Ginoboleee wrote:I Also, it is possible that these RGM projects were based on significantly different voter pools. But I doubt it lol.
I am inclined to disagree here. I haven't checked and so am open to being wrong. But POY was done in 2010. I'd imagine substantial board turnover in general. Maybe slightly less so in terms of core members?
Ginoboleee wrote:Group 6: RGM might need their own Player's Only Meeting. There will always be edge cases, fair enough. But the discrepancy between the RGM 100 rank (first number) and the RGM POY Cumulative rank (number after player name) is quite striking. These two legends somehow ended up (just barely) on the sidelines in the RGM 2020 Top 100. And given that Luka is certain to join the fun, looks like at least 3 players who currently are on the RGM 2020 should be expected to step aside by next time around. Unless these are special cases where the yearly peak shouldn't matter so much. But why would that be? Please remind me. I am new, after all.
103. Bernard King (57)
104. Tiny Archibald (73)
(Both players from this group make my own Top 100, though Nate is on thin ice.)
Given you're asking a question on this group I'll answer though I would think it's obvious. High peak. Poor longevity of high quality. Archibald has a fabulous peak 3681 minutes, 25.2 PER, 13.9 OWS. 72 and to a lesser degree 75 are somewhat close. Then lots of less available and considerably less elite seasons.
King's best box might be '85 but an incomplete season and not playoff available. Or else '84. '84 is good with a very productive playoffs. Even so just 2667 minutes but a very good season. 81-83 are good but nothing huge on this scale of comp. Then lots of absences (some, though not most, may ding him him for the cost of paying him during such absences) and mostly - at this level - insignificant play. Some may also be inclined to ding King on certain intangible issues either from a ethical standpoint [though I'm not really aware of this being done] or moreso potential harm (e.g. to asset value, team reputation) with regard to the Utah incident and perhaps other issues he had.
In general you seem to trend ... dismissive? ... of longevity of quality and fairly heavily focused on being top 5. Here I would note that in a league of 30 teams (since Bobcats 04-05) there'd be 150 starters, say 240 significant rotation players at a time, or in a 23 team league (from Mavericks arrival 80-81 to 87-88) 115 starters and say 184 main rotation guys ... there's an awful lot of play going on outside the notional top 5 players to decide where title equity lies.