RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - General Thread

[JazzP]

Vote: Dwyane Wade
Alternative Vote: Nikola Jokic

Nomination: Bob Pettit
Alternative Nomination: Scottie Pippen

Wrong thread. Also, remember to add reasoning for your primary vote.

If you're not on the voting list then ask Doc MJ and you'll be able to vote next round.

Oh, pffft. I was looking for the list of players already selected and got confused between the threads, my bad.
Ok, cool, thank you

[OhayoKD]

Off topic.

penbeast0

Spoiler:

Lakers organization and steph curry and shaq and any nba person who promotes crypto should be embarrased

Watch on YouTube

TLDR
-> All profit from crypto comes from generating hype, nothing concrete
-> Because it comes from generating hyoe, the people who make big purchases and promote it and make it a big news story are people who have a finanical interest in it
-> Because there is nothing concrete, the majority of crypto people will lose money. It is a ponzi scheme, you use future investors money to give old investors money
-> Biggest and 3rd biggest company probably were using customer funds in properelt

[clearlynotjesse]

Top 25 by draft decade:



Nice spread

[Mogspan]

I would like to become a voter in this project if still possible. I will attempt to vote on each new poll. Thank you.

[Doctor MJ]

I would like to become a voter in this project if still possible. I will attempt to vote on each new poll. Thank you.

Alright, so here's the plan:

Participate for a while without voting. If I see sincere effort and positivity, I expect to let you in.

Cheers!
Doc

[Doctor MJ]

I read your point in that seven people gave votes to Jokic in some capacity and seven people gave votes to Barkley in some capacity (assuming there were no Barkley/Jokic ballots), but a) it is not some injustice that Jokic won, b) Jokic did have more first place votes, and c) Barkley is probably going to win this next vote with his main competitor being the guy to whom you gave your lead vote. I am sure it is annoying, but you had time to count votes and reach out to non-voters (or non-alternates) to create a clearer sense that Barkley’s support was even with Jokic’s support.

I will wait for Doc to make the call.

Like I said, I didn't realize that in this type of case - 5-4-4 - that no secondary votes from anyone who voted from those three would be considered. I'm not sure if we've actually had this situation so far in the project, so I was unaware, otherwise I would've changed my vote. It just strikes me as anti-democratic to not let it go to a runoff given the actual vote-counts and I hope Doc sees it that way.

It is an injustice if a runoff would potentially give Barkley a win at #26 instead of #27.

EDIT: Again, I don't think we've been in this situation so far, and there's nothing in the OP about how votes are to be counted in that situation.

Continuing the conversation here. First, let me just lay out the process I've been using:

1. Tally all #1 votes. If majority, end.
2. Go to #2 vote for all who don't finish in Top 2 of previous count. Add to prior #1 votes. If majority, end.
3. Anyone previously qualifying in Top 2, who now don't? Go to #2 for their #1 votes. If majority, end. Repeat if necessary & possible.
4. Extend deadline one day, quote voters who didn't vote.
5. Create runoff thread with poll on PC Board. Whoever's ahead after one day wins.

I believe we had a #3 situation previously, but I could be mistaken. #4 has obviously happened. #5 never has.
/+-
It's understandable that you're frustrated that this process isn't specifically stated in either OP. The reality is that this is something that evolved over the lead up to the project as we added things like #2 votes.

From what you've written, I believe you were expecting something more like:

1. Tally all #1 votes. If majority, end.
2. For all candidates who finish Top 2, perform a one vs one runoff taking the #2 votes from all other candidates not in that particular one vs one. If victor, end.
3. Extend deadline one day, quote voters who didn't vote.
4. Create runoff thread with poll on PC Board. Whoever's ahead after one day wins.

I can understand why you'd think this superior and not much more work in practice. If people advocate for it, I'll consider it, but:

I made clear from the beginning that I wasn't looking to long vote lists for Instant Runoff Voting, and that also precludes an exhaustive Condorcet voting mechanism. This was a statement rather than an argument, but to give some reasons:

1. Too much voting complexity is bad for the project runner simply because of the greater work involved.
2. Too much voting complexity is problematic for the voter because it makes them feel like they need to have pre-made lists available before the actual discussion, which makes it easy for voter disengagement.
3. Too much voting complexity is problematic for the reader because even if it doesn't cause there to be less discussion, it tends to separate the actual live argument about a given player from the thread in which he is Inducted.
4. Not even Condorcet is fool-proof. You can get yourself caught in rock-paper-scissors situations. Sure we can break any tie from any method by soliciting the opinions of more people, but we shouldn't kid ourselves that there's a perfect way to weight votes in order to always get something that represents the most valid solution. Imperfection is an inherent part of voting systems, and once we accept that, it's just a question of what our priorities are.
5. I've said that my priority is discussion. We can arguably get just as good of a list by soliciting Top 100 lists from people on thee board and averaging them. We could potentially achieve this in hours/days, rather than a 10 month process. So then, why bother with something so inefficient? Because that "inefficiency" is caused by communication and rumination which is then publicly available years after the fact.

I'll say again that I'm not looking to tell people to "shut up and let me drive". By all means people can make cases for tweaks to the approach I'm using, and I may make said tweaks just as I've done several times already. But in the end I will be the judge, because I've taken on the responsibility of carrying this out, and in general, close races that might have ended up differently with a different process are not something that are a surprise to me. I see them as something inevitable, and in such cases, the concept of the ranked list gets exposed for its superficial nature. No one-dimensional scale can possibly capture the shape of these players, let alone one that implies an equal gap between all increments of it.

[Jaivl]

Jokic as basically top 25 is a mild surprise to me.

[SpreeS]

Jokic as basically top 25 is a mild surprise to me.

I see here some voters pushing a lot for today players. For example


Vote for #25: Nikola Jokic
Alternate Vote: Giannis Antetokounmpo
Nomination: Kawhi Leonard
Alternate Nomination: Bob Pettit

Started to push Curry from 5-6th and Durant from 10-12th

[falcolombardi]

If giannis and jokic are in shpuldnt we seriously look into kawhi now? Prime and longevity are roughly on the same level as them despite all the injuries

I am also not sure about barkley being nominated so much earlier than reggie who arguably was a superior offensive player and easier to work with defensively due to position

[rk2023]

Jokic as basically top 25 is a mild surprise to me.

I see here some voters pushing a lot for today players. For example


Vote for #25: Nikola Jokic
Alternate Vote: Giannis Antetokounmpo
Nomination: Kawhi Leonard
Alternate Nomination: Bob Pettit

Started to push Curry from 5-6th and Durant from 10-12th

It was one voter in the case of Durant tbf, and they rightfully received a fair share of push-back with the angle being used to "argue" for Durant. With Curry, I can't get there myself - but I could see why some made the argument for him that high (focusing more on resume, league transformation, offense, etc). Even in the Peaks project last summer, there were some very nuanced posters voting for him all the way high as three - where he ultimately placed at #11.

[rk2023]

If giannis and jokic are in shpuldnt we seriously look into kawhi now? Prime and longevity are roughly on the same level as them despite all the injuries

I am also not sure about barkley being nominated so much earlier than reggie who arguably was a superior offensive player and easier to work with defensively due to position

Why was Reggie a more superior O-player than Barkley?

Also agree regarding Kawhi, he's most likely low 20s / fringe T-30 for me. I don't tax for *some* of the injuries like 2021 and 17, for example, as much, and I feel the same way given how I rank Curry, West, CP3 - so I don't see too much of a leeway to have Leonard much lower (or even lower) than Pippen or Frazier for example. Giannis and Jokic likely are more impactful, but I don't see much of a reason to have them like ~10 spots over Kawhi.

[Doctor MJ]

General FYI: One_and_Done has been removed from the project.

His current vote will count, but will not be a part of the discussion going forward.

[HeartBreakKid]

Shame, he was highly active (probably too active...). I'd appreciate his vote and contributions, just if he restricts his post count to like 3 posts per thread including his vote lol.

[AEnigma]

Shame, he was highly active (probably too active...). I'd appreciate his vote and contributions, just if he restricts his post count to like 3 posts per thread including his vote lol.

Generally agreed. I think even once we made it past the upcoming Pettit, Barry, Havlicek, and Schayes group that the constant commentary on old players would have stopped being as relevant or obnoxious… but it was excessive, unproductive, and repetitive, so I understand the removal.

[falcolombardi]

If giannis and jokic are in shpuldnt we seriously look into kawhi now? Prime and longevity are roughly on the same level as them despite all the injuries

I am also not sure about barkley being nominated so much earlier than reggie who arguably was a superior offensive player and easier to work with defensively due to position

Why was Reggie a more superior O-player than Barkley?

Also agree regarding Kawhi, he's most likely low 20s / fringe T-30 for me. I don't tax for *some* of the injuries like 2021 and 17, for example, as much, and I feel the same way given how I rank Curry, West, CP3 - so I don't see too much of a leeway to have Leonard much lower (or even lower) than Pippen or Frazier for example. Giannis and Jokic likely are more impactful, but I don't see much of a reason to have them like ~10 spots over Kawhi.

Comparable impact data limited as it is for era last time i checked, better team offense results, similar longevity, easier fit into a team defense due to position, his off ball gravity is comparable in value to barkley rebounding albeit barkley adds value as a playmaker on ball. Come playoffs time scoring gap shrinks

Like barkley is historically more recognized, bigger box scores and charisma, mvp winner and all while reggie never got properly appreciated in his owm time. But is not all that clear barkley elevated teams more than reggie did

For example, what makes barkley clearly ahead ? To turn the queation around

[Colbinii]

Quarter_and_done

[AEnigma]

If giannis and jokic are in shpuldnt we seriously look into kawhi now? Prime and longevity are roughly on the same level as them despite all the injuries

I am also not sure about barkley being nominated so much earlier than reggie who arguably was a superior offensive player and easier to work with defensively due to position

Why was Reggie a more superior O-player than Barkley?

Also agree regarding Kawhi, he's most likely low 20s / fringe T-30 for me. I don't tax for *some* of the injuries like 2021 and 17, for example, as much, and I feel the same way given how I rank Curry, West, CP3 - so I don't see too much of a leeway to have Leonard much lower (or even lower) than Pippen or Frazier for example. Giannis and Jokic likely are more impactful, but I don't see much of a reason to have them like ~10 spots over Kawhi.

Comparable impact data limited as it is for era last time i checked, better team offense results, similar longevity, easier fit into a team defense due to position, his off ball gravity is comparable in value to barkley rebounding albeit barkley adds value as a playmaker on ball. Come playoffs time scoring gap shrinks

Like barkley is historically more recognized, bigger box scores and charisma, mvp winner and all while reggie never got properly appreciated in his owm time. But is not all that clear barkley elevated teams more than reggie did

For example, what makes barkley clearly ahead ? To turn the queation around

I like the line of questioning. Barkley’s advantages are mainly in self-creation and floor-raising. While I do not think Miller’s needs are especially difficult to meet, he can be frozen out of plays more easily than Barkley can, and Miller cannot actively create looks for his teammates the way Barkley can either.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

I read your point in that seven people gave votes to Jokic in some capacity and seven people gave votes to Barkley in some capacity (assuming there were no Barkley/Jokic ballots), but a) it is not some injustice that Jokic won, b) Jokic did have more first place votes, and c) Barkley is probably going to win this next vote with his main competitor being the guy to whom you gave your lead vote. I am sure it is annoying, but you had time to count votes and reach out to non-voters (or non-alternates) to create a clearer sense that Barkley’s support was even with Jokic’s support.

I will wait for Doc to make the call.

Like I said, I didn't realize that in this type of case - 5-4-4 - that no secondary votes from anyone who voted from those three would be considered. I'm not sure if we've actually had this situation so far in the project, so I was unaware, otherwise I would've changed my vote. It just strikes me as anti-democratic to not let it go to a runoff given the actual vote-counts and I hope Doc sees it that way.

It is an injustice if a runoff would potentially give Barkley a win at #26 instead of #27.

EDIT: Again, I don't think we've been in this situation so far, and there's nothing in the OP about how votes are to be counted in that situation.

Continuing the conversation here. First, let me just lay out the process I've been using:

1. Tally all #1 votes. If majority, end.
2. Go to #2 vote for all who don't finish in Top 2 of previous count. Add to prior #1 votes. If majority, end.
3. Anyone previously qualifying in Top 2, who now don't? Go to #2 for their #1 votes. If majority, end. Repeat if necessary & possible.
4. Extend deadline one day, quote voters who didn't vote.
5. Create runoff thread with poll on PC Board. Whoever's ahead after one day wins.

I believe we had a #3 situation previously, but I could be mistaken. #4 has obviously happened. #5 never has.
/+-
It's understandable that you're frustrated that this process isn't specifically stated in either OP. The reality is that this is something that evolved over the lead up to the project as we added things like #2 votes.

From what you've written, I believe you were expecting something more like:

1. Tally all #1 votes. If majority, end.
2. For all candidates who finish Top 2, perform a one vs one runoff taking the #2 votes from all other candidates not in that particular one vs one. If victor, end.
3. Extend deadline one day, quote voters who didn't vote.
4. Create runoff thread with poll on PC Board. Whoever's ahead after one day wins.

I can understand why you'd think this superior and not much more work in practice. If people advocate for it, I'll consider it, but:

I made clear from the beginning that I wasn't looking to long vote lists for Instant Runoff Voting, and that also precludes an exhaustive Condorcet voting mechanism. This was a statement rather than an argument, but to give some reasons:

1. Too much voting complexity is bad for the project runner simply because of the greater work involved.
2. Too much voting complexity is problematic for the voter because it makes them feel like they need to have pre-made lists available before the actual discussion, which makes it easy for voter disengagement.
3. Too much voting complexity is problematic for the reader because even if it doesn't cause there to be less discussion, it tends to separate the actual live argument about a given player from the thread in which he is Inducted.
4. Not even Condorcet is fool-proof. You can get yourself caught in rock-paper-scissors situations. Sure we can break any tie from any method by soliciting the opinions of more people, but we shouldn't kid ourselves that there's a perfect way to weight votes in order to always get something that represents the most valid solution. Imperfection is an inherent part of voting systems, and once we accept that, it's just a question of what our priorities are.
5. I've said that my priority is discussion. We can arguably get just as good of a list by soliciting Top 100 lists from people on thee board and averaging them. We could potentially achieve this in hours/days, rather than a 10 month process. So then, why bother with something so inefficient? Because that "inefficiency" is caused by communication and rumination which is then publicly available years after the fact.

I'll say again that I'm not looking to tell people to "shut up and let me drive". By all means people can make cases for tweaks to the approach I'm using, and I may make said tweaks just as I've done several times already. But in the end I will be the judge, because I've taken on the responsibility of carrying this out, and in general, close races that might have ended up differently with a different process are not something that are a surprise to me. I see them as something inevitable, and in such cases, the concept of the ranked list gets exposed for its superficial nature. No one-dimensional scale can possibly capture the shape of these players, let alone one that implies an equal gap between all increments of it.

I appreciate you taking the time to explain your process. I do think the second option might be better, but being honest, it hasn't really been an issue (that I'm aware of) until the last thread and, now that I'm more clear on how you're doing it, I'll just adjust how I vote depending on the situation.

Thanks again. I can't imagine how much work it is running this thing.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

General FYI: One_and_Done has been removed from the project.

His current vote will count, but will not be a part of the discussion going forward.

May I ask why? I mean we all know the general issue, but I didn't see anything escalate beyond the normal in the current thread or the last one. But then it's certainly possible there was private discourse the rest of us wouldn't be privy to.

No one has been removed from the project up this point, and based on what's publicly knowable, it doesn't seem like there was an obvious breaking point. Just a bit surprised/confused.

[Doctor MJ]

General FYI: One_and_Done has been removed from the project.

His current vote will count, but will not be a part of the discussion going forward.

May I ask why? I mean we all know the general issue, but I didn't see anything escalate beyond the normal in the current thread or the last one. But then it's certainly possible there was private discourse the rest of us wouldn't be privy to.

No one has been removed from the project up this point, and based on what's publicly knowable, it doesn't seem like there was an obvious breaking point. Just a bit surprised/confused.

Straw breaking the camels back. Consequences escalate even if the scale of the issue doesn't when the same problem crops up repeatedly.

I should also say:

A significant part of this was the complaints of other posters - with the one that hit me the hardest coming from someone who exited the project a while ago. It wasn't someone who gave an ultimatum and then left when I didn't give in, it was just a person explaining why they were leaving the project. Regardless, this put on edge feeling like I'd need to be more proactive in managing project tone or else I'd lose more people.

I'll also say that the rules for the project aren't quite the same as for the board at large. In some ways I'm harsher with the project because I'm somewhat micromanaging tone. In some ways I'm less harsh because every person I've talked about in a warning capacity, I've done so primarily as a PM conversation, rather than just sending a message telling them that they're in trouble and what would happen because of it.