RealGM Top 100 List #74

[ElGee]

Well, there's a big gap between saying there's posters who believe in those Bill Simmons style player playoff mentality judgments (for right or wrong), and saying posters who've been in this project for 3 months and over 70 threads have so little analytical basis for their votes that a fat picture of Kemp or Webber calling a timeout is going to change who they vote for.

While I've stayed away from this out of a "I don't care who's username this is coming from, I just care the post" mentality attempted 99% of the time - if I was to be perfectly honest - I don't think anyone who judges a star's NBA career by 5-9 G samples of how his teammates played when he was on the bench (aka when he isn't playing and has 0 influence on the resulting play, which the entire +/- differential is based on), in a sport like basketball with tens of interconnected variables stacking up like a massive Jenga tower, should be criticizing anyone else's methods or thought process when voting. That's like an arsonist freaking out at litterers for breaking the law. I'm not that upset with someone lighting things on fire for fun in the context of this project, because these threads need as much traffic as they can get. But I can only laugh if that same person tries to lecture others on their voting methodology being flawed. Those in a glass house shouldn't throw stones

But that's just me

Where the **** did that come from? Are you confusing me with someone else? Or did you even read what I posted? Wtf?

[ThaRegul8r]

If people are seriously going to let pictures decide if they should vote for a guy or not, then they shouldn't be part of this project.

I haven't even paid any attention to the pictures. I've seen all the candidates, so I already know what they look like and thus don't need a picture. I just look at the names.

Nominate: Ben Wallace

[Doctor MJ]

Vote: Bobby Jones again

Nominate: Mark Price

He's been on my mind a while now. Glad to see him get some traction. Some Nance arguments made me question whether Price shouldn't be the next Cav to go, but I'd still have to side with Price at this point as the #1 Cavalier in history who Cavalier fans don't hate.

[Doctor MJ]

I'm just saying, it's a real effect. Whether it reaches 1 person or not.

I actually think you're giving this group too much credit by thinking certain people don't harp on narratives and let them metastasize in their mind over time (ie "he's a loser" or a "choker" or "don't go to war with him.") It's not a big deal, but only because this project isn't a big deal. It's like saying the voting system isn't a big deal. I mean, I think it's a bad system, but it's what we're using...

For the record:

-I think it's fine to bring up we should have negative pictures for the nominees.

-I don't however see it as a deal even compared to other deals in this project. The biggest issue we have I'm sure you agree, is that not all of us are as engaged right now as you and beast are. Sucks, but it pretty much always happens.

Also, and I say this chiding myself as well, it's probably best for none of us to bring up the voting system issues until after we're done here even if we mention it in passing. They've been talked about a good deal, and they aren't going to be changed this time around. It's a pain to keep putting in the effort beast's putting in running this show until the bitter end, so to me it's time to just stay as positive as possible.

[Doctor MJ]

While I've stayed away from this out of a "I don't care who's username this is coming from, I just care the post" mentality attempted 99% of the time - if I was to be perfectly honest - I don't think anyone who judges a star's NBA career by 5-9 G samples of how his teammates played when he was on the bench (aka when he isn't playing and has 0 influence on the resulting play, which the entire +/- differential is based on), in a sport like basketball with tens of interconnected variables stacking up like a massive Jenga tower, should be criticizing anyone else's methods or thought process when voting. That's like an arsonist freaking out at litterers for breaking the law. I'm not that upset with someone lighting things on fire for fun in the context of this project, because these threads need as much traffic as they can get. But I can only laugh if that same person tries to lecture others on their voting methodology being flawed. Those in a glass house shouldn't throw stones

But that's just me

Okay but dude, you're coming off like a total jerk in this post. You may think ElGee is coming off like a jerk by being critical, but your post made me go "whoa, why the heck did he get so personal?"

I will also say that I find the criticism of ElGee's analysis in general to be kind of odd, but my bigger concern was the tone of all of it wrapped together. Perhaps it came off a little more cutting than you intended over the internet?

[penbeast0]

Mark Price is the new nominee . . . sudden death for the vote, first one to 4 wins (or if someone changes away from their vote for Jones or Thompson).

VOTE

Kemp – JordansBulls

BJones – penbeast0, Keeslinator, Doctor MJ

DThompson – Dr Mufasa, ronnymac2, ElGee

Archibald – DavidStern, therealbig3


NOMINATE

MPrice – JordansBulls, DavidStern, ElGee, therealbig3, Doctor MJ

JLucas – penbeast0

Sikma – Dr Mufasa, Keeslinator

Deron Williams -- ronnymac2

Ben Wallace – drza. ThaRegul8r

[ElGee]

I'm just saying, it's a real effect. Whether it reaches 1 person or not.

I actually think you're giving this group too much credit by thinking certain people don't harp on narratives and let them metastasize in their mind over time (ie "he's a loser" or a "choker" or "don't go to war with him.") It's not a big deal, but only because this project isn't a big deal. It's like saying the voting system isn't a big deal. I mean, I think it's a bad system, but it's what we're using...

For the record:

-I think it's fine to bring up we should have negative pictures for the nominees.

-I don't however see it as a deal even compared to other deals in this project. The biggest issue we have I'm sure you agree, is that not all of us are as engaged right now as you and beast are. Sucks, but it pretty much always happens.

Also, and I say this chiding myself as well, it's probably best for none of us to bring up the voting system issues until after we're done here even if we mention it in passing. They've been talked about a good deal, and they aren't going to be changed this time around. It's a pain to keep putting in the effort beast's putting in running this show until the bitter end, so to me it's time to just stay as positive as possible.

Good post. I agree engagement is the biggest issue. My original post was mostly about that and how regardless of the results, a number of players seemed to have "slipped through the cracks" as the project has evolved, which frustrated me since I think the latter half of the project was a chance to shine on players not often analyzed. Going back to the RPOY, I often disagreed with the voting results but it's a great archive of information...and proved to be incredibly beneficiary for older and less-discussed years.

I had a long rant discussing all that and simply deleted it (something I never do) and decided to just point out that the pictures present an issue (as I prefaced, something that stands out to me because of my background). So I agree about holding off on talking about the voting system. It wasn't at a random time that I mentioned pictures either, but instead when the poster of the pictures chose the most negative moment (the most infamous on-court moment for anyone so far?) as the picture for someone he admittedly doesn't think highly of. And while Beast and I disagree on players, and the function of photos, it was not meant as a slam on him and I don't think he took it that way.

I was actually surprised so many people responded -- and interpreted what I said as anything more than observations about human nature -- and only wish that every analytical post I make would be engaged with such vigor. In re-reading my post, the word "seriously" could be removed, but otherwise I'll stand by my criticism that I don't think it's the best idea for project coordinators to be injecting giant biases into the pamphlets their handing out.

(PS - To anyone who actually believed I said, or was suggesting, that people shape the entirety of their voting process based off a picture...really? Really? Nice to know...)

[ElGee]

@bastillon - I'm not following you here. You think Pressey should be voted over Price if he shows better in/out numbers?

that was your case for Price wasn't it ?
Pressey 87-89 was +7.1 to 3.1 I don't see why that wouldn't be relevant if you're using these criteria specifically. I also don't know why Sikma is being nominated here ahead of Pressey, when Bucks without Pressey were -4 ito pt differential. watching that team I thought Terry Cummings was equally important as Sikma.

No that wasn't the entirety of my case for Price. I was presenting the information so people could see it...I don't believed I discussed Price much. Haven't had much to say since there are players I've argued for in front of him.

In short: I see him like a Nash-Lite type player. Although I don't remember him using PnR's as frequently so it's not a perfect downgrade in comparison. But man was Mark Price an unbelievable shooter and a good penetrator -- a combination which creates opportunities for teammates constantly. That's reflected in really good team numbers.

[lorak]

Although I don't remember him using PnR's as frequently

He was famous for using p&r, in fact he was the one who "invented" splitting the screen on p&r: http://www.cavsnews.com/20080622-1184.php

[drza]

Unfortunately, I'm one of the "not as engaged as I'd like to be" posters at this point, which is why I had refrained from voting while offering forth a nominee. I'm confident in the merits of both Price and Big Ben as nominees, and would in fact likely vote for one of them above many of the current pool of nominees. But I don't have a great feel for where to differentiate Jones and Thompson. My issue is more with Jones than Thompson, as I haven't fully fleshed out how I value his defense. His defensive accolades are top-shelf, but his on/off data is very gray to me and I don't know how to evaluate it. Is he more Rodman/Pippen? Moncrief? Artest? Bowen? Those are very different levels to me, as far as their overall defensive impact, despite all of them being consensus great defenders.

If Jones is more Rodman/Pippen, I'd likely vote him here. But I'm not sure. And if he's more Bowen, I'd vote the Skywalker here. I had thought to abent myself, but it appears that the vote is horribly bogged down at the moment so I'll be the grease.

Vote: David Thompson

[Dr Positivity]

While I've stayed away from this out of a "I don't care who's username this is coming from, I just care the post" mentality attempted 99% of the time - if I was to be perfectly honest - I don't think anyone who judges a star's NBA career by 5-9 G samples of how his teammates played when he was on the bench (aka when he isn't playing and has 0 influence on the resulting play, which the entire +/- differential is based on), in a sport like basketball with tens of interconnected variables stacking up like a massive Jenga tower, should be criticizing anyone else's methods or thought process when voting. That's like an arsonist freaking out at litterers for breaking the law. I'm not that upset with someone lighting things on fire for fun in the context of this project, because these threads need as much traffic as they can get. But I can only laugh if that same person tries to lecture others on their voting methodology being flawed. Those in a glass house shouldn't throw stones

But that's just me

Okay but dude, you're coming off like a total jerk in this post. You may think ElGee is coming off like a jerk by being critical, but your post made me go "whoa, why the heck did he get so personal?"

I will also say that I find the criticism of ElGee's analysis in general to be kind of odd, but my bigger concern was the tone of all of it wrapped together. Perhaps it came off a little more cutting than you intended over the internet?

Eh, it was a long week/day and I've caught a 'you people are screwing up these votes' tone for a few months from ElGee that the "you're giving this group too much credit" line sort of set off a reaction. I apologize it general, it wasn't worth it

[ElGee]

Yeah because I want more discussion. I learne in the rpoy that the merit of a project like this only goes as far as the supporting arguments. Once or twice "slipping through" might not be a big deal, but I feel like there is a lot lately and a great opportunity to gather info for lesser discussed players is wasting away. If you recall, I suggested a pause or slowing down for this reason as well. "giving the group too much credit" means this group - we - are probably not above the laws of subconscious suggestion.

[penbeast0]

If it makes you happy, think of it as more discussion, just using a visual medium. Feel free to post counterpictures, even video.