Top 50 Project: Seasons or Peaks?

[Doctor MJ]

Okay, so looks like I'll have some time to get this started formally. I want to thank ardee for his vision and his patience on this. He and I have been talking and in deciding the exact project we wanted to bring it up with y'all one more time. This is not meant to re-hash all the ideas from before, so much as to gauge interest in two slightly different project we think both have merit.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Project S: Best Player Seasons of all time

Key constraint: Every 3rd season is eligible.

What do we mean by that? In the beginning, all seasons from a player are eligible. However, once a season from a player gets chosen, then the two seasons immediately before and after that season are ineligible.

Example: If '90-91 Jordan gets picked, then '88-89, '89-90, '91-92 and '92-93 are ineligible.

The reasons for this are two-fold:

1) It's not going to be that easy to judge consecutive seasons from all these players effectively.
2) It's not going to be that INTERESTING picking season #43 debating between Jordan's 8th best year against Kareem's Nth best year, etc.

By making an every-3rd rule, it seems likely that people will legitimately be able to look at competing secondary season seasons of a player as if they are truly a different player. In the case of Jordan, this could mean we have Air Jordan, 1st 3-peat Jordan and 2nd 3-peat Jordan represented, which sounds pretty cool, though granted, not everyone is as interesting as Jordan.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Project P: Best Player Peaks of all time

This one is pretty straight forward at least in principle. When a player's peak year gets enshrined, he's no longer in the mix as we debate other players.

Now I should be clear, this is still meant as a project that refers to a player's particular season, so in that sense it will still be a Season project, but there will not be multiple seasons from a player included on the official Top 50.

As you might imagine, there are some wrinkles to iron out if that's the project we pick.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

So ponder these two idea, ask questions if you have them.

When you give your "vote", what I want you to have in mind first and foremost is your own participation from Thread 1 to Thread 50. I would hope that there are tons of people interested in the top spots in both both project, but implicit in the idea of a project like this is that we actually care about who gets the 48th spot, because otherwise who is going to stick around for the end?

Your vote is you saying that you care enough about this that you're going to reliably participate for the duration short of crazy real life stuff happening. With 50 threads, that probably means at least 100 days, which ought to be just about perfect for getting us to the start of the '12-13 without going through the DTs collectively, but I'll never pretend that it's not a bit of a deal asking y'all to do that.

Cheers,
Doc

[JordansBulls]

I like the idea, however I think it may be complicated. I think the best thing to do first is establish the top 10-15 peaks of overall players or something first and then have a squareoff.
For instance if 1991 MJ is taken, then he shouldn't qualify anymore since we already have his peak season taken up. Only other way to do this is if we use a 3 year peak of a player vs 3 year peaks of other players to make it more legit comparisons. That way you aren't voting for the same player multiple times, etc.

[therealbig3]

I'm not going to be a part of the project, but I'll give my two cents:

I think it should be top 50 peaks. The issues that would need to be ironed out obviously would be which season to pick as a player's peak. For example, 2012 LeBron or 2009 LeBron or 2010 LeBron?

2001 Kobe or 2003 Kobe or 2007 Kobe?

You could legitimately pick any Jordan from 1987-1993.

And so on. But after that's decided, it would then be a pretty straightforward and pretty fun project imo to participate in, comparing the best we've seen from certain players against other great players.

So yeah, my suggestion would be to do top 50 peaks.

[Doctor MJ]

Yeah like I said. There's a bit more to discuss if we do Peaks, but I want to keep this focused. Right now, we're just discussing in principle what project we should pursue, and then we'll figure out details.

[colts18]

Do peaks. We don't need to define a players peak. So for one person MJ's peak is 88 and the other its 92. They will both argue their case against Kareem's peak but one will use 88 and the other 92. That way, we dont have to waste time finding the year of a players exact peak.

[Vinsanity420]

Yeah, I would say do Top 50 peaks... and let the people argue in favor of what they thought was player X's best year.

[drza]

Do peaks. We don't need to define a players peak. So for one person MJ's peak is 88 and the other its 92. They will both argue their case against Kareem's peak but one will use 88 and the other 92. That way, we dont have to waste time finding the year of a players exact peak.

This. I was just about to type this, when I saw that Colts18 had already done it for me.

[ardee]

Well you know my stance on this.

Every third year has a legitimately interesting feel to it, I'm surprised not more people find the way you put 'Air Jordan, first three-peat Jordan, and second three-peat Jordan' an awesome idea. Plus, determining every player's peak season is something that will take a lot of time and debate. This way, every one gets an opportunity to prop the season that they truly believe is the best.

So, yes, I'm voting every third season.

Edit:

Would like to make the case for top 50 player seasons, with the every third season rule, a bit further.

1. Now, if we do the top 50 peaks, I'm willing to bet that the top 20 will mirror the top 20 of the RealGM Top 100 almost identically, except for outliers like Walton who had incredible single seasons but not great careers.

2. After the top 35ish, the players we talk about will be of lesser quality. For example, I'm sure that if we do top 50 peaks, we'll end up with guys like Iverson and Havlicek on the list. These guys were great basketball players, no doubt, but honestly, don't you think it's kinda wrong to sacrifice Air Jordan and second-threepeat Jordan for Iverson's 42% FG season?

3. By doing the top 50 seasons using the every third season rule, we'll get to talk about some very interesting seasons. I've been doing a lot of research, and I believe that our knowledge of some very hyped players could be increased exponentially by looking at their not-so hyped seasons.

For example, how often do you hear someone talking about Magic Johnson's '82 season? Not very. But do you know, he averaged 18.6 ppg, 9.6 rpg, and 9.5 apg on 54% shooting, and won Finals MVP? He also led the league in steals. That's Pippen, LeBron and Hill all mixed in one!

Or then there is Hakeem's 1990 season. It's absolutely magnificent, but people don't talk about Hakeem other than 93-95. He averaged 4.6 bpg and 2.1 spg... That's nearly SEVEN turnovers he caused per game! His second best player was Mitchell Wiggins, and he still led the Rockets to the best defense in the league.

4. For those of you who think we'll have repetitive players, just think about it, there will not be more than 2 seasons per player except for the the longetivy/peak GOATs like Kareem and Jordan.

Here are a few examples:

Malone: The two years that truly standout are 1990 (from a statistical POV), and of course 1997 (his best all-around year).

Magic: 1987 (GOAT PG year in my opinion), and 1982 (GOAT versatility year).

Kareem: Not that hard to pick. '71, '74, '77 and '80. MVP all four years, best player on a title team on the first and last. Having 4 seasons on an all-time season list with an every 3rd year rule would be the record, and would cement Kareem as the longevity GOAT.

Kobe: '01 and '08. '07 is actually his second best year, IMO, after '08, but since we're using the every third year rule it's eliminated.

Please consider these arguments, because I really think we'd be missing an opportunity for some really interesting discussion if we don't pick the top 50 player seasons option.

[drza]

First, I disagree that a top-peaks vote would look just like the top-100...you pointed out an obvious example in Walton moving up, but I'd be willing to bet that you also see a lot of iron-men types moving down (e.g. Malone, Reggie Miller, etc.). Heck, you can look on the current front page and see a thread about Kobe's peak where the consensus seems to have his peak a lot further down than most have his overall career.

Re: complication. I also think the every 3rd year is a lot more logistically complicated than the peak year, with the caveat that the "peak" option does NOT require that everyone voting for a player be using the same year as the peak. With the Kobe example, one person might be arguing for Kobe based on 2003, while another based on 2006, with another based on 2008...but it doesn't really matter, because (in this example) each of these voters thinks that peak Kobe deserved the vote here, regardless.

On the other hand, with the 3rd year rule, you HAVE to specify which year of a player you're using to vote on...and you almost have to figure that out in a separate thread before each vote, with lots of potential for ridiculously split votes. Are we going to have a separate "rank their best years, in order" thread for every player in the project? That becomes a lot more effort.

And what about the trade-off between voting a player's "best" seasons vs the negotiation to get them on the ballot the most times? For example, what if you think 2008 Kobe is his absolute peak...but you note that if you instead vote for 2009 Kobe, that then makes 2006 Kobe eligible to be nominated in a second vote. Now, the voters have yet another decision to make about individual players before we even get to the actual rankings votes.

Just way too muddy and problematic for my taste.

Ardee, I will note that your idea about delving into lesser-heralded seasons for great players sounds interesting...but it also sounds like a different project, to me. Like, a follow-up "Best 2nd best seasons of all-time" project. Or perhaps, "best two seasons for a player at least 3 years apart". For one thing, this approach would allow us to get started on the "best peak" without it getting bogged down..."peak" is a popular enough concept that a ranking based on peak alone is a worthy sticky standalone project. For another, the follow-up project(s) could be localized to a much smaller number of players (e.g. maybe only the top-20 peaks are invited for the next round).

My 2 cents.

[C-izMe]

I'm with Ardee on this one.

[ElGee]

First, I disagree that a top-peaks vote would look just like the top-100...you pointed out an obvious example in Walton moving up, but I'd be willing to bet that you also see a lot of iron-men types moving down (e.g. Malone, Reggie Miller, etc.). Heck, you can look on the current front page and see a thread about Kobe's peak where the consensus seems to have his peak a lot further down than most have his overall career.

Re: complication. I also think the every 3rd year is a lot more logistically complicated than the peak year, with the caveat that the "peak" option does NOT require that everyone voting for a player be using the same year as the peak. With the Kobe example, one person might be arguing for Kobe based on 2003, while another based on 2006, with another based on 2008...but it doesn't really matter, because (in this example) each of these voters thinks that peak Kobe deserved the vote here, regardless.

On the other hand, with the 3rd year rule, you HAVE to specify which year of a player you're using to vote on...and you almost have to figure that out in a separate thread before each vote, with lots of potential for ridiculously split votes. Are we going to have a separate "rank their best years, in order" thread for every player in the project? That becomes a lot more effort.

And what about the trade-off between voting a player's "best" seasons vs the negotiation to get them on the ballot the most times? For example, what if you think 2008 Kobe is his absolute peak...but you note that if you instead vote for 2009 Kobe, that then makes 2006 Kobe eligible to be nominated in a second vote. Now, the voters have yet another decision to make about individual players before we even get to the actual rankings votes.

Just way too muddy and problematic for my taste.

Ardee, I will note that your idea about delving into lesser-heralded seasons for great players sounds interesting...but it also sounds like a different project, to me. Like, a follow-up "Best 2nd best seasons of all-time" project. Or perhaps, "best two seasons for a player at least 3 years apart". For one thing, this approach would allow us to get started on the "best peak" without it getting bogged down..."peak" is a popular enough concept that a ranking based on peak alone is a worthy sticky standalone project. For another, the follow-up project(s) could be localized to a much smaller number of players (e.g. maybe only the top-20 peaks are invited for the next round).

My 2 cents.

This. I find a ranking (and analysis) of peak seasons by player to be way more interesting and beneficial (has anyone reputable every even done this??) than a complicated spin-off of the idea.

[ardee]

I'm with Ardee on this one.

Appreciate it, but it looks like we're outnumbered here.

[lorak]

First, I disagree that a top-peaks vote would look just like the top-100...you pointed out an obvious example in Walton moving up, but I'd be willing to bet that you also see a lot of iron-men types moving down (e.g. Malone, Reggie Miller, etc.). Heck, you can look on the current front page and see a thread about Kobe's peak where the consensus seems to have his peak a lot further down than most have his overall career.

Re: complication. I also think the every 3rd year is a lot more logistically complicated than the peak year, with the caveat that the "peak" option does NOT require that everyone voting for a player be using the same year as the peak. With the Kobe example, one person might be arguing for Kobe based on 2003, while another based on 2006, with another based on 2008...but it doesn't really matter, because (in this example) each of these voters thinks that peak Kobe deserved the vote here, regardless.

On the other hand, with the 3rd year rule, you HAVE to specify which year of a player you're using to vote on...and you almost have to figure that out in a separate thread before each vote, with lots of potential for ridiculously split votes. Are we going to have a separate "rank their best years, in order" thread for every player in the project? That becomes a lot more effort.

And what about the trade-off between voting a player's "best" seasons vs the negotiation to get them on the ballot the most times? For example, what if you think 2008 Kobe is his absolute peak...but you note that if you instead vote for 2009 Kobe, that then makes 2006 Kobe eligible to be nominated in a second vote. Now, the voters have yet another decision to make about individual players before we even get to the actual rankings votes.

Just way too muddy and problematic for my taste.

Ardee, I will note that your idea about delving into lesser-heralded seasons for great players sounds interesting...but it also sounds like a different project, to me. Like, a follow-up "Best 2nd best seasons of all-time" project. Or perhaps, "best two seasons for a player at least 3 years apart". For one thing, this approach would allow us to get started on the "best peak" without it getting bogged down..."peak" is a popular enough concept that a ranking based on peak alone is a worthy sticky standalone project. For another, the follow-up project(s) could be localized to a much smaller number of players (e.g. maybe only the top-20 peaks are invited for the next round).

My 2 cents.

This. I find a ranking (and analysis) of peak seasons by player to be way more interesting and beneficial (has anyone reputable every even done this??) than a complicated spin-off of the idea.

Me too.

But I think - and I disagree here with drza - that everyone should vote the same year as player's X peak.

[ardee]

First, I disagree that a top-peaks vote would look just like the top-100...you pointed out an obvious example in Walton moving up, but I'd be willing to bet that you also see a lot of iron-men types moving down (e.g. Malone, Reggie Miller, etc.). Heck, you can look on the current front page and see a thread about Kobe's peak where the consensus seems to have his peak a lot further down than most have his overall career.

Re: complication. I also think the every 3rd year is a lot more logistically complicated than the peak year, with the caveat that the "peak" option does NOT require that everyone voting for a player be using the same year as the peak. With the Kobe example, one person might be arguing for Kobe based on 2003, while another based on 2006, with another based on 2008...but it doesn't really matter, because (in this example) each of these voters thinks that peak Kobe deserved the vote here, regardless.

On the other hand, with the 3rd year rule, you HAVE to specify which year of a player you're using to vote on...and you almost have to figure that out in a separate thread before each vote, with lots of potential for ridiculously split votes. Are we going to have a separate "rank their best years, in order" thread for every player in the project? That becomes a lot more effort.

And what about the trade-off between voting a player's "best" seasons vs the negotiation to get them on the ballot the most times? For example, what if you think 2008 Kobe is his absolute peak...but you note that if you instead vote for 2009 Kobe, that then makes 2006 Kobe eligible to be nominated in a second vote. Now, the voters have yet another decision to make about individual players before we even get to the actual rankings votes.

Just way too muddy and problematic for my taste.

Ardee, I will note that your idea about delving into lesser-heralded seasons for great players sounds interesting...but it also sounds like a different project, to me. Like, a follow-up "Best 2nd best seasons of all-time" project. Or perhaps, "best two seasons for a player at least 3 years apart". For one thing, this approach would allow us to get started on the "best peak" without it getting bogged down..."peak" is a popular enough concept that a ranking based on peak alone is a worthy sticky standalone project. For another, the follow-up project(s) could be localized to a much smaller number of players (e.g. maybe only the top-20 peaks are invited for the next round).

My 2 cents.

This. I find a ranking (and analysis) of peak seasons by player to be way more interesting and beneficial (has anyone reputable every even done this??) than a complicated spin-off of the idea.

Me too.

But I think - and I disagree here with drza - that everyone should vote the same year as player's X peak.

How do you expect that to work?

That means, for 50 players, we'll need to first have 50 different discussion threads trying to decide each player's best year.

That's a logistical nightmare, and even more complicated than ranking seasons...

[Kobe 62 Mavs 61]

As an outsider, both ideas have a lot of merit. Should we be arguing about a different season of Kareem before we start mentioning Iverson? Yes. But doing peaks seems more straight-forward and more linearly related to the project you guys just did (are still kinda doing?). It helps that you have a group that's already familiar with the whole concept and whatnot, so I think it'd behoove the project as a whole to stay as close to what you've already done, which the peak thing would be.

Then, next time, you guys go on to all-time seasons. I mean, there's always gonna basketball offseasons, right? Plenty of time for more projects. And after seeing the list for greatest players, I for one would be interested in the list for greatest peaks to compare the former ranking to. Seeing Jordan and Chamberlain and LeBron taking up over half of the top 20 would be a lot less interesting, in my selfish opinion.

[thebottomline]

I vote for the 2nd option.

You don't need separate threads for deciding what every player's peak year is. Just have people vote for a player's particular season - whichever player has the most total votes in that thread wins, then you look at which season of that player was voted for the most, and that season is chosen.

For example, if the vote breakdown for a particular thread looks like:
12 votes for '91 Jordan
8 votes for '92 Jordan
15 votes for '67 Wilt

Jordan would win since 20 > 15. Then we see '91 Jordan had more votes than '92 Jordan, so '91 Jordan ends up being listed in the final rankings.

Otherwise, if you do a separate thread to determine a player's peak year beforehand, you could for example have the board decide that '91 was Jordan's peak year, but then potentially (using the above example) those 8 people who voted for '92 Jordan might be of the opinion that '92 Jordan > '67 Wilt > '91 Jordan... so they'd be compelled to vote for '67 Wilt over '91 Jordan despite their opinion that Jordan had a higher peak (just in a different year).

[lorak]

How do you expect that to work?

It's simple - when vote, everyone say what is given season, for example: Walton 1977.
So if we have for example 8 votes for Walton 77, 10 For MJ 92, 8 for MJ 91 and 15 for Wilt 67 then Wilt 67 wins.

[therealbig3]

How do you expect that to work?

It's simple - when vote, everyone say what is given season, for example: Walton 1977.
So if we have for example 8 votes for Walton 77, 10 For MJ 92, 8 for MJ 91 and 15 for Wilt 67 then Wilt 67 wins.

Hmmm, that doesn't really seem fair, because you have two sides that basically agree that MJ should win, they're just nitpicking over what year was his personal best, so they've split the vote. So even though MJ got 18 total votes, he's actually being punished for being so consistent that people go with different years and he ends up losing.

I understand that people can change their vote if they want, but that can be problematic too.

[lorak]

How do you expect that to work?

It's simple - when vote, everyone say what is given season, for example: Walton 1977.
So if we have for example 8 votes for Walton 77, 10 For MJ 92, 8 for MJ 91 and 15 for Wilt 67 then Wilt 67 wins.

Hmmm, that doesn't really seem fair, because you have two sides that basically agree that MJ should win, they're just nitpicking over what year was his personal best, so they've split the vote. So even though MJ got 18 total votes, he's actually being punished for being so consistent that people go with different years and he ends up losing.

This isn't about player per se, but about one particular season. It's very possible that someone thinks MJ 91 was better than Wilt 67 but MJ 92 and 88 worse than Wilt's season.

BTW, during RPOY project we have situations when player A had 5 votes, B 4 and C 8 - and C won, but people who voted for A and B wouldn't chose C, but would rather change vote to A or B. It's similar situation.

I understand that people can change their vote if they want, but that can be problematic too.

Wasn't problematic during previous projects

[colts18]

One way we could do this is have the players highest win share season count as peak and then we vote on whose peak we want based on that highest win share season.