RealGM 2025 Greatest Peaks Project #2 — 1974 Kareem-Abdul Jabbar

[One_and_Done]

I’d take him over Hakeem also, especially as a man defender.

That's actually quite strange argument. Hakeem was significantly better perimeter defender than Duncan and he was more crafty down low as well. Duncan did better against Shaq due to his length and core strength, but the man defense ability doesn't end at Shaq. Hakeem had quite many shutdown moments in his career, while Duncan wasn't known for that at all.

I don't see that argument at all.

We disagree. The ability to guard Shaq as a man defender is valuable too, not just perimeter D. But Duncan in his younger years was much more mobile than his later years, and actually played SF as a rookie.

I don't really care what these guys were 'known for', only what things were in reality. Hakeem has the luxury of playing in a weaker era, with illegal D rules that helped him on O and kept his defensive role relatively simple.

I'm coming off as slightly harsh above though, because I'd still have Hakeem as one of the top 5-10 defensive players of all-time easily. Honestly, I only see Duncan as having a small edge in man and help D, but cumulatively those edges add up. Hakeem could jump higher and had more visually impressive D (and O), but I'll take the superior fundamentals of Timmy.

[70sFan]

Haven’t had time to post here due to real life stuff (indeed, I didn’t even vote in this thread), but after just reading the above posts, I want to repost this screenshot, which shows OhayoKD talking on Discord about “scripting” a new poster’s posts:



I think it’s fairly transparent what’s going on. Though the discussions themselves in these threads can still be interesting.

On one hand, it is indeed very concerning that the PC Board got flooded with new accounts with no previous history just at the beginning of the Peak Project and I think it's very clear that some of them are clearly motivated in strategic voting.

On the other hand, most of the voting posts are of solid quality. Besides, in the 2nd thread Jordan supporters weren't really active, so you may wonder whether they aren't there for pushing Jordan at the top only. I mean, if you stop caring about project just because your guy lost in the first thread, maybe you (not mean you Jake specifically, you know?) shouldn't participate at all?

In the end, discussion is legit and the results are of secondary value.

[70sFan]

We disagree. The ability to guard Shaq as a man defender is valuable too, not just perimeter D.

No, we do not. I never said that perimeter defense is the only thing that matters (although it does matter significantly more in modern era, which you seem to take a significant value of).

But Duncan in his younger years was much more mobile than his later years, and actually played SF as a rookie.

Cool, he still was never close to Hakeem's mobility even in his youngest years. I hope you will not argue otherwise, cause that would be silly.

I don't really care what these guys were 'known for', only what things were in reality.

For what reason you even said that?

Hakeem has the luxury of playing in a weaker era, with illegal D rules that helped him on O and kept his defensive role relatively simple.

Illegal defense made defensive role HARDER, not easier. Hakeem's ridiculous help defense was shortcut by illegal defense rules.

On the contrary, man defenders had it tougher in illegal defense times, because they couldn't rely on help to the same degree. If you want to push Duncan offense ahead of Hakeem's because of the rules, then you should at least consider Hakeem's man defense more impressive in that light.

I'm coming off as slightly harsh above though, because I'd still have Hakeem as one of the top 5-10 defensive players of all-time easily. Honestly, I only see Duncan as having a small edge in man and help D, but cumulatively those edges add up. Hakeem could jump higher and had more visually impressive D (and O), but I'll take the superior fundamentals of Timmy.

Nothing wrong with that, just don't see Duncan's case over Hakeem in man defense, unless you only talk about post strength.

[jalengreen]

Haven’t had time to post here due to real life stuff (indeed, I didn’t even vote in this thread), but after just reading the above posts, I want to repost this screenshot, which shows OhayoKD talking on Discord about “scripting” a new poster’s posts:



I think it’s fairly transparent what’s going on. Though the discussions themselves in these threads can still be interesting.

On one hand, it is indeed very concerning that the PC Board got flooded with new accounts with no previous history just at the beginning of the Peak Project and I think it's very clear that some of them are clearly motivated in strategic voting.

On the other hand, most of the voting posts are of solid quality. Besides, in the 2nd thread Jordan supporters weren't really active, so you may wonder whether they aren't there for pushing Jordan at the top only. I mean, if you stop caring about project just because your guy lost in the first thread, maybe you (not mean you Jake specifically, you know?) shouldn't participate at all?

In the end, discussion is legit and the results are of secondary value.

It's also not hard to imagine a Jordan voter ceasing participation not because of the result itself, but because of their disappointment with the process. If they share the concern that you yourself pointed to, it's not out of question that this concern would be sufficient to diminish their excitement in the project itself. Your theory could also be true, of course. Ultimately who knows why people don't vote; I didn't vote this round because I didn't feel confident enough in a ballot to do so, and I don't intend to vote when that's the case tbh. I do agree that the discussion is good, but I wouldn't fault somebody for caring about the concerns you acknowledged (new accounts & strategic voting). Though I'd add that strategic voting is obviously not new here, every large project has no doubt had it to an extent.

[Djoker]

Haven’t had time to post here due to real life stuff (indeed, I didn’t even vote in this thread), but after just reading the above posts, I want to repost this screenshot, which shows OhayoKD talking on Discord about “scripting” a new poster’s posts:



I think it’s fairly transparent what’s going on. Though the discussions themselves in these threads can still be interesting.

On one hand, it is indeed very concerning that the PC Board got flooded with new accounts with no previous history just at the beginning of the Peak Project and I think it's very clear that some of them are clearly motivated in strategic voting.

On the other hand, most of the voting posts are of solid quality. Besides, in the 2nd thread Jordan supporters weren't really active, so you may wonder whether they aren't there for pushing Jordan at the top only. I mean, if you stop caring about project just because your guy lost in the first thread, maybe you (not mean you Jake specifically, you know?) shouldn't participate at all?

In the end, discussion is legit and the results are of secondary value.

I hate talking about these kind of things but this thread is done for voting purposes so might as well post my thoughts.

It is indeed very clear that they are involved in strategic voting because we have plenty of evidence from Discord of a certain someone making a plan to hijack the Peaks Project. They have no interest in basketball research, just pushing their own agenda. Which in its own way is sad even more than it is disturbing. Surely one could have better things to do...

I honestly have to disagree about solid quality. Many (though certainly not all) posts from the veterans generally are solid but from these new accounts?!? None of those recent accounts made high quality posts outside of maybe Elpolo ironically. Those accounts also had little or no participation in the discussion afterwards. They would post their ballot and then disappear. All the responding was done by the mastermind of the effort.

100% agree that discussion is legit. I enjoy conversing with a lot of the participants but most of them are established faces on here. Like I said before, it feels exclusionist but I would have had a requirement of say 500 posts to participate in this project. It's more of a soft requirement so someone with 387 posts can apply to be included and if the majority approves based on their post quality they are in. But here we had many accounts with like 10 posts that were created 2 weeks ago be admitted into the project and they all vote a certain way. They don't add much to the discussion either. And to be honest, they don't represent RealGM. Peaks Project (or whatever project here) should be the veterans of the board voting. It's not exclusionist. It's a privilege earned with sustained contribution. That's how it used to be and deviation from that pattern is how the quality of these projects has gone down from one iteration to the next. I remember when I was a RealGM newbie and those older faces would vote. I would post in the threads of those projects but have no voting privileges and I didn't mind it. I understood it comes with the territory. Now you show up and you vote. And you don't even participate in the discussion or add anything of value.

[VanWest82]

I think it's interesting that Jordan was 2nd by a considerable margin in the first vote with Russell a distant 3rd, but then KAJ wins the next round. I'm open to the idea that some people just changed their mind as a result of the discussion in the first thread while acknowledging that some voters appear to have dropped off, but I kind of don't think that's whole story. Meanwhile, there are threads going up with selective, contested (by other posters), and highly negative portrayals of Jordan's defensive tracking just in time to influence the 2nd vote. I dunno, man.

[OhayoKD]

Haven’t had time to post here due to real life stuff (indeed, I didn’t even vote in this thread), but after just reading the above posts, I want to repost this screenshot, which shows OhayoKD talking on Discord about “scripting” a new poster’s posts:



I think it’s fairly transparent what’s going on. Though the discussions themselves in these threads can still be interesting.

On one hand, it is indeed very concerning that the PC Board got flooded with new accounts with no previous history just at the beginning of the Peak Project and I think it's very clear that some of them are clearly motivated in strategic voting.

On the other hand, most of the voting posts are of solid quality. Besides, in the 2nd thread Jordan supporters weren't really active, so you may wonder whether they aren't there for pushing Jordan at the top only. I mean, if you stop caring about project just because your guy lost in the first thread, maybe you (not mean you Jake specifically, you know?) shouldn't participate at all?

In the end, discussion is legit and the results are of secondary value.

I hate talking about these kind of things but this thread is done for voting purposes so might as well post my thoughts.

It is indeed very clear that they are involved in strategic voting because we have plenty of evidence from Discord of a certain someone making a plan to hijack the Peaks Project. They have no interest in basketball research, just pushing their own agenda. Which in its own way is sad even more than it is disturbing. Surely one could have better things to do...

I honestly have to disagree about solid quality. Many (though certainly not all) posts from the veterans generally are solid but from these new accounts?!? None of those recent accounts made high quality posts outside of maybe Elpolo ironically.

Hmm...
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=119289030#p119289030

Think we might conflating "voting for players I like" with "high quality". In terms of depth, consistency, and insight, new posters have generally done a much better job than the bulk of the vets in my humble opinion.

This complaint about research is also fascinating considering the bulk of the actual research here is being supplied by new posters and even non-posters from outside of realgm. You know, actually documenting things previously undocumented as opposed to misreporting "with" as "without" and "without" as "with".

As everyone is voting how they wish to vote (and now you know all the people who have been accused otherwise are indeed their own people), these "concerns" seem pretty superficial to me. The open nature of this project (along with more extensive, mostly off-site, collaboration and debates), is why you have much higher quality discussion than the previous one. As was true with the retro update, and as was true with the most recent top 100.

To be perfectly honest, I think those who care about post-counts probably aren't the ones who should decide who "represents realgm". And certainly, they should have no input on who is allowed to vote.

[One_and_Done]

Haven’t had time to post here due to real life stuff (indeed, I didn’t even vote in this thread), but after just reading the above posts, I want to repost this screenshot, which shows OhayoKD talking on Discord about “scripting” a new poster’s posts:



I think it’s fairly transparent what’s going on. Though the discussions themselves in these threads can still be interesting.

On one hand, it is indeed very concerning that the PC Board got flooded with new accounts with no previous history just at the beginning of the Peak Project and I think it's very clear that some of them are clearly motivated in strategic voting.

On the other hand, most of the voting posts are of solid quality. Besides, in the 2nd thread Jordan supporters weren't really active, so you may wonder whether they aren't there for pushing Jordan at the top only. I mean, if you stop caring about project just because your guy lost in the first thread, maybe you (not mean you Jake specifically, you know?) shouldn't participate at all?

In the end, discussion is legit and the results are of secondary value.

I hate talking about these kind of things but this thread is done for voting purposes so might as well post my thoughts.

It is indeed very clear that they are involved in strategic voting because we have plenty of evidence from Discord of a certain someone making a plan to hijack the Peaks Project. They have no interest in basketball research, just pushing their own agenda. Which in its own way is sad even more than it is disturbing. Surely one could have better things to do...

I honestly have to disagree about solid quality. Many (though certainly not all) posts from the veterans generally are solid but from these new accounts?!? None of those recent accounts made high quality posts outside of maybe Elpolo ironically. Those accounts also had little or no participation in the discussion afterwards. They would post their ballot and then disappear. All the responding was done by the mastermind of the effort.

100% agree that discussion is legit. I enjoy conversing with a lot of the participants but most of them are established faces on here. Like I said before, it feels exclusionist but I would have had a requirement of say 500 posts to participate in this project. It's more of a soft requirement so someone with 387 posts can apply to be included and if the majority approves based on their post quality they are in. But here we had many accounts with like 10 posts that were created 2 weeks ago be admitted into the project and they all vote a certain way. They don't add much to the discussion either. And to be honest, they don't represent RealGM. Peaks Project (or whatever project here) should be the veterans of the board voting. It's not exclusionist. It's a privilege earned with sustained contribution. That's how it used to be and deviation from that pattern is how the quality of these projects has gone down from one iteration to the next. I remember when I was a RealGM newbie and those older faces would vote. I would post in the threads of those projects but have no voting privileges and I didn't mind it. I understood it comes with the territory. Now you show up and you vote. And you don't even participate in the discussion or add anything of value.

While I agree with the gist of having a 500 post minimum as a soft requirement, I will diverge in this respect. The projects here should not be catered to a handful of grizzled veterans with (mostly) uniform views. That is not conducive to a free discussion, it just preserves the status quo.

I recall being kicked out of the last top 100 project in the 20s, and the reason was basically because certain posters here didn't like me criticising their favourite players or dismissing the accepted views here. It certainly wasn't for rudehess, because others were far ruder. That is not conducive to new ideas, and creates an echo chamber where people can't even conceive why people disagree with them.

There were, and still are, posters who just post walls of advanced stats as their argument. I don't begrudge them the right to do that, but it is also the right of those replying to say that they just don't find that sort of analysis useful. There was at least one poster who was inventing their own formulas in that project, and while I don't discourage their hobby, I think many/most serious NBA analysts would just tell them that wasn't how they approached player analysis. Very thoughtful guys like Nate Duncan or Zach Lowe duly note certain advanced stats, but it forms a small footnote of their analysis which they don't weigh much at all. Haralabos, who made his fortune focussing on NBA stats and models for gambling, said it best; 'you can't just be a model nut, you've got to have some common sense too'.

[Ol Roy]

Post count is probably less relevant than join date. In the future, accounts should be required to be a year old. That would discourage recently planned "hostile takeovers."

If posters are indeed being "scripted" (I have no idea about this Discord universe) then that should be taken seriously and result in expulsion from the project. That would be a form of voter fraud.

I will say that I have commended these projects to people outside of this board in the past, not to get them to participate but to introduce new perspectives that don't you won't hear on the debate show/social media discourse. I'll probably no longer do that in the future if in fact the integrity of the project has been compromised.

It should be obvious, but I'll point it out: if you hijack something because of its prestige, and that thing loses its prestige as a result, all you've done is succeeded in destroying something.

[Smoothbutta]

I recall being kicked out of the last top 100 project in the 20s, and the reason was basically because certain posters here didn't like me criticising their favourite players or dismissing the accepted views here. It certainly wasn't for rudehess, because others were far ruder. That is not conducive to new ideas, and creates an echo chamber where people can't even conceive why people disagree with them.

I think some of your ideology really is on the verge of excessive extremism/potentially troll behavior and in my opinion this is the type of thing that should be "controlled" to some extent, but otherwise not much else can/should be done

[One_and_Done]

I recall being kicked out of the last top 100 project in the 20s, and the reason was basically because certain posters here didn't like me criticising their favourite players or dismissing the accepted views here. It certainly wasn't for rudehess, because others were far ruder. That is not conducive to new ideas, and creates an echo chamber where people can't even conceive why people disagree with them.

I think some of your ideology really is on the verge of excessive extremism/potentially troll behavior and in my opinion this is the type of thing that should be "controlled" to some extent, but otherwise not much else can/should be done

People with more modernist views like mine feel just as strongly about posters with opposing views. To intervene is to say one perspective is more valid than the other. I find the view that Cousy could play today to be more objectively absurd than the view that he couldn't, but since this is a subjective exercise people will and should apply their own criteria.

[Smoothbutta]

People with more modernist views like mine feel just as strongly about posters with opposing views. To intervene is to say one perspective is more valid than the other. I find the view that Cousy could play today to be more objectively absurd than the view that he couldn't, but since this is a subjective exercise people will and should apply their own criteria.

Below is the quote I am referencing

Most players pre-80s probably shouldn't be discussed in the top 100. I wouldn't put Mikan in my top 200.

That is a view that shouldn't really have a place here IMO. Not that you should be banned for your view obviously, but with that type of frame of reference I don't think you should be able to participate in some of these projects. But again, at least you're civil and I'm just one person maybe I'm the only person that thinks this.

[One_and_Done]

People with more modernist views like mine feel just as strongly about posters with opposing views. To intervene is to say one perspective is more valid than the other. I find the view that Cousy could play today to be more objectively absurd than the view that he couldn't, but since this is a subjective exercise people will and should apply their own criteria.

Below is the quote I am referencing

Most players pre-80s probably shouldn't be discussed in the top 100. I wouldn't put Mikan in my top 200.

That is a view that shouldn't really have a place here IMO. Not that you should be banned for your view obviously, but with that type of frame of reference I don't think you should be able to participate in some of these projects. But again, at least you're civil and I'm just one person maybe I'm the only person that thinks this.

It's just as valid as thinking the old leagues were amazing, if not more so.

[Elpolo_14]

People with more modernist views like mine feel just as strongly about posters with opposing views. To intervene is to say one perspective is more valid than the other. I find the view that Cousy could play today to be more objectively absurd than the view that he couldn't, but since this is a subjective exercise people will and should apply their own criteria.

Below is the quote I am referencing

Most players pre-80s probably shouldn't be discussed in the top 100. I wouldn't put Mikan in my top 200.

That is a view that shouldn't really have a place here IMO. Not that you should be banned for your view obviously, but with that type of frame of reference I don't think you should be able to participate in some of these projects. But again, at least you're civil and I'm just one person maybe I'm the only person that thinks this.

It's just as valid as thinking the old leagues were amazing, if not more so.

"One and done" I agree with your response. people be framing you out just because you don't have the same view is ridiculous

It unfathomable for me how people cannot understand that not everyone view or look into basketball the same way. You can agree or disagree but at the end of the day people still have their own perspective.

Discussion can surely be made ( need to be made for the better )between both side of the spectrum to try to understand each person stand on the subject but saying one POV is more valuable or more "RIGHT" than he other is ridiculous. If set Person criteria is consistent I don't think there should be a BAN/Push that person away of the conversation.

Personally I don't agree with all stuff "One and done" say but I also don't agree with people who think basketball was better in the 60-80s and the game didn't evolve. I can see both sides and understand were these reasoning are coming from.

If you don't understand why people have set criteria just discuss with them ( I tryna do this al time to be more knowledge of how one can interpret the game we all love ). Not by discredit them by saying "Troller"

Damn I saw someone not considered Steph curry close to top 20 all time I didn't call him a Troll and nostalgia merchant. I still wanna see why he thinks that way.

[Doctor MJ]

Hey y'all,

I'm going to say as a Mod that allegations of voter conspiracy in this project in public threads NEED to stop now in this project, and by that same token I'm going to give a Mod Request (rather than an official warning) that people stop talking about about the meta topic of possible conspiracies at this time - and folks let me be clear that I was a part of stirring that pot by responding in an intellectual capacity rather than a moderation capacity, which means I really don't feel right blaming others for anything to this point - but it needs to stop now.

If anyone has real evidence from outside of RealGM they want to bring to the attention of mods/admin, please PM directly.

Regarding coping with the possibility of future conspiracies, I would say that a currently running project's threads aren't the place to do it unless the Project Runner (PR) - in this case AEnigma - requests it. It is something to be discussed before a project starts in threads, but after that, unless the PR requests input, stick to the actual subject of the project rather than the meta.

Thank you,
Doc