Would there be interest in redoing the Retro Player of the Year project this summer?

[ardee]

The top 100 and peaks project are redone every 3 years.

It's been 14 years now since the original RPOY project was done.

Imo, it's worth a shot.

[Dutchball97]

I'd definitely participate if we were to redo it but I'm not sure if we'd get meaningfully different results, despite it being a big project to go through again.

Maybe first we could add the early years of the NBA. With how many people are actually ranking Mikan now, it feels a bit off not to have him on the POY list.

[bastillon]

The top 100 and peaks project are redone every 3 years.

It's been 14 years now since the original RPOY project was done.

Imo, it's worth a shot.

I'd be interested after all these years.

[Special_Puppy]

I’d personally really enjoy it. I don’t think there are any other projects scheduled this summer anyways

[penbeast0]

You want to run it, Ardee? I didn't participate the 1st time, and may not this time as my memory doesn't save in seasons, but it's one of the most quoted threads we've ever done.

[Doctor MJ]

My thoughts:

1. First I should say that I’m looking to run a WNBA RPOY on the WNBA after the current WNBA season. Aside from the fact that between that and the projects I’ve been running here, I personally won’t be running a men’s RPOY at this time.

2. A men’s RPOY isn’t a summer project. If you’re doing say - 75 years at 3 days a piece, that’s going to take more than half a year.

The good news there is that once people get their groove you can run season threads over overlapping durations which can shortens it some.

The more-bad news is that to do this sort of project well each participant has to be able to get their head around any given year each thread. This should take more work per thread for participants than a Top 100 thread, and for those who haven’t ever studied deeper history, it should take a lot more.

For this reason, I might suggest that doing this for the WNBA would be a good pre-project. Way less deeper past to worry about, and likely a similar need to earnestly examine each season in depth for the first time. Though of course, anyone who lacks interest in applying the process to the women’s game wouldn’t want to do this.

3. My recommendation would be to go chronologically forward this time around rather than backward.

I ran the original project backward strategically because it was a new concept that I figured it would be easiest to buy-in for the most recent years and that the project could still feel like a success even if we ran out of juice…and I think it worked not just because I personally see it as successful, but because we did run out of steam in the ‘50s.

But having gone through this process myself multiple times now, I feel like it’s easier to get your head around a given year when you just did the year before it, than it is when you just did the year after it.

4. My recommendation would be to begin in ‘45-46, because that’s the beginning of the post-War era, and that’s the point where pro basketball leagues truly emerge as the place where the bulk of the basketball player play. While there would be different ways to do a project that begins prior to the official start of the NBA, it’s plausible to do a quality RPOY for these really just focused on the two proto-NBA leagues (NBL in ‘45-46, and both NBL and BAA the next 3 years).

I should note that this approach would cut out the following:

- The ABL. There’s an argument to be made that the ABL was a major league too, particularly prior to the arrival of the BAA in ‘46-47. However, adding another league into the mix that just ends up disappearing rather than merging into the NBA for just ‘45-46 isn’t going to give much bang for the project’s buck.

- The AAU. This is where Bob Kurland went, working a paid job for a company that really wanted to beat other companies at basketball. Aside from the fact this is traditionally not seen as “pro basketball” (despite the lip service to amateurism being pretty silly when the players are literally getting paid by the name on the jersey), just don’t think we have the kind of data we’d want to do these comparisons.

- Black Five Basketball. In the ‘40s, top Blqck players were largely concentrated on 3 barnstorming teams (rather than a league): 1) Harlem Renaissance (from Harlem), Harlem Globetrotters (from Chicago), and briefly 3) Washington Bears.

Trying to add non-league teams into this process makes it harder, but for anyone who doesn’t see the point in doing years where we can’t include the best Black players, those teams are who I’d focus on.

I will say, having done this, in this point in time most of the top players in basketball really do seem to have been White, and the Black players didn’t affect my ballots that much.

It’s an open question whether that simply means Black talent wasn’t as well encouraged as White talent at that time (which is certainly part of the story), or whether the poor of the time period we’re literally capped more in their physical growth.

The way that everyone marveled at Sweetwater Clifton as THE Black talent of his time despite him being considerably shorter than Kurland and Mikan - and the whole basketball world now seeing the value of giants - makes me wonder if perhaps we weren’t actually missing out on Russ/Wilt-type athletes in earlier eras. They literally might not have existed.

5. I would recommend considering not just POY, but OPOY, DPOY, and COY as well. That might seem like more work but a) OPOY and DPOY can be evaluated basically with the same views as POY, and b) if you go with forward chronology, COY will be a close cousin.

By contrast ROY, MIP, and 6MOY are just plain a lot harder to do well, and a lot of the work is one-off stuff.

EOY I’d leave out because in the deep past the GM position didn’t really exist. Either the owner was calling the shots, or the coach was, and it’s not necessarily clear to us today how that was playing out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AEnigma]

Agree with Doc that it may be overly ambitious (I would participate if it happens) and that it makes sense to progress through the years rather than go in reverse. That way even if the project does fizzle, you can still essentially add a decade of RPoYs to the currently existing ones.

I like the concept of running OPoY and DPoY, but there is also an option to only run those two. Again, maybe a thought depending on activity levels: run RPoY for the ten years preceding the current RPoY, and then if activity has not been high, can adjust to just doing OPoY/DPoY rather than in some sense “overwriting” the old project with a less involved group.

I think it is important to remember that very few winners will change, so anyone participating in the project needs have a particular eye toward the end of the ballot — and that has almost always been the more difficult aspect.

[Colbinii]

I think something like OPOY and DPOY makes some sense. Top 3 with voting transparency in each thread works.

The other idea is a Top 5 over 5 year period thread.

Another idea is best 3 year-peaks/stretches

[eminence]

Thing I agree with) Going forwards through time.

Thing I differ on) What season to start with. My first preference was towards either '50 or '51.

Thing I'm neutral on) I'm not particularly interested in OPOY/DPOY type additions and wouldn't participate in them.

Basic reasoning for why not the 40s:
1) It's hard to evaluate split leagues (ABA is unavoidable).
2) It's difficult to evaluate 40s NBL/ABL/Black ball with the combined lack of film/stats, and the NBL did seem to prove itself as the superior league when the NBA formed. The BAA was ahead of its time on stats, but '47/'48 the league seems a clear #2.
3) This stands a bit at odds with my individual player evaluation preferences (I count basically all post-collegiate years for players who ever played in the NBA, even AAU Pollard), but I think it was possible to get decent conversation about a couple of 40s guys (basically Mikan/Davies), whole threads dedicated to those years could get us started off on a real dud.

Thoughts on '50 vs '51:
-Reasoning for '50 is pretty simple, it's the first NBA year and the first time the clear majority of talent was assembled in one league.
-Possible reasons for '51:
A) Acknowledging the fall of the color barrier in the BAA/NBA.
B) Rebounds are pretty darn important.
C) Honestly '50 is a bit of a weird year, with a highly inflated number of teams compared to the decade and a half that followed (17 vs 10 or fewer).
D) The first NBA Allstar game giving us a bit better insight on who the stars of the day were (All-NBA existed prior).

[rk2023]

I’d be down to help out with a retro OPOY : DPOY project

[Djoker]

I'd be down to participate whether it's RPOY, OPOY/DPOY or whatever other variant.

[ardee]

You want to run it, Ardee? I didn't participate the 1st time, and may not this time as my memory doesn't save in seasons, but it's one of the most quoted threads we've ever done.

I don't unfortunately think I'll be able to put the kind of time necessary into running it as the main operator but I'd be happy to help on the sidelines with admin stuff like tallying votes and what-not.

I also envisioned it as post shot-clock, because quite honestly basketball pre-shot clock is like a different sport to me. So I think whoever is running it should at least be comfortable with those early years, particularly if we're going forwards in time this go-around.

[ardee]

The top 100 and peaks project are redone every 3 years.

It's been 14 years now since the original RPOY project was done.

Imo, it's worth a shot.

I'd be interested after all these years.

Boy seeing you around is a real blast from the past. Feels like it's been 10 years. Would definitely be good to have you participate if we do this.

[LA Bird]

Would participate in any such projects and I would support having OPOY and especially DPOY votes too. Not too sure about COY though because outside of a revolutionary year like 67 Hannum, I don't think we have anywhere near enough information to vote on coaches from so long ago on an year to year basis.

Also, this project update is way overdue. On basketball reference, we didn't even have individual game logs and team ORtg/DRtg for the older teams until several years after the RPOY project. If you revisit some of those older threads, many votes were just a list of five names with zero explanation or people citing PER and media awards because there was so little data back then. I know the top 100 list is kind of the flagship project but honestly, I think the RPOY project is more significant because it is unique to this board and represents the level of granular analysis you can only find here. An RPOY update every 10 years or so would be best IMO. (I also think the top 100 and peaks list should be reduced from once every 3 to every 4 years but that's another topic)

[AEnigma]

Seems like there is a good amount of interest, but no committed project runner.

Think it would be best if someone with project-running experience managed the project, but if there are no volunteers, I probably could manage it… If I did, I likely would need to dramatically scale back my involvement in other threads (not a bad idea in any case). I would also want some sort of assurance from voters about extended commitment to the project so it does not fizzle. Maybe something like a pre-project list?

Finally, regardless of who runs it, I think it should go no further than 2009 — because everything after would be rewriting contemporaneous votes, and I feel that is an unnecessary exercise.

[One_and_Done]

It would take a long time and for minimal change. The current list is fine mostly anyway.

[ardee]

Seems like there is a good amount of interest, but no committed project runner.

Think it would be best if someone with project-running experience managed the project, but if there are no volunteers, I probably could manage it… If I did, I likely would need to dramatically scale back my involvement in other threads (not a bad idea in any case). I would also want some sort of assurance from voters about extended commitment to the project so it does not fizzle. Maybe something like a pre-project list?

Finally, regardless of who runs it, I think it should go no further than 2009 — because everything after would be rewriting contemporaneous votes, and I feel that is an unnecessary exercise.

If you did run it, like I said I'd be happy to assist with odds and ends like vote tallying and what-not.

I disagree on stopping at 2009 though... The 2010 and prior years were done 14 years ago. You take a season like 2012, and that was done.... 12 years ago. Feels very arbitrary to stop there. It was a mostly different user-base voting back then with some exceptions.

If you really did want to stop then something like 2020 makes sense since it's been a fairly different league since then and it is largely the same voters on the board now who did the subsequent years.

I think we might as well just push through and come all the way back to the present day though.

[jalengreen]

Seems like there is a good amount of interest, but no committed project runner.

Think it would be best if someone with project-running experience managed the project, but if there are no volunteers, I probably could manage it… If I did, I likely would need to dramatically scale back my involvement in other threads (not a bad idea in any case). I would also want some sort of assurance from voters about extended commitment to the project so it does not fizzle. Maybe something like a pre-project list?

Finally, regardless of who runs it, I think it should go no further than 2009 — because everything after would be rewriting contemporaneous votes, and I feel that is an unnecessary exercise.

If you did run it, like I said I'd be happy to assist with odds and ends like vote tallying and what-not.

I disagree on stopping at 2009 though... The 2010 and prior years were done 14 years ago. You take a season like 2012, and that was done.... 12 years ago. Feels very arbitrary to stop there. It was a mostly different user-base voting back then with some exceptions.

If you really did want to stop then something like 2020 makes sense since it's been a fairly different league since then and it is largely the same voters on the board now who did the subsequent years.

I think we might as well just push through and come all the way back to the present day though.

Don’t see how it’s arbitrary? My understanding is that 2009 and all prior POYs were voted on at least a season after that season. (because the 2008-09 POY occurred in 2020). All POYs after that point occurred directly after the season of interest. So by redoing those, we’d be redoing analyses that were already done by people who had the benefit of greater recollection and not influenced by anything after the fact. Kinda unnecessary. It doesn’t really hurt and it’s fair to disagree, but the reasoning seems clear enough. The idea of going until 2009 would be to redo ones that were retroactive to begin with; not redo contemporary votes with retroactive votes of our own. That’s my impression of how this worked, at least - wasnt around for the project

[Special_Puppy]

Honestly curious which RPOYs would get overturned if we redid the project. We did the project using far more primitive data, but even if we did it with more modern data I don't know how much would change since so much of RPOY is based on narrative

[eminence]

New knowledge - I'll be busy moving, I'm out on any major projects for a bit.