RealGM

We have had people wanting to redo the top 100 project, but there are others that we haven't done for awhile . . . top 10 by position; greatest coaching careers, greatest team dynasties, greatest by each skill set (will be difficult as things like ballhandling have become so much more permissive), All-time All-defensive impact list, etc.

If you want to start one, maybe post it here so people can make suggestions, give it a week to look at the suggestions, then go ahead and do it the way YOU want it. If you are committing to run a project, then make sure you are willing to make the commitment. The top 100 project has traditionally taken almost a year of posting threads every 3 days as there are always threads that go up a day late at times.

I'm not sure I'll have time, but I would absolutely love to see someone lead a project on coaches. There are so many coaches that are either underrated or overrated and we almost never see any in-depth analysis on them.

Not up for running any project.

Top 100 and team dynasties are really the only two I’d be looking to significantly contribute to. Bit concerned team dynasties would be almost too simple/straightforward, with only a few interesting discussion points (I’d also argue against calling it a ‘dynasties’ list, otherwise we’d get to like team 15 and have teams with only 1 title - which isn’t much of a dynasty).

penbeast0 wrote:We have had people wanting to redo the top 100 project, but there are others that we haven't done for awhile . . . top 10 by position; greatest coaching careers, greatest team dynasties, greatest by each skill set (will be difficult as things like ballhandling have become so much more permissive), All-time All-defensive impact list, etc.

If you want to start one, maybe post it here so people can make suggestions, give it a week to look at the suggestions, then go ahead and do it the way YOU want it. If you are committing to run a project, then make sure you are willing to make the commitment. The top 100 project has traditionally taken almost a year of posting threads every 3 days as there are always threads that go up a day late at times.

So, are you saying that it seems like people want the Top 100 project but trex and you aren't able to commit to running it like we've been fortunate enough for you to do for many, many iterations? If this is the case, let me say up front that I appreciate all the work the two of you have done for us, and we have o right to expect it forever.

Of course if you or others have ideas for something else, that's worth putting forth as an option.

Would be happy to start the top 100 project this time around but I can't guarantee where I'll be in an years time...

Top 10 by position would be cool.

definitely would like to see/contribute to a top 100. maybe give the finals a few weeks to breathe before starting. didn't the last one start in october or november?

Unsure if I have the bandwidth to lead a project, as I’ll be relocating and starting a full-time working position in the near-ish future, but one idea I see as very cool are best “class seasons”. For example, a voting system is done for the 5 best rookies, sophomores, year 3s, 4s, so on…

How does that sound?

rk2023 wrote:Unsure if I have the bandwidth to lead a project, as I’ll be relocating and starting a full-time working position in the near-ish future, but one idea I see as very cool are best “class seasons”. For example, a voting system is done for the 5 best rookies, sophomores, year 3s, 4s, so on…

How does that sound?

So like 5 best rookie seasons all-time? etc

If I understood that correctly - I'd be a bit concerned many of the debates would wind up very samesy. Comparing 8th season LeBron vs 8th season MJ, and then 9th season LeBron vs 9th season MJ doesn't sound very interesting to me (as an example).

eminence wrote:

rk2023 wrote:Unsure if I have the bandwidth to lead a project, as I’ll be relocating and starting a full-time working position in the near-ish future, but one idea I see as very cool are best “class seasons”. For example, a voting system is done for the 5 best rookies, sophomores, year 3s, 4s, so on…

How does that sound?

So like 5 best rookie seasons all-time? etc

If I understood that correctly - I'd be a bit concerned many of the debates would wind up very samesy. Comparing 8th season LeBron vs 8th season MJ, and then 9th season LeBron vs 9th season MJ doesn't sound very interesting to me (as an example).

It would be quite similar to greatest careers / peaks in a sense, yeah. I’m more intrigued by the younger and older season rankings - as well as how much a share and aggregate points each of the ATGs could score. Perhaps an expansion to (say) 10 names makes this idea more interesting for conversation purposes, but with the trade off of more time.

Okay y'all, having talked to trex & penbeast, who have shepherded this project for many years but are too busy to commit to it at this time, I'm putting forth my intent to run a Top 100 project that begins this summer assuming I feel there's enough demand for participants.

I'll put up a thread soon - but not today I think - wherein I specify how I'm looking to structure the project, and look for people to explicitly state their interest in participating.

^Thanks Doc, it's a lot of work and we appreciate it.

Interested in participating in the top 100… recognise it is “time” to redo it, but also not an urgent priority if people want to hold off and make sure they are mentally and situationally prepared to run it.

I would like to see a retro DPoY project. Could run that myself, but would want to see a fair bit of committed interest… and the other problem with that idea is I myself would not be interested in running it for pre-1970 years lol. Okay, 1967 maybe you can have debate, but seems like an inevitable choice every other year of Russell’s career. Maybe the framework would be pre-merger then. Or up to 1974 under the excuse that at least we could have a generally easier way to assess team defences and potential individual contributions.

AEnigma wrote:Interested in participating in the top 100… recognise it is “time” to redo it, but also not an urgent priority if people want to hold off and make sure they are mentally and situationally prepared to run it.

I would like to see a retro DPoY project. Could run that myself, but would want to see a fair bit of committed interest… and the other problem with that idea is I myself would not be interested in running it for pre-1970 years lol. Okay, 1967 maybe you can have debate, but seems like an inevitable choice every other year of Russell’s career. Maybe the framework would be pre-merger then. Or up to 1974 under the excuse that at least we could have a generally easier way to assess team defences and potential individual contributions.

If you/we ever did do a retro DPOY project, perhaps it would be worthwhile to construct it in a manner that allows the runner-up to be identified (will make all those Russell years more interesting).

trex_8063 wrote:

AEnigma wrote:Interested in participating in the top 100… recognise it is “time” to redo it, but also not an urgent priority if people want to hold off and make sure they are mentally and situationally prepared to run it.

I would like to see a retro DPoY project. Could run that myself, but would want to see a fair bit of committed interest… and the other problem with that idea is I myself would not be interested in running it for pre-1970 years lol. Okay, 1967 maybe you can have debate, but seems like an inevitable choice every other year of Russell’s career. Maybe the framework would be pre-merger then. Or up to 1974 under the excuse that at least we could have a generally easier way to assess team defences and potential individual contributions.

If you/we ever did do a retro DPOY project, perhaps it would be worthwhile to construct it in a manner that allows the runner-up to be identified (will make all those Russell years more interesting).

It makes it more interesting but even then I feel like Wilt would be the general default.

To be clear, if I ran it, ballots would definitely be 3-5 players long. But a ballot that autofills the top two spots does not seem overly compelling, especially for years where people’s interest fades.

That homogeny is a large reason I have much less interest in an OPoY project. I would participate if someone ran that, but aside from the 1970s, there are a lot of years where the results will feel pretty inevitable for Nash, Magic, Oscar, Jordan, Bird, etc.

PistolPeteJR wrote:I'm not sure I'll have time, but I would absolutely love to see someone lead a project on coaches. There are so many coaches that are either underrated or overrated and we almost never see any in-depth analysis on them.

It’s hard to do anything on coaches without a ton of film lol

On Retro DPOY and other retro awards:

- If there's enough interest, then this is something we should do in the future, but am reluctant to jump into right now. To do it well means having people committed to doing active year-by-year research into the deep past, and that's actually a bigger ask than people might realize.

- Frankly, if we do it again, I'd suggest we go forward in time rather than backward. Having gone through and done this myself back to World War II, I think it really helps in carrying over context from year to year.

- When we did this I wouldn't expect to just focus on DPOY. I think OPOY definitely makes sense to do with it, which means POY would make sense...which also gets into why I'd want to be cautious here. A new Retro POY would have a natural feel as replacing the previous project, and I consider that project to be the single most worthwhile old project for people to go back and read through if they want to learn. There's also the matter the posters who participated in that project add to the stature of it, and it will be frankly hard for us to top now.

- Regarding COY back into history. I've done it, I think it's not crazy to do. All this stuff in the deeper past we'll have less certainty about, but we're not going to literally get more ignorant by the process, so I don't see the harm.

- I'm not interested in doing historical ROY because it's such a one-off thing.

- I think MIP is the hardest player-thing to do well, and we're generally less interested in it, so I think that's a "No".

- 6MOY is problematic because old box scores didn't record who started.

- EOY gets really weird in the deep past. It's often not all that clear who should be seen as the candidate from each team. We could do it just giving it to the team, but I don't find this to be all that compelling.

I will try to be a more active participant than in years past. Problem is my favorite part of the Top 100 Project is hearing people lay out these awesome cases, and then use that to guide my decision making. I'm far less interested in convincing others of my beliefs than seeing which way the evidence leads me.

Doctor MJ wrote:On Retro DPOY and other retro awards:

- If there's enough interest, then this is something we should do in the future, but am reluctant to jump into right now. To do it well means having people committed to doing active year-by-year research into the deep past, and that's actually a bigger ask than people might realize.

By rights that is always true to do a project well. It was true with the all-NBA teams project, and although it is not necessarily the exact same process, I think the top 100 is far more onerous.

- Frankly, if we do it again, I'd suggest we go forward in time rather than backward. Having gone through and done this myself back to World War II, I think it really helps in carrying over context from year to year.

Agree but I also think it is just the best way to ensure participation. We start at 19xx, if that is beyond you, then you will not be counted on as a participant.

- When we did this I wouldn't expect to just focus on DPOY. I think OPOY definitely makes sense to do with it,

This seems like an unnecessary equivalence. This forum never did a “top ten offensively at each position” project. The real league has never had an Offensive Player of the Year award. Again, if someone wants to run a Retro OPoY, alright, but I do not think having a defensive project necessitates that, especially with how skewed people tend to be toward offence in making holistic assessments anyway. Part of the appeal is to recognise unheralded players; offensive stars tend to want less for recognition.

which means POY would make sense...

I stringently disagree with that. The RPoY exists. RDPoY (or ROPoY) does not.

A new Retro POY would have a natural feel as replacing the previous project, and I consider that project to be the single most worthwhile old project for people to go back and read through if they want to learn. There's also the matter the posters who participated in that project add to the stature of it, and it will be frankly hard for us to top now.

Prior acknowledgement made that I see no reason to redo it just because we added other projects, I strongly object to your argument here. This is an internet forum. “Stature” is functionally non-existent in any meaningful sense, and while sure it is cool to say, “Oh the creator of Thinking Basketball participated! Oh this ESPN analyst participated!”, it is not as if they would repeat all of their votes today anyway.

This stance also ignores that frankly the level of discourse and understanding should be a lot higher now. There is more data, better access to data, better processes in assessment, better understanding of how and why those processes are used to make those assessments… You like to talk about evolution, and while I respect the project, it is very evident that it reflects 2010 basketball discourse.

Finally, it seems kind-of nonsensical to have these evolving Peaks and Top 100 projects, apparently free of the trappings of “stature” and the worries about “being replaced”, but then protect a project which has those 2010 limitations. To your point about it being better to go forward in time, it is not as if the level of engagement at the back end was anything sparkling even with all that “stature”.

Again, I would rather add new projects than revisit a long established one. But the idea of revisiting projects is something we are actively discussing right now, and while you may feel the RPoY has the most valuable discourse, for myself, I have found far more insight in these evolving Top 100 and Greatest Peaks projects.

My problem with a history DPOY project is that the evidence is going to be so anecdotal and sketchy that I don't think it will engender the level of discussion that you think. On the other hand, I think revisiting each of our successful projects every few years is a valuable exercise. I love new ideas, but they have to be doable.

If we weren't doing top 100 this year, I might go back to redoing the Hall of Fame (similar way to look back at older players while everyone is fresh and enthusiastic) or possibly creating All-Decade teams (1st, 2nd, 3rd teams) which I started once but it didn't fly.