RealGM

mailmp wrote:Cards on the table, I just wanted to highlight the voting on Reggie because the prior all-time project pretty severely underrated him (in my eyes) and I hope this current one will correct that, lol. I do recognise that the perspective on Reggie has radically evolved in recent years, with Elgee’s Backpicks acting as the most high profile shift in that thinking.

Fine by me, but let me ask:

What years would you have Reggie in your Top 5?

Probably none. 1995 I would go Hakeem, Shaq/Robinson, Pippen, Malone. But that is not universal, and Reggie might slot in at number six or seven (and I could at least entertain some arguments for placing him over Malone). In 1994, same story, except with Ewing slotting into the top five. Again, my point was not that he should have made top five, my point was it was wild that he got no votes at his peak despite making conference finals — especially when John Stockton (and in other years, similarly limited players) did receive votes.

mailmp wrote:Probably none. 1995 I would go Hakeem, Shaq/Robinson, Pippen, Malone. But that is not universal, and Reggie might slot in at number six or seven (and I could at least entertain some arguments for placing him over Malone). In 1994, same story, except with Ewing slotting into the top five. Again, my point was not that he should have made top five, my point was it was wild that he got no votes at his peak despite making conference finals — especially when John Stockton (and in other years, similarly limited players) did receive votes.

Hmm. So you're saying we underrated Reggie Miller because we voted the same as you would have?

You're running headlong into what I was saying. You're banking on there being some neat correlation between how good a non-Top 5 player and how likely he is to convince a small number of people to think he was Top 5 so you can use our point shares to make a statement of where we think Reggie should rank, and that's why I'm telling you you can't do that because it doesn't work.

I can state definitively that had we done Top 10's Reggie would have made the list more than once, which is the same thing you believe.

Is this about his Top 100 position? If you have him ranked higher than 42nd, you're certainly not alone.

I already said the presumption that every vote is identical is a losing one lol. And if he is at six or seven, that should merit votes — again, especially when you consider the names who did receive votes.

mailmp wrote:I already said the presumption that every vote is identical is a losing one lol. And if he is at six or seven, that should merit votes — again, especially when you consider the names who did receive votes.

Dude. You wouldn't have voted for him, which means that had you participated you would have hurt him more.

I'm all for you trying convinced people of Reggie's awesomeness, but you're using problematic logic to criticize a group of people you don't have cause nor reasonable motivation to criticize. Just stop and focus on the ball.

It is only problematic logic if you think every vote should be the same, which is obviously not what happens and is a pretty arrogant mindset. Why are you so defensive over a “ten-year-old” vote made back when Reggie was demonstrably not really appreciated within the community.

If I had participated I would have been actively campaigning for people with not literally the same ballot to vote for him, but sure, I would have “hurt” him. Weird turn, and again, weirdly defensive for no reason.

mailmp wrote:It is only problematic logic if you think every vote should be the same, which is obviously not what happens and is a pretty arrogant mindset. Why are you so defensive over a “ten-year-old” vote made back when Reggie was demonstrably not really appreciated within the community.

If I had participated I would have been actively campaigning for people with not literally the same ballot to vote for him, but sure, I would have “hurt” him. Weird turn, and again, weirdly defensive for no reason.

You are saying people underrated a guy because they voted the same way you would still vote.
Just think it through until you understand the logical issue with that.

Looking forward to talking actual basketball with you though.

If everyone voted the same way I would vote then you would have a point. But voting does not work that way does it.

Yes, people voting Stockton and Rockets Drexler and Tim Hardaway over him is demonstrably underrating him lol.

Either that or you are demonstrably underrating Stockton (and possibly Drexler and Hardaway).

mailmp wrote:Kind-of funny to look at how disrespected Reggie has been over the years. We can criticise all-NBA voting, but looks like voters here have done much of the same when it comes to him.

At best the use of "voters" here is problematic. All voters, some voters? It's unclear and "all" seems at very least plausible. "Disrespected" too, it's emotive and often attached to malicious intent (here I'd note you find others' responses "defensive" ... this language might be why).

You have said you would not put Reggie on the ballot.

You know that not to put Reggie on the ballot is not inherently "disrespect".

You would like Reggie 6th or 7th some years where he isn't.

On a 5 deep ballot if there is something like a consensus top 5 then you are getting very little information to sort players 6 and down. Indeed you do not know - unless you have gone back and looked at all discussion and HMs - that any voter rated him any lower than you do, though you might reasonably consider it likely.

You think that - and this is predicated on your 5 being the same 5 as voters' consensus choices - that the handful of people you think picked the wrong 5, picked the wrong wrong 5.


FWIW, the limited impact numbers available have '95 Stockton higher. The faux-RAPM ("Regressed RAPM" based on on-off data) has Stockton 7th, Miller 30th. The gap is smaller in on-off but then Miller falls behind more of his teammates (worse in both than Smits, worse in on-off than McKey, Jackson). Just one type of measure (and not the best due to limited info) of course but then Stockton is more box-productive with a better defensive reputation and plays and extra 300 minutes. Miller does of course have his playoffs. People's methods will differ. But without evidence of reading the rationales, and given the limited information that you know is sorting those final ranking spots and given the quality of what was done by Stockton, I'm seeing it hard to justify calling what was done "disrespect".