RealGM 2025 Greatest Peaks Project Discussion Thread

[mdonnelly1989]

YES! BUT WE NEED TO USE A POLL! There is no better way than using a Poll to decide who the Peaks Project.

No, we definitely don't. AEnigma already put it rather succinctly, but there's no regulation on a poll, and that is the opposite of the point in such a project. It would be a very bad decision.

I don't know what you mean regulation? Maybe I'm not understanding why a Poll is not a good idea...

[Cavsfansince84]

I don't know what you mean regulation? Maybe I'm not understanding why a Poll is not a good idea...

Because a. it gives the project runner little control over who participates and also makes it easy to manipulate votes with alts and b. I think part of being a participant is giving reasoning behind how you vote and c. having ballots with multiple names makes for a more accurate process to decide on who wins each time. That's why polls wouldn't be a good idea. Polls would also be limited to 10 possible votes at a time.

[lessthanjake]

I doubt I’ll have time to participate much, but put my name down in case.

[letskissbro]

Interested

[tsherkin]

I don't know what you mean regulation? Maybe I'm not understanding why a Poll is not a good idea...

Because a. it gives the project runner little control over who participates and also makes it easy to manipulate votes with alts and b. I think part of being a participant is giving reasoning behind how you vote and c. having ballots with multiple names makes for a more accurate process to decide on who wins each time. That's why polls wouldn't be a good idea. Polls would also be limited to 10 possible votes at a time.

This. A poll is anonymous, and people not participating can easily participate in the poll. The point of this project is the description, the effort to make your point about the given individual. It's about the discussion, in other words, not so much the result.

[KembaWalker]

how'd i know thered be more ballboys in this thread than I've seen in the totality of the rest of RealGM in the last year

[LA Bird]

I will say just for the sake of tallying ease, I would probably push for a process akin to Doc’s 2023 Top 100 if we did the condorcet approach. By the end of the last project, the diversity of ballots made condorcet tallying something of a mess
...
That is a total of 18 players and a pretty extensive list of head-to-head calculations, which is a lot of extra work. Now, adding a nomination tally does mean one extra thing to count each round, but it also keeps the pool of head-to-head calculations more reasonably constrained.

FYI, the H2H calculations last peaks project were all done automatically through a python script so while it looked very messy with a lot of players and seasons, it's actually very easy once set up.

I am not planning on participating in the project this time around but I can send the script to anyone who knows how to run python.

[metta-tonne]

I'm interested, I'd like to vote please

[mdonnelly1989]

I don't know what you mean regulation? Maybe I'm not understanding why a Poll is not a good idea...

Because a. it gives the project runner little control over who participates and also makes it easy to manipulate votes with alts and b. I think part of being a participant is giving reasoning behind how you vote and c. having ballots with multiple names makes for a more accurate process to decide on who wins each time. That's why polls wouldn't be a good idea. Polls would also be limited to 10 possible votes at a time.

This. A poll is anonymous, and people not participating can easily participate in the poll. The point of this project is the description, the effort to make your point about the given individual. It's about the discussion, in other words, not so much the result.

Ohhh. I see. Alright.

[tsherkin]

Ohhh. I see. Alright.

Right on, man.

[McBubbles]

I'll vote

And hopefully will be able to be more consistent this time also.

[Doctor MJ]

I expect to participate though I can't promise to be consistent through the whole run.

[Ol Roy]

Interested

[DraymondGold]

Interested

[trelos6]

Sure. Why not. Happy to be part of 2025 peaks

[AEnigma]

If people also want to use this thread to touch on their approach in assessing peaks, that could help avoid some of the directionless back-and-forth we see when one party assumes their method of assessment is the same as another’s.

For example, in the 2022 project (thread #13), I wrote a couple thousand words about how I am more concerned with assessing a form of “absolute” value in different contexts, rather than who separated themselves the most from others playing the same position or who had the worst backups. I value success and achievement in the form of proof of concept in building a contender, but that means more for general assessment than for blindly chasing title seasons. E.g. Garnett’s 2003 > Garnett’s 2008, but those years on the Celtics give Garnett proof of concept as a top x player well beyond what we have for McGrady’s even though their respective 2003 seasons ended up being relatively similar in terms of achievement. To continue using Garnett as an example, he is also a strong case study in why I value two-way ability, with 2008 being worse and less valuable (see 2009) than his peak level but still reflecting well on his ability to scale back his scoring and playmaking volume next to Rondo/Allen/Pierce to become something of a supercharged Draymond.

For me that all tends to mean a lot of big men and a lot of players with strong performances in the postseason. But others may be recognisably more committed to the idea of selecting title runs specifically, promoting separation from a player’s own era (by a variety of means), comparatively de-emphasising the postseason, voting exclusively based on how well they are assessed to translate to the modern league, etc.

[eminence]

'voting exclusively based on how well they are assessed to translate to the modern league'

If the above is allowed criteria, is it fine to substitute in other eras in place of 'modern league'? Eg - evaluating players exclusively based on how they'd play in the pre-shot clock era.

[AEnigma]

'voting exclusively based on how well they are assessed to translate to the modern league'

If the above is allowed criteria, is it fine to substitute in other eras in place of 'modern league'? Eg - evaluating players exclusively based on how they'd play in the pre-shot clock era.

As far as I know, it has never been disallowed.

[eminence]

Hmm, how high to rank Bob Davies...

(Not actually participating)

[ReggiesKnicks]

I'd like to join discussions, assuming this is higher-level basketball discussion than the GOAT thread on the General Board. That thread is low-level shouting.