RealGM Top 100 All-Time (2017)

Post #241 » by **trex_8063** » Fri Jul 21, 2017 10:46 pm

twolves97 wrote:
I would love to be a part of the voting committee and I made a real gm account just for this purpose. I have been following your rankings the whole time and reading all the arguments. I am looking forward to reading more arguments as well as sharing my own opinions. I operate under the premise that big man defense>perimeter defense and big man offense<perimeter offense. To me Peak>Prime>Longevity. I primarily look at how great were you at your best (peak) and how long were you a all-NBA level player. To be clear tho I do value longevity especially in cases like Karl Malone. I also believe that the competition in the NBA did not really ramp up until the late 1970s and because of that I dock greats like Russell and Chamberlain for playing in their eras. I evaluate players using every resource ie eye test, advanced stats and box score. I also believe that a lot of winning is circumstantial and I don't punish the likes of KG and Lebron for playing with horrendous supporting casts. I actually believe Lebron's greatest achievement was the 07 finals run. To give you an idea of how this all comes together for me I will give you what I believe to be the 25 greatest players of all time.
1. Michael Jordan
2. Kareem Abdul Jabaar
3. Tim Duncan
4. Shaquille O'Neal
5. Bill Russell
6. Magic Johnson
7. Lebron James
8. Hakeem Olajuwon
9. Kevin Garnett
10. Wilt Chamberlain
11. Larry Bird
12. Oscar Robertson
13. Kobe Bryant
14. Dirk Nowitzki
15. Jerry West
16. Karl Malone
17. Julius Erving
18. David Robinson
19. Charles Barkley
20. Moses Malone
21. Dwayne Wade
22. Steph Curry
23. Scottie Pippen
24. John Stockton
25. Chris Paul
I am very much open to changing my ranking based on the opinions of others. Thanks!

Welcome! Thank you for your interest in the project, and we'd be happy to have you join the discussion.

As is stipulated in the post you quoted above, I am going to request a "trial period" in which you participate for at least a thread or two (of the top 100 project) without the privilege of a counted vote. This is because you're a brand new personality to us, so we want you to demonstrate to us genuine intentions, reasonable knowledge, ability to debate in a mature and productive manner, etc.
So what we want you to do is simply hop right into the discussion (#16 was just decided, and the #17 thread just went up; all prior threads are linked both in the OP of this thread as well as the OP of each new project thread if you want to review prior arguments, etc), present your opinions and reasoning, respond to others, etc. This provides the means by which we can assess your appropriateness to participate.

If you wish, you may even state who your picks would be (as per the post you quoted, voters are to specify their 1st choice for the spot and a 2nd or alternate pick); just be aware I likely will not be COUNTING your vote in the totals for the first couple of threads (while still in a trial period).

You appear to be a promising new poster based on what you've posted above, so hopefully your trial period will not be too lengthy. I will let you know when you have been officially added to the panel.

Cheers....

Lou Fan · Post #242 » by **Lou Fan** » Fri Jul 21, 2017 10:51 pm

trex_8063 wrote:
twolves97 wrote:
I would love to be a part of the voting committee and I made a real gm account just for this purpose. I have been following your rankings the whole time and reading all the arguments. I am looking forward to reading more arguments as well as sharing my own opinions. I operate under the premise that big man defense>perimeter defense and big man offense<perimeter offense. To me Peak>Prime>Longevity. I primarily look at how great were you at your best (peak) and how long were you a all-NBA level player. To be clear tho I do value longevity especially in cases like Karl Malone. I also believe that the competition in the NBA did not really ramp up until the late 1970s and because of that I dock greats like Russell and Chamberlain for playing in their eras. I evaluate players using every resource ie eye test, advanced stats and box score. I also believe that a lot of winning is circumstantial and I don't punish the likes of KG and Lebron for playing with horrendous supporting casts. I actually believe Lebron's greatest achievement was the 07 finals run. To give you an idea of how this all comes together for me I will give you what I believe to be the 25 greatest players of all time.
1. Michael Jordan
2. Kareem Abdul Jabaar
3. Tim Duncan
4. Shaquille O'Neal
5. Bill Russell
6. Magic Johnson
7. Lebron James
8. Hakeem Olajuwon
9. Kevin Garnett
10. Wilt Chamberlain
11. Larry Bird
12. Oscar Robertson
13. Kobe Bryant
14. Dirk Nowitzki
15. Jerry West
16. Karl Malone
17. Julius Erving
18. David Robinson
19. Charles Barkley
20. Moses Malone
21. Dwayne Wade
22. Steph Curry
23. Scottie Pippen
24. John Stockton
25. Chris Paul
I am very much open to changing my ranking based on the opinions of others. Thanks!

Welcome! Thank you for your interest in the project, and we'd be happy to have you join the discussion.

As is stipulated in the post you quoted above, I am going to request a "trial period" in which you participate for at least a thread or two (of the top 100 project) without the privilege of a counted vote. This is because you're a brand new personality to us, so we want you to demonstrate to us genuine intentions, reasonable knowledge, ability to debate in a mature and productive manner, etc.
So what we want you to do is simply hop right into the discussion (#16 was just decided, and the #17 thread just went up; all prior threads are linked both in the OP of this thread as well as the OP of each new project thread if you want to review prior arguments, etc), present your opinions and reasoning, respond to others, etc. This provides the means by which we can assess your appropriateness to participate.

If you wish, you may even state who your picks would be (as per the post you quoted, voters are to specify their 1st choice for the spot and a 2nd or alternate pick); just be aware I likely will not be COUNTING your vote in the totals for the first couple of threads (while still in a trial period).

You appear to be a promising new poster based on what you've posted above, so hopefully your trial period will not be too lengthy. I will let you know when you have been officially added to the panel.

Cheers....

Thanks looking forward to contributing and hopefully eventually voting.

CodeBreaker · Post #243 » by **CodeBreaker** » Mon Jul 24, 2017 12:48 am

How can I join the discussion for the Top 100 All-time?

I'm new to the forum and has observed that this forum has lot more reasonable and knowledgeable posts and arguments from members compared to the other NBA forums I have been. I like what I found here and decide to stay active for a long time. Unfortunately I can't post under General Board yet.

Since we are already at rank #18, I'm going to post my Top 17 below:

1. Michael Jordan
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
3. LeBron James
4. Magic Johnson
5. Bill Russell
6. Tim Duncan
7. Wilt Chamberlain
8. Larry Bird
9. Shaquille O'neal
10. Hakeem Olajuwon
11. Kobe Bryant
12. Oscar Robertson
13. Karl Malone
14. Kevin Garnett
15. Jerry West
16. Dirk Nowitzki
17. Julius Erving

Some can go either way. My top 3 is locked. LBJ could still go up though.

Post #244 » by **trex_8063** » Tue Jul 25, 2017 1:25 am

CodeBreaker wrote:How can I join the discussion for the Top 100 All-time?
I'm new to the forum and has observed that this forum has lot more reasonable and knowledgeable posts and arguments from members compared to the other NBA forums I have been. I like what I found here and decide to stay active for a long time. Unfortunately I can't post under General Board yet.

I'm simply going to copy my reply to inquiry by another new poster (saves time

).....

Welcome! Thank you for your interest in the project, and we'd be happy to have you join the discussion.

As is stipulated in the post you quoted above, I am going to request a "trial period" in which you participate for at least a thread or two (of the top 100 project) without the privilege of a counted vote. This is because you're a brand new personality to us, so we want you to demonstrate to us genuine intentions, reasonable knowledge, ability to debate in a mature and productive manner, etc.
So what we want you to do is simply hop right into the discussion (#16 was just decided, and the #17 thread just went up; all prior threads are linked both in the OP of this thread as well as the OP of each new project thread if you want to review prior arguments, etc), present your opinions and reasoning, respond to others, etc. This provides the means by which we can assess your appropriateness to participate.

If you wish, you may even state who your picks would be (as per the post you quoted, voters are to specify their 1st choice for the spot and a 2nd or alternate pick); just be aware I likely will not be COUNTING your vote in the totals for the first couple of threads (while still in a trial period).

You appear to be a promising new poster based on what you've posted above, so hopefully your trial period will not be too lengthy. I will let you know when you have been officially added to the panel.

Cheers....

CodeBreaker · Post #245 » by **CodeBreaker** » Tue Jul 25, 2017 2:06 am

trex_8063 wrote:
CodeBreaker wrote:How can I join the discussion for the Top 100 All-time?
I'm new to the forum and has observed that this forum has lot more reasonable and knowledgeable posts and arguments from members compared to the other NBA forums I have been. I like what I found here and decide to stay active for a long time. Unfortunately I can't post under General Board yet.

I'm simply going to copy my reply to inquiry by another new poster (saves time ).....

Welcome! Thank you for your interest in the project, and we'd be happy to have you join the discussion.

As is stipulated in the post you quoted above, I am going to request a "trial period" in which you participate for at least a thread or two (of the top 100 project) without the privilege of a counted vote. This is because you're a brand new personality to us, so we want you to demonstrate to us genuine intentions, reasonable knowledge, ability to debate in a mature and productive manner, etc.
So what we want you to do is simply hop right into the discussion (#16 was just decided, and the #17 thread just went up; all prior threads are linked both in the OP of this thread as well as the OP of each new project thread if you want to review prior arguments, etc), present your opinions and reasoning, respond to others, etc. This provides the means by which we can assess your appropriateness to participate.

If you wish, you may even state who your picks would be (as per the post you quoted, voters are to specify their 1st choice for the spot and a 2nd or alternate pick); just be aware I likely will not be COUNTING your vote in the totals for the first couple of threads (while still in a trial period).

You appear to be a promising new poster based on what you've posted above, so hopefully your trial period will not be too lengthy. I will let you know when you have been officially added to the panel.

Cheers....

Thank you! I'll start my trial on the #19 thread.

JoeMalburg · Post #246 » by **JoeMalburg** » Wed Jul 26, 2017 9:40 pm

trex_8063 wrote:

Because I've been able to carve out time pretty consistently, I'd like to vote for the remainder of the project, but only if it's okay that I occasionally miss a vote. Don't want to take away from a very worthwhile endeavor.

Let me know! Thanks.

JoeMalburg · Post #247 » by **JoeMalburg** » Thu Jul 27, 2017 3:52 pm

trex_8063 wrote:Well the time is upon us to do another Top 100 of All-Time project. PLEASE READ ALL OF THIS OP TO BE FAMILIAR WITH THE PROCESS AND GUIDELINES

Links to prior lists:
Doctor MJ's spreadsheet with information back to 2006 and some 2003
RealGM Top 100 List 2008
RealGM Top 100 List 2011
Poster Pre-Lists from before 2014 project
RealGM Top 100 List 2014
Poster Pre-Lists from before 2017 project

2017 List
1. Michael Jordan
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
3. Lebron James
4. Bill Russell
5. Tim Duncan
6. Wilt Chamberlain
7. Magic Johnson
8. Shaquille O'Neal
9. Hakeem Olajuwon
10. Larry Bird
11. Kobe Bryant
12. Kevin Garnett
13. Oscar Robertson
14. Karl Malone
15. Jerry West
16. Julius Erving
17. Dirk Nowitzki
18. David Robinson

Anyone and everyone is free to participate in the discussion during the course of this project. However, the voter pool will be pre-approved by a panel of moderators. Tenured posters in good standing will be allowed into the voter pool immediately.
Newer/less-known posters or posters with questionable records may be asked to participate in the discussion WITHOUT being allowed a counted vote for a few threads, to demonstrate capable knowledge, genuine intent, and ability to converse in a respectful manner. If they pass this “trial period”, they will then be made eligible voters.

Pending details of user record and history, the “trial period” may be longer and more arduous for some than it is for others.

But here’s the important part: YOU MUST STATE YOUR DESIRE TO VOTE IN THE PROJECT IN THIS THREAD (though this is not required to participate in the project discussion).

This top 100 list is to comprise the greatest in all of BAA/NBA/ABA history (EDIT: where Mikan is concerned, you may also consider NBL as far back as '47). I am not going to stipulate a specific criteria that we all must follow. Everyone is free to be guided by their own values as to their ranking. However, the one thing I do ask [given this is to be an ALL-TIME list] is that you consider ALL players from all eras of BAA/NBA/ABA history.

I know there are a few individuals who only rank players post-merger or some other relatively arbitrary cut-off. For the purposes of this project, that is simply inadequate. I ask that you familiarize yourself [to the best of your ability] with players from all eras (going back as far as the BAA), and from the ABA as well, so that you can make educated speculations on the appropriate rank of players in an “all-time” sense.

If you do not feel up to that task, I would ask that you be up front about this and refrain from voting in the project (though please still participate in the discussion).

Given we are not forcing a specific set of criteria on posters, please be aware as we move thru this project that the criteria of other posters will often differ from your own. As such, there isn’t always a “right and wrong” in much of this…...just differing value systems. Please hold that in mind and be respectful to one and other.

If you’re going to participate, I would like it if you would take a little time [if you haven’t already done so] to outline your criteria in this thread:

Official Criteria Thread

That way, anyone you are debating with/against can at least get an idea of where you’re coming from.

The project is likely to start at the end of June and will take ~8 months to finish. It’s a long process, and I hope those participating stick with it to the end (imo, it’s a lot of the later positions that get interesting, as there’s so much less separating each individual place once we’re past ~#50).
While the resulting list is always a big curiosity for me, too, it’s the discussion that I hope we can make vibrant, textured, and useful for future reference.

EDIT: For voting procedure, we're going to experiment with something new, a Ranked Choice Vote (RCV). The procedure is pretty simple: basically you'd state who your top pick is (with supporting arguments), then also stipulate who your second pick would be (you will not be required to do a write-up or provide arguments for your secondary pick, though other posters may ask you your reasoning)). If no single player has the majority (>50%) of first place votes, then the player with the LEAST number of first place votes is eliminated.....and every voter who voted for that eliminated player has their second choice votes added to the total (the first place total) of the surviving candidates. If that doesn't result in somebody having a majority, the player with the next least number of first place votes is eliminated, and again second choice votes are transferred. Lather, rinse, repeat until a majority is reached (or until only two candidates remain: whoever has the most between the two of them).

Here's the graphic that fpliii provided:
fpliii wrote:

This is a somewhat experimental procedure relative to prior projects. Hopefully it goes well. However, if there are issues, we can go back to the same single-vote procedure from the 2014 project, which is as follows:
1) We vote for one position/rank at a time, starting at #1 and proceeding to #100.
2) Each eligible voter can cast their vote for ONE player. Votes MUST be accompanied by some arguments that demonstrate you have given serious consideration to your choice (i.e. something like “won six MVP’s” or “highest ppg of all-time” or similar is not adequate; your vote will not be counted if adequate justification is not provided).
3) You may change your vote if you feel compelled to do so. If you do wish to change your vote, please edit your original vote post and otherwise just give me a heads-up post that you’ve changed your vote.
4) The vote for each thread/position will be open for ~48 hours. At the end of that 48-hour period if one player has a majority of the total vote, that player will be awarded the rank being voted on. If no single player has a majority of the vote, we will enter a 24-hour run-off vote between the top 2 vote recipients (or rarely the top 3, in event of a tie). If your original vote was cast for one of the players in the run-off, you do NOT need to repeat your vote once we go into run-off (your original vote will simply be counted). i.e. only vote in the run-off if you original vote was NOT for one of the two run-off contestants (or if you wish to change your original vote).
5) We (the panel of moderators) will be watching closely for any evidence of collusion or “manipulation” of the vote. If we become suspicious an individual is participating in this manner, he or she may be removed from the voter panel, pending further investigation and/or trial period. EDIT: those guilty of any other general misbehavior may also be removed from the voter panel.

I think that’s about it. Again, if you want to vote, please make your request here. Any questions, concerns, etc you may have, now is the time to ask as well.

Voter Panel
trex_8063
eminence
Colbinii
Clyde Frazier
Quotatious

PaulieWal
Texas Chuck
drza
Dr Spaceman
fpliii

Hornet Mania
Eddy_JukeZ
SactoKingsFan
Blackmill
JordansBulls

RSCD3_
BasketballFan7
micahclay
PockyCandy
ardee

RCM88x
Tesla
Joao Saraiva
LA Bird
MyUniBroDavis

kayess
2klegend
penbeast0
MisterHibachi
70sFan

mischievous
Doctor MJ
Dr Positivity
Jaivl
Bad Gatorade

colts18
andrewww
Moonbeam
Cyrusman122000
Winsome Gerbil

Narigo
wojoaderge
TrueLAfan
90sAllDecade
Outside

scabbarista
janmagn
lebron3-14-3
Arman_tanzarian
oldschooled

Pablo Novi
john248
mdonnelly1989
Senior
twolves97

What do you say?

pandrade83 · Post #248 » by **pandrade83** » Fri Jul 28, 2017 2:57 am

I'd love to join the discussion. I've started posting (but not voting) in the general thread. Others who have disagreed have called my comments fair and noted that I've supported them with facts. I understand that I'd be on "trial" for a couple of posts.

Post #249 » by **trex_8063** » Fri Jul 28, 2017 4:03 am

pandrade83 wrote:I'd love to join the discussion. I've started posting (but not voting) in the general thread. Others who have disagreed have called my comments fair and noted that I've supported them with facts. I understand that I'd be on "trial" for a couple of posts.

Thank you for the interest and for what you've contributed so far. Consider yourself "on trial" effective immediately. If all is looking well, I'll add you to the eligible voter list within a thread or two. Cheers....

euroleague · Post #250 » by **euroleague** » Fri Jul 28, 2017 4:52 am

I want to be in the voting panel. @trex_8063 , I'm posting my criteria in the thread.

Post #251 » by **trex_8063** » Fri Jul 28, 2017 3:32 pm

euroleague wrote:I want to be in the voting panel. @trex_8063 , I'm posting my criteria in the thread.

Welcome, and jump right in. I'll put you on trial period as per OP of this thread. If things are going well, we'll add you to the voter pool within a thread or two.

Dr Positivity · Post #252 » by **Dr Positivity** » Wed Aug 2, 2017 10:00 pm

Here is the top 50 in average of WS Rank + MVP share rank, including ABA and players in MVP era except for Pettit who's rookie year only missed by 1 year so I included him. The top 20 is a perfect match but Stockton and Wade picks have started to vary from it

Spoiler:

'

dhsilv2 · Post #253 » by **dhsilv2** » Fri Aug 4, 2017 4:17 pm

Requesting I can be allowed to vote. I expect a trial period of course.

Post #254 » by **trex_8063** » Fri Aug 4, 2017 4:30 pm

dhsilv2 wrote:Requesting I can be allowed to vote. I expect a trial period of course.

Sure, jump right in to the conversation (I see you actually have, so just keep that up). Feel free to state your picks (and the reasons why) too, though I may not count your vote in the immediate next thread. If tone/content/intent of you contributions are all looking good, we'll officially add to the voter panel quickly.

Post #255 » by **trex_8063** » Wed Sep 6, 2017 9:17 pm

Because of what very nearly happened in the vote count of the #39 thread, I've made the following edit to the OP here as to how we will handle a potential tying vote:

trex_8063 wrote:EDIT (9/6/17): In the event that this procedure narrows it down to two individuals who have the same number of votes, we will at that time enter a 24-hour runoff vote UNLESS one of these two individuals initially had at least DOUBLE the number of 1st-place votes as the other. Otherwise a runoff vote will ensue in which those participants who had a counted vote in that thread and who did NOT cast either their primary or secondary vote for one of the two finalists will be asked to pick between the two finalists as a means breaking the tie.
In the event that this is still insufficient for a tie-breaker, OTHER registered participants who did NOT have a counted in that thread will be solicited to pick between the two finalists (poll open for ~24 hours) as a means of breaking the tie.

If there are no major objections, we'll adopt this as the protocol for handling such an event in the future.

eminence wrote:.

penbeast0 wrote:.

Clyde Frazier wrote:.

PaulieWal wrote:.

Colbinii wrote:.

Texas Chuck wrote:.

drza wrote:.

Dr Spaceman wrote:.

fpliii wrote:.

euroleague wrote:.

pandrade83 wrote:.

Hornet Mania wrote:.

Eddy_JukeZ wrote:.

SactoKingsFan wrote:.

Blackmill wrote:.

JordansBulls wrote:.

RSCS3_ wrote:.

BasketballFan7 wrote:.

micahclay wrote:.

ardee wrote:.

RCM88x wrote:.

Tesla wrote:.

Joao Saraiva wrote:.

LA Bird wrote:.

MyUniBroDavis wrote:.

kayess wrote:.

2klegend wrote:.

MisterHibachi wrote:.

70sFan wrote:.

mischievous wrote:.

Doctor MJ wrote:.

Dr Positivity wrote:.

Jaivl wrote:.

Bad Gatorade wrote:.

andrewww wrote:.

colts18 wrote:.

Moonbeam wrote:.

Cyrusman122000 wrote:.

Winsome Gerbil wrote:.

Narigo wrote:.

wojoaderge wrote:.

TrueLAfan wrote:.

90sAllDecade wrote:.

Outside wrote:.

scabbarista wrote:.

janmagn wrote:.

Arman_tanzarian wrote:.

oldschooled wrote:.

Pablo Novi wrote:.

john248 wrote:.

mdonnelly1989 wrote:.

Senior wrote:.

twolves97 wrote:.

CodeBreaker wrote:.

JoeMalburg wrote:.

dhsilv2 wrote:.

Pablo Novi · Post #256 » by **Pablo Novi** » Wed Sep 6, 2017 11:05 pm

Your suggested tie-breaking procedure sounds very good to me (and adds to how impressed I've been with both the general procedural guide-lines AND actual care of carrying them out).

A thought / question:
If we had people vote for THREE instead of TWO players (Vote, Alternate #1, Alternate #2); that should help in terms of reducing early-tallying ghost votes; but wouldn't it also better reflect people's preferences?

Post #257 » by **trex_8063** » Thu Sep 7, 2017 12:49 am

Pablo Novi wrote:Your suggested tie-breaking procedure sounds very good to me (and adds to how impressed I've been with both the general procedural guide-lines AND actual care of carrying them out).

A thought / question:
If we had people vote for THREE instead of TWO players (Vote, Alternate #1, Alternate #2); that should help in terms of reducing early-tallying ghost votes; but wouldn't it also better reflect people's preferences?

As far as a ballot/point system (e.g. 1st ballot choice worth 3 pts, 2nd ballot worth 2 pts, 3rd ballot worth 1 pt.....or similar point system, where winner is decided by who has the most points): we've intentionally avoided that type of system as it provides the GREATEST ability to "manipulate" the vote against undesired candidates.

However, an idea that your suggestion brought to mind (and maybe this is what you meant) which I potentially would have been open to is having participants specify an "Alternate #2" [i.e. 3rd choice] vote which would get transferred ONLY in the event that their Alternate #1 becomes a ghost vote. And if that Alternate #2 pick also ends up going ghost, then that's that.

idk though, I'm reluctant to change the protocol in that way here at the halfway point of the project unless there's a lot of support for the idea.
It's definitely food for thought for future projects, though.

THKNKG · Post #258 » by **THKNKG** » Thu Sep 7, 2017 1:42 am

trex_8063 wrote:
Pablo Novi wrote:Your suggested tie-breaking procedure sounds very good to me (and adds to how impressed I've been with both the general procedural guide-lines AND actual care of carrying them out).

A thought / question:
If we had people vote for THREE instead of TWO players (Vote, Alternate #1, Alternate #2); that should help in terms of reducing early-tallying ghost votes; but wouldn't it also better reflect people's preferences?

As far as a ballot/point system (e.g. 1st ballot choice worth 3 pts, 2nd ballot worth 2 pts, 3rd ballot worth 1 pt.....or similar point system, where winner is decided by who has the most points): we've intentionally avoided that type of system as it provides the GREATEST ability to "manipulate" the vote against undesired candidates.

However, an idea that your suggestion brought to mind (and maybe this is what you meant) which I potentially would have been open to is having participants specify an "Alternate #2" [i.e. 3rd choice] vote which would get transferred ONLY in the event that their Alternate #1 becomes a ghost vote. And if that Alternate #2 pick also ends up going ghost, then that's that.

idk though, I'm reluctant to change the protocol in that way here at the halfway point of the project unless there's a lot of support for the idea.
It's definitely food for thought for future projects, though.

Might be good to do, especially with how open these portions of the ranking are. The amount of ghost votes will definitely be increasing a lot otherwise.

Post #259 » by **trex_8063** » Thu Sep 7, 2017 2:09 am

micahclay wrote:
trex_8063 wrote:
Pablo Novi wrote:Your suggested tie-breaking procedure sounds very good to me (and adds to how impressed I've been with both the general procedural guide-lines AND actual care of carrying them out).

A thought / question:
If we had people vote for THREE instead of TWO players (Vote, Alternate #1, Alternate #2); that should help in terms of reducing early-tallying ghost votes; but wouldn't it also better reflect people's preferences?

As far as a ballot/point system (e.g. 1st ballot choice worth 3 pts, 2nd ballot worth 2 pts, 3rd ballot worth 1 pt.....or similar point system, where winner is decided by who has the most points): we've intentionally avoided that type of system as it provides the GREATEST ability to "manipulate" the vote against undesired candidates.

However, an idea that your suggestion brought to mind (and maybe this is what you meant) which I potentially would have been open to is having participants specify an "Alternate #2" [i.e. 3rd choice] vote which would get transferred ONLY in the event that their Alternate #1 becomes a ghost vote. And if that Alternate #2 pick also ends up going ghost, then that's that.

idk though, I'm reluctant to change the protocol in that way here at the halfway point of the project unless there's a lot of support for the idea.
It's definitely food for thought for future projects, though.

Might be good to do, especially with how open these portions of the ranking are. The amount of ghost votes will definitely be increasing a lot otherwise.

Thoughts?