RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #32 (Deadline 5:00AM PST on 10/9/23)

[MrLurker]

Correct me if i am wrong but if pippen should have won if not for hcl vote being missed why are we still going off the run-off?

Pippen won by the project rules in that case, it was just wrongly send to run off because of a counting mistake

Reasonable perspective. Others should chime in on what they prefer and I'll consider.

Either way, I'm not going to start the next thread until tomorrow morning.

My perspective: I think HCL's vote should count, but I think it's arguable whether or not Shaq's vote on page 5 should count.

okay, i guess ill vote

Peitit

Chip and MVP and beat russ

Pippen

6 rings and did okay without mj. idk what his impact is but its probably good.

I'll nominate

Jimmy Butler

made 2 finals and went toe to toe with kawhi and bron and jokic. also is giannis's dad

Walton
chip n mvp n beat kareem

Shaq voted for Pettit first and Pippen second, he was quoted and told by rishkar that Pettit was already inducted, and he did not modify his vote.

okay, i guess ill vote

Peitit

Chip and MVP and beat russ

I think Pettit was already voted in, freeing you up a spot on your ballot.

It looks like Doc went ahead and counted Shaq's secondary Pippen vote as his first vote, but I am not sure if there has been a user ballot yet in this project that was accepted that didn't have a valid name on the first option.

Without knowing who Shaq's first option is, we can't 100% know if his secondary vote of Pippen should've counted. What if his first place vote was for Stockton?

So even if you count HCL's vote, you could disqualify Shaq's vote on those grounds and the runoff would still be valid.

If Shaq's vote does count in addition to HCL's, then I would agree that Pippen should get it and the runoff should be null and void.

It's up to Doc.

I do not mean to interfere heavily - I am not a registered voter - but throwing a vote out like this would strike me as a touch petty.

If - as indicated by the established rules - Pippen received more votes prior to the count, then I think it would be proper to induct him. A procedural error should not be exploited to produce outcomes that would not have otherwise occured.

[MyUniBroDavis]

How do you distinguish between bad stats and good stats?

All-in-ones like PER are pretty commonplace. Popularity does not necessitate quality but if we are bucking what is common then I wonder what would be considered a reasonable alternative and how one determines which alternatives are reasonable

It’s about knowing the “story behind” and justification/validation of that data and how that is (real bad way to explain it lol) and how to use it

Everyone’s gonna have their opinion I know a lot of people here don’t like all in ones (docs said his stuff about ESPN RPM which isn’t a good all in one anyways with them being weird with their formula but it applies I think) but a lot of them have their uses

PER sucks in the same way skmething like winshares kind of sucks but worse, saying player X had this PER is basically another way to say player X had bad box score data but in a more vague and worse way

What would you consider an example of using an All-in-one well?

If I understand correctly, the foremost problem with all-in-ones is that they have intrinsic player preferences because of how they are crafted.

I kind of get what you mean, but just to clarify do you mean how the box score component tends to not adjust for role well?

Like it’ll give X this coefficient and a guy who is impactful but maybe does it in a different way tjat is typical won’t be as well represented in the box score data, at least in the way the component might look for in this individual case?(This isn’t a great example but u know what I mean)

Just wanna clarify lol

[Dutchball97]

It’s about knowing the “story behind” and justification/validation of that data and how that is (real bad way to explain it lol) and how to use it

Everyone’s gonna have their opinion I know a lot of people here don’t like all in ones (docs said his stuff about ESPN RPM which isn’t a good all in one anyways with them being weird with their formula but it applies I think) but a lot of them have their uses

PER sucks in the same way skmething like winshares kind of sucks but worse, saying player X had this PER is basically another way to say player X had bad box score data but in a more vague and worse way

What would you consider an example of using an All-in-one well?

If I understand correctly, the foremost problem with all-in-ones is that they have intrinsic player preferences because of how they are crafted.

I kind of get what you mean, but just to clarify do you mean how the box score component tends to not adjust for role well?

Like it’ll give X this coefficient and a guy who is impactful but maybe does it in a different way tjat is typical won’t be as well represented in the box score data, at least in the way the component might look for in this individual case?(This isn’t a great example but u know what I mean)

Just wanna clarify lol

Isn't it just that every all-in-one type metric (so boxscore or composites like EPM and LEBRON) values certain skills differently, which leads to us having to be aware of the context of each of them?

Something like being able to answer the question why LEBRON has Giannis peaking higher than Jokic, while EPM doesn't have Giannis coming particularly close to Jokic. While I value both stats highly, this is a pretty obvious one with LEBRON giving similar ratings to offense and defense, while EPM values offense significantly more.

The better the stat, the less context is needed. For something like PER you'd have to be aware that it really only captures offense and then further that it only captures what the boxscore shows us. So if you see someone with a high PER you know they score a lot, do so efficiently and probably provide at least some playmaking. However, it wouldn't tell you anything about how they actually impact their team's offense and provides no input on the defensive end.

[Doctor MJ]

Okay folks, looks like there's a clear preference to decide this vote based on what the vote should have been - if I'd calculated it correctly - at the initial deadline so:

Scottie Pippen is Inducted at #32.



John Havlicek is added to Nominee list.

[iggymcfrack]

Pippen should obviously get the vote in the quote once it was noticed, but the people bat signaled to the vote should have their votes counted as well. The purpose of the project is to get the largest possible perspective of people regardless of time and date and the people who voted late had very good explanations and thoughts. DraymondGold in particular I thought had the best post in the entire thread. Once the time and date is extended for whatever reason we should just count who has the most votes at the end of that period. That might still be Pippen and if so fine, but we should still count the votes that are listed in the extended period just as much as those in a quote the same way we would if we were originally gonna close the vote at midnight and then more people got votes in before we tallied them in the morning. The more votes the better!!!

[iggymcfrack]

Anyway, counting the missing vote as one of the new votes from the tie, I come up with 4-2 for Pippen so he should be inducted either way, but I do think we’ve set the precedent that all votes count until they’re tallied previously and we should stick with that going forward if we run into a similar situation.

[Rishkar]

Reasonable perspective. Others should chime in on what they prefer and I'll consider.

Either way, I'm not going to start the next thread until tomorrow morning.

My perspective: I think HCL's vote should count, but I think it's arguable whether or not Shaq's vote on page 5 should count.

okay, i guess ill vote

Peitit

Chip and MVP and beat russ

Pippen

6 rings and did okay without mj. idk what his impact is but its probably good.

I'll nominate

Jimmy Butler

made 2 finals and went toe to toe with kawhi and bron and jokic. also is giannis's dad

Walton
chip n mvp n beat kareem

Shaq voted for Pettit first and Pippen second, he was quoted and told by rishkar that Pettit was already inducted, and he did not modify his vote.

I think Pettit was already voted in, freeing you up a spot on your ballot.

It looks like Doc went ahead and counted Shaq's secondary Pippen vote as his first vote, but I am not sure if there has been a user ballot yet in this project that was accepted that didn't have a valid name on the first option.

Without knowing who Shaq's first option is, we can't 100% know if his secondary vote of Pippen should've counted. What if his first place vote was for Stockton?

So even if you count HCL's vote, you could disqualify Shaq's vote on those grounds and the runoff would still be valid.

If Shaq's vote does count in addition to HCL's, then I would agree that Pippen should get it and the runoff should be null and void.

It's up to Doc.

are you serious

how does a vote for petit matter for stockton?

I don't think it does, unless for some reason one of the other candidates was going to leapfrog Pippen on your ballot. (If you had hypothetically placed Stockton first and Pippen second, we wouldn't need the runnoff). As it is, I'm totally fine with counting it as a single vote ballot.

[ShaqAttac]

My perspective: I think HCL's vote should count, but I think it's arguable whether or not Shaq's vote on page 5 should count.



Shaq voted for Pettit first and Pippen second, he was quoted and told by rishkar that Pettit was already inducted, and he did not modify his vote.



It looks like Doc went ahead and counted Shaq's secondary Pippen vote as his first vote, but I am not sure if there has been a user ballot yet in this project that was accepted that didn't have a valid name on the first option.

Without knowing who Shaq's first option is, we can't 100% know if his secondary vote of Pippen should've counted. What if his first place vote was for Stockton?

So even if you count HCL's vote, you could disqualify Shaq's vote on those grounds and the runoff would still be valid.

If Shaq's vote does count in addition to HCL's, then I would agree that Pippen should get it and the runoff should be null and void.

It's up to Doc.

are you serious

how does a vote for petit matter for stockton?

I don't think it does, unless for some reason one of the other candidates was going to leapfrog Pippen on your ballot. (If you had hypothetically placed Stockton first and Pippen second, we wouldn't need the runnoff). As it is, I'm totally fine with counting it as a single vote ballot.

it isnt the first time an mj person asked for my vote to get chucked...

[trex_8063]

Reasonable perspective. Others should chime in on what they prefer and I'll consider.

Either way, I'm not going to start the next thread until tomorrow morning.

My perspective: I think HCL's vote should count, but I think it's arguable whether or not Shaq's vote on page 5 should count.

okay, i guess ill vote

Peitit

Chip and MVP and beat russ

Pippen

6 rings and did okay without mj. idk what his impact is but its probably good.

I'll nominate

Jimmy Butler

made 2 finals and went toe to toe with kawhi and bron and jokic. also is giannis's dad

Walton
chip n mvp n beat kareem

Shaq voted for Pettit first and Pippen second, he was quoted and told by rishkar that Pettit was already inducted, and he did not modify his vote.

I think Pettit was already voted in, freeing you up a spot on your ballot.

It looks like Doc went ahead and counted Shaq's secondary Pippen vote as his first vote, but I am not sure if there has been a user ballot yet in this project that was accepted that didn't have a valid name on the first option.

Without knowing who Shaq's first option is, we can't 100% know if his secondary vote of Pippen should've counted. What if his first place vote was for Stockton?

So even if you count HCL's vote, you could disqualify Shaq's vote on those grounds and the runoff would still be valid.

If Shaq's vote does count in addition to HCL's, then I would agree that Pippen should get it and the runoff should be null and void.

It's up to Doc.

are you serious

how does a vote for petit matter for stockton?

I think the potential concern regarding a ballot cast for a player who's already off the table is that the voter casting that ballot (in this case: you) perhaps isn't even aware of WHO the eligible candidates are.........and thus how can we be sure they [you] voted [with the alternate vote] for the eligible candidate they actually most-prefer? (EDIT: If you weren't aware that Pettit was off the ballot, perhaps you also were not aware that Stockton was ON the ballot, in other words).

I could have misinterpreted, but I believe that was OSNB's concern.

[ShaqAttac]

My perspective: I think HCL's vote should count, but I think it's arguable whether or not Shaq's vote on page 5 should count.



Shaq voted for Pettit first and Pippen second, he was quoted and told by rishkar that Pettit was already inducted, and he did not modify his vote.



It looks like Doc went ahead and counted Shaq's secondary Pippen vote as his first vote, but I am not sure if there has been a user ballot yet in this project that was accepted that didn't have a valid name on the first option.

Without knowing who Shaq's first option is, we can't 100% know if his secondary vote of Pippen should've counted. What if his first place vote was for Stockton?

So even if you count HCL's vote, you could disqualify Shaq's vote on those grounds and the runoff would still be valid.

If Shaq's vote does count in addition to HCL's, then I would agree that Pippen should get it and the runoff should be null and void.

It's up to Doc.

are you serious

how does a vote for petit matter for stockton?

I think the potential concern regarding a ballot cast for a player who's already off the table is that the voter casting that ballot (in this case: you) perhaps isn't even aware of WHO the eligible candidates are.........and thus how can we be sure they [you] voted [with the alternate vote] for the eligible candidate they actually most-prefer? (EDIT: If you weren't aware that Pettit was off the ballot, perhaps you also were not aware that Stockton was ON the ballot, in other words).

I could have misinterpreted, but I believe that was OSNB's concern.

sorry