan of a nomination system personally. It helps avoid situations like scrab mentioned of voting for the off the board pick for 30 threads in a row, and it allows players to have a "pre-discussion" before their vote comes up.

This should be seriously considered. It did kind of feel like my vote was totally irrelevant for 30 (or however many) straight rounds. The overall experience was a positive one, but that part sucked.

How does nomination method work?

I'd assume it goes something like this;
Each voter nominates X (say 5 or 8) number of players for the rank at hand.
We reduce the player pool to the top 3 players with most votes / points at nomination stage.
Then we vote for 2 of the 3 remaining players by ranked vote system. And the last player standing with overall majority gets the place.

Is it something like that?

Edit; BTW the previous project took 9 months (6 months in 2017 and 3 months in 2018). Considering majority of this project will be happenning in 2021, I think we should dub this as the 2021 project.

[Dr Positivity]

I am a fan of a nomination system personally. It helps avoid situations like scrab mentioned of voting for the off the board pick for 30 threads in a row, and it allows players to have a "pre-discussion" before their vote comes up.

This should be seriously considered. It did kind of feel like my vote was totally irrelevant for 30 (or however many) straight rounds. The overall experience was a positive one, but that part sucked.

How does nomination method work?

I'd assume it goes something like this;
Each voter nominates X (say 5 or 8) number of players for the rank at hand.
We reduce the player pool to the top 3 players with most votes / points at nomination stage.
Then we vote for 2 of the 3 remaining players by ranked vote system. And the last player standing with overall majority gets the place.

Is it something like that?

Edit; BTW the previous project took 9 months (6 months in 2017 and 3 months in 2018). Considering majority of this project will be happenning in 2021, I think we should dub this as the 2021 project.

No it's more simple than that. Every thread has 10 nominees, each time you vote someone in and you nominate someone to replace whoever wins on the list.

For example in the #1 thread if the 10 nominees (voted on ahead of time) were:

Jordan
Lebron
Kareem
Russell
Wilt
Duncan
Shaq
Hakeem
Magic
Bird

Someone's vote might be:

Vote: Lebron
Nominate: Garnett

Or including a runner up system something like

Vote: 1. Lebron 2. Jordan 3. Kareem
Nominate: 1. Garnett 2. Kobe 3. West

This is a good way to both condense votes and it creates twice the discussion per thread.

[Jordan Syndrome]

This should be seriously considered. It did kind of feel like my vote was totally irrelevant for 30 (or however many) straight rounds. The overall experience was a positive one, but that part sucked.

How does nomination method work?

I'd assume it goes something like this;
Each voter nominates X (say 5 or 8) number of players for the rank at hand.
We reduce the player pool to the top 3 players with most votes / points at nomination stage.
Then we vote for 2 of the 3 remaining players by ranked vote system. And the last player standing with overall majority gets the place.

Is it something like that?

Edit; BTW the previous project took 9 months (6 months in 2017 and 3 months in 2018). Considering majority of this project will be happenning in 2021, I think we should dub this as the 2021 project.

No it's more simple than that. Every thread has 10 nominees, each time you vote someone in and you nominate someone to replace whoever wins on the list.

For example in the #1 thread if the 10 nominees (voted on ahead of time) were:

Jordan
Lebron
Kareem
Russell
Wilt
Duncan
Shaq
Hakeem
Magic
Bird

Someone's vote might be:

Vote: Lebron
Nominate: Garnett

Or including a runner up system something like

Vote: 1. Lebron 2. Jordan 3. Kareem
Nominate: 1. Garnett 2. Kobe 3. West

This is a good way to both condense votes and it creates twice the discussion per thread.

I like the bolded a lot actually, the player with the most nominations enters the pool.

[Odinn21]

No it's more simple than that. Every thread has 10 nominees, each time you vote someone in and you nominate someone to replace whoever wins on the list.

For example in the #1 thread if the 10 nominees (voted on ahead of time) were:

Jordan
Lebron
Kareem
Russell
Wilt
Duncan
Shaq
Hakeem
Magic
Bird

Someone's vote might be:

Vote: Lebron
Nominate: Garnett

Or including a runner up system something like

Vote: 1. Lebron 2. Jordan 3. Kareem
Nominate: 1. Garnett 2. Kobe 3. West

This is a good way to both condense votes and it creates twice the discussion per thread.

Ah, I see. Simpler, especially for saving time, and similar results/success. Very much liked that. I think we definitely should do this.

I'd probably prefer 2 votes, 2 nominations. But I see the case for 3 and it's also a very good option.

[Dr Positivity]

No it's more simple than that. Every thread has 10 nominees, each time you vote someone in and you nominate someone to replace whoever wins on the list.

For example in the #1 thread if the 10 nominees (voted on ahead of time) were:

Jordan
Lebron
Kareem
Russell
Wilt
Duncan
Shaq
Hakeem
Magic
Bird

Someone's vote might be:

Vote: Lebron
Nominate: Garnett

Or including a runner up system something like

Vote: 1. Lebron 2. Jordan 3. Kareem
Nominate: 1. Garnett 2. Kobe 3. West

This is a good way to both condense votes and it creates twice the discussion per thread.

Ah, I see. Simpler, especially for saving time, and similar results/success. Very much liked that. I think we definitely should do this.

I'd probably prefer 2 votes, 2 nominations. But I see the case for 3 and it's also a very good option.

I think players would be voted and nominated in one at a time, but as trex was suggesting earlier in the thread, saying who your 2nd and 3rd choices are would to be used to avoid pluralities

[LA Bird]

What is the problem we are trying to fix with a nomination system? Because if it is scrabbarista's example of voting for the same player in 30 straight threads, he would then just be nominating the same player for 30 straight threads instead. His ranking of that specific player will still be a lot higher than the rest of the board's regardless of what voting system we go by. I personally don't see how a nomination system changes anything except adding another layer of complexity. If a player is not already in the nomination pool from the 10 previous rounds, him being nominated now is irrelevant because he is very unlikely to leapfrog all those already nominated ahead of him to win in the next round. Essentially, he would just be added to the backlog of nominated candidates until it is his turn around 10 rounds later. We will be doubling the amount of work with two concurrent tracks of unrelated discussions, the second of which will inevitably be repeated 10 rounds later when we actually vote on the players we are nominating now.