RealGM Top 100 LIST- 2014

[penbeast0]

I think we only do that when a person's influence tends to either (a)have unusual impact on one side beyond normal standards (defensive anchor) or (b) tends to be almost completely on one side of the ball (Steve Nash, Ben Wallace). For most players, we don't separate them any more than we do rebounding, playmaking, intangibles, or any other variable.

[john248]

I'll be voting again soon. It was my Bday and away for a week. Missed the last couple threads and looking forward to catching up.

Sent from my Galaxy Note 3

[ShaqAttack3234]

For reference, I'm a Knick fan.

[Owly]

Don't know whether this is a possibility but I'm mooting making this a post shot clock project

Here's why:

MIKAN

We all know super dominant in his era numbers wise, team wise, RS wise and playoff wise. But people are having trouble translating that into what that means for all-time greateness, reasonably enough. The thing is Mikan just got trounced in a runoff versus a never dominant, never metric wise top 5 guy. And that's not a slight at Ewing everybody coming on now will have holes, longevity or never dominant or whatever. But given the resounding nature of the runoff (at post 128 in 22 thread viewtopic.php?p=40999554#p40999554 penbeast calls a runoff with the voting 7-4 in Ewing's favour, apparently it the difference has grown to 17-6 viewtopic.php?p=41005163#p41005163 a 9-2 split in runoff voters.

Therefore with the present voting system Mikan is running as a spoiler. If Mikan voters don't change their preferences Mikan then with the expected split in the more modern vote (unless more voters turn up and get someone else into the top 2 or people get persuaded or ground down by the Mikan argument) Mikan gets to the runoff and the other plurality guy gets through.

And with Mikan its easy to end up with an under informed debate, in part because we have less real data for back then, in part because comparing that with modern play is difficult, dominance versus time machine fantasy draft wise and then because it brings out simplistic - sometimes even troll like - thinking (i.e. the if you don't call Mikan Russell's equal you're a racist). If people have actually worked out when the majority of players stopped having jobs in the offseason (I'm pretty sure it's later than an anti-Mikan newcomer seemingly assumes), or have a confident notion on when when the league got blacker based on yearly minute weighted racial balance analysis and people are clear whether they're talking about real or hypothetical talent pools (if that matters) it's fine.

Oh, I don't know, I'm rambling, everyone has a right to their own criteria. As a Mikan voter I recognise there are legitimate criticisms of him and his era. I just worry Mikan has enormous spoiler potential, and it can be stopped at this point without really affecting the rankings or the debate whereas we could be here in 15 rounds time in the runoff saying "My criteria's right, dominance matters and your talent pool is purely hypothetical, Mikan was better than the best black players of his time." "No, mine is right, he didn't play long enough and he couldn't play today?" "Say's who?" "Bob Ryan and Charley Rosen. They compare him unfavourably to backups and say he couldn't make the modern NBA respectively." "Well Bill Walton and Mike Gminski say he would be great." "Bill Walton and Mike Gminski say your Moma would be great." etc.

There's always going to be a degree of arbitrariness to the cutoff (presumably shot clock, but how much of your career has to be before/after, assuming you still count the before years) and some of the issues probably still come up later with Schayes, Arizin, Cousy, Sharman. I'm just concerned in particular with Mikan becasue, as before, he distorts the voting and more importantly the discussion because it becomes so much about criteria.

[DQuinn1575]

Don't know whether this is a possibility but I'm mooting making this a post shot clock project

Here's why:

MIKAN

We all know super dominant in his era numbers wise, team wise, RS wise and playoff wise. But people are having trouble translating that into what that means for all-time greateness, reasonably enough. The thing is Mikan just got trounced in a runoff versus a never dominant, never metric wise top 5 guy. And that's not a slight at Ewing everybody coming on now will have holes, longevity or never dominant or whatever. But given the resounding nature of the runoff (at post 128 in 22 thread viewtopic.php?p=40999554#p40999554 penbeast calls a runoff with the voting 7-4 in Ewing's favour, apparently it the difference has grown to 17-6 viewtopic.php?p=41005163#p41005163 a 9-2 split in runoff voters.

Therefore with the present voting system Mikan is running as a spoiler. If Mikan voters don't change their preferences Mikan then with the expected split in the more modern vote (unless more voters turn up and get someone else into the top 2 or people get persuaded or ground down by the Mikan argument) Mikan gets to the runoff and the other plurality guy gets through.

And with Mikan its easy to end up with an under informed debate, in part because we have less real data for back then, in part because comparing that with modern play is difficult, dominance versus time machine fantasy draft wise and then because it brings out simplistic - sometimes even troll like - thinking (i.e. the if you don't call Mikan Russell's equal you're a racist). If people have actually worked out when the majority of players stopped having jobs in the offseason (I'm pretty sure it's later than an anti-Mikan newcomer seemingly assumes), or have a confident notion on when when the league got blacker based on yearly minute weighted racial balance analysis and people are clear whether they're talking about real or hypothetical talent pools (if that matters) it's fine.

Oh, I don't know, I'm rambling, everyone has a right to their own criteria. As a Mikan voter I recognise there are legitimate criticisms of him and his era. I just worry Mikan has enormous spoiler potential, and it can be stopped at this point without really affecting the rankings or the debate whereas we could be here in 15 rounds time in the runoff saying "My criteria's right, dominance matters and your talent pool is purely hypothetical, Mikan was better than the best black players of his time." "No, mine is right, he didn't play long enough and he couldn't play today?" "Say's who?" "Bob Ryan and Charley Rosen. They compare him unfavourably to backups and say he couldn't make the modern NBA respectively." "Well Bill Walton and Mike Gminski say he would be great." "Bill Walton and Mike Gminski say your Moma would be great." etc.

There's always going to be a degree of arbitrariness to the cutoff (presumably shot clock, but how much of your career has to be before/after, assuming you still count the before years) and some of the issues probably still come up later with Schayes, Arizin, Cousy, Sharman. I'm just concerned in particular with Mikan becasue, as before, he distorts the voting and more importantly the discussion because it becomes so much about criteria.

I voted for Mikan and will continue to do so while he is on the board.

That said, I am fine with taking him out by going shot clock era. Otherwise I feel I will spend the next few weeks repeating the same arguments.

Or we could just do a special vote- let everyone vote him a spot 23-100. ( you have to give him 100). Average the results- if it's 60 he gets 60. If it's 45 he gets 45. This would give him a spot, reduce the era debate, and also set a marker for schayes, arizin, Cousy etc.






Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[Doctor MJ]

I don't think Mikan should be kept out of the project. What you're talking about isn't something exclusive to Mikan.

For example, I rank Reggie Miller in my Top 30. I don't really expect him to make the project's Top 40. Am I going to vote for Reggie every time in between? Maybe, maybe not. I'm not one for tactical voting generally, but there are times when it's just a waste of everyone's time to be a broken record. So what will probably happen is that I'll mention him, and then a few threads later someone else will, a few threads later someone else, and eventually he'll get in.

I won't pretend it's never frustrating to be in this position, but while Mikan might be the roughest case of it, that doesn't mean he isn't a legit player who deserves to be compared with others.

[DQuinn1575]

I don't think Mikan should be kept out of the project. What you're talking about isn't something exclusive to Mikan.

For example, I rank Reggie Miller in my Top 30. I don't really expect him to make the project's Top 40. Am I going to vote for Reggie every time in between? Maybe, maybe not. I'm not one for tactical voting generally, but there are times when it's just a waste of everyone's time to be a broken record. So what will probably happen is that I'll mention him, and then a few threads later someone else will, a few threads later someone else, and eventually he'll get in.

I won't pretend it's never frustrating to be in this position, but while Mikan might be the roughest case of it, that doesn't mean he isn't a legit player who deserves to be compared with others.

Fair enough.
I'll respect the call and go forward .


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[Moonbeam]

Let me chime in on the issue of Mikan's eligibility. I really hope we keep him eligible. I don't think we should shy away from a challenge, and a top 100 list without Mikan would feel wrong without him. The difficulty around his placement has brought up some worthwhile discussion, and I for one would be less informed without it. I'll be sure to lobby for him before we get to #30.

If it were up to me, I'd let NBL/BAA count as well.

[Moonbeam]

I don't think Mikan should be kept out of the project. What you're talking about isn't something exclusive to Mikan.

For example, I rank Reggie Miller in my Top 30. I don't really expect him to make the project's Top 40. Am I going to vote for Reggie every time in between? Maybe, maybe not. I'm not one for tactical voting generally, but there are times when it's just a waste of everyone's time to be a broken record. So what will probably happen is that I'll mention him, and then a few threads later someone else will, a few threads later someone else, and eventually he'll get in.

I won't pretend it's never frustrating to be in this position, but while Mikan might be the roughest case of it, that doesn't mean he isn't a legit player who deserves to be compared with others.

I have a feeling my version of Reggie Miller will be Adrian Dantley, who I've got somewhere around 50. I think most of us will be in this position at some point, and I think that's great. I look forward to hearing arguments for players at spots well above their consensus range.

[tsherkin]

I don't see a reason to exclude him. If you don't believe in him, don't vote for him and vote for the run-off candidate if it comes down to that.

At the end of the day, he was an important part of the development of the modern NBA game, so he can't just be swept under a rug. My general belief, for example, is that too many have come since and been better, even under the circumstances which ultimately led to his decline, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about him.

We never set an established set of criteria for what counts as great, how to weight different factors, how to account for era differences... consequently, we don't have standardization because what we're after is less so the final ranking and more so the discussion that goes into it.

Is that not the case?

So let's discuss. Some of us will appreciate Mikan's candidacy despite believing that he wouldn't do well in the modern version of the game. Some of us will not appreciate his candidacy because his career was too far in the past and because he declined as the game began to form into what we know understand to be basketball.

Whatever the case may be, it'll make for good talks as long as we don't keep up with what I find to be the frustrating process of C+P'g posts from earlier threads without adding more to the discussion.

[Sign5]

How exactly did Wade go from 22 in '11 to 23 now?

[Quotatious]

How exactly did Wade go from 22 in '11 to 23 now?

Voting panel changed a lot, different people have different criteria (some of them don't even value Wade's post-2011 seasons that much).

[MacGill]

I just got back from 3 weeks vacation so I will try to jump back into these threads. Now I just wonder how long it will take me to get caught back up on work

[DQuinn1575]

How exactly did Wade go from 22 in '11 to 23 now?

Voting panel changed a lot, different people have different criteria (some of them don't even value Wade's post-2011 seasons that much).

In my case,(I am new) I had Mikan, wade next, Ewing. Assume 40% of people are like me -ringers. Say 25% had wade, Ewing, Mikan- call them smart people, . Let's say 35% are non ringers - they went Ewing wade Mikan.

Mikans addition took people who value championships more votes away from wade but not Ewing.

So I think letting Mikan in might have helped Ewing pass wade, dropping him 1 spot.

I think 21 versus 22 is pretty irrelevant






Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[Sports Realist]

From 2000-2005 KG was better than Kobe 5/6 years, but only during 2 or 3 of these years ('02, '04, perhaps '00) is there a large gap in Garnett's favor. From 2006-2010 Kobe was better than Garnett every single year. Furthermore, only the first two of these seasons could be construed as "close," and even then, the 2006 and 2007 gaps are at least as large as 2000 and 2002. From 2011-2013 Kobe is clearly not the player he was before, but it still better than Garnett every year. Arguably significantly so.

So Kevin Garnett > Kobe Bryant makes little sense. Kevin Garnett > Duncan makes no sense. KG > Shaq/Hakeem/Magic/etc does not seem fathomable under any rational set of constraints. How can he leapfrog ALL of those players SIMULTANEOUSLY under any single set of criteria that isn't going to be extremely limiting.

And YES, the overwhelming burden of scrutiny lies with anyone who would push Garnett as one of the 10 best players ever so them being more verbose in their arguments is unsurprising. Niche takes always require extra selling, that's why they are niche. Most of the time they are barking up the wrong tree and/or already done better by someone else. If you choose to present a stance that is diametrically opposed to an ARRAY of accepted truths then that is your prerogative. But you can't detach yourself from reality and at the same time be upset when everybody in the room doesn't want to float up into the clouds with you solely on the basis of your "calculations." Wanting the stance to be considered as "just another argument" is...the nicest way I could characterize it would be naive.

I'm part of a 3-person algorithm development team and a 4-person predictive modeling team, so this is more or less what I spend my entire days doing (with quite a bit more at stake than internet basketball popularity). We as a group (5 of us, me and one other guy double) are at least the analytic backbone of our process, 90% of the time the decisions are made by the time the work is done (although these days it's mostly about avoiding degradation and other "maintenance" stuff). Forgive me if I don't want to come home and entertain angst as I read posts trying to convince me Kevin Garnett is somehow a better player than Hakeem Olajuwon because of some stats that came out 3 years after his prime ended.

Stop derailing the thread and making it about me when all I did was bow out as respectfully as I could. I guess I should have just lied and said it was 100% my schedule and not given a project-related explanation. Now I know. But the only "whining" is posters being passive aggressive and telling me I should be OK fully investing in AND rubber-stamping a process that lacks a discernible valuation template just because a few of the takes came from sources I know to be intelligent. Nobody bats 1.000. Sometimes you come up with nothing but air.

And apparently team performance can now be dismissed as "qualitative." That's rich.

I don't get this RGM obsession with KG either...

Here, just for fun:

Dirk vs KG year-for-year:
2000: KG
2001: KG
2002: KG
2003: Dirk
2004: KG
2005: Dirk
2006: Dirk
2007: Dirk
2008: KG
2009: Dirk
2010: Dirk
2011: Dirk
2012: Dirk
2013: Wash
2014: Dirk

Why does KG even top Dirk? 4th place votes are direspectful, and I think landing at 11 is too high... He shouldn't be above West, Oscar, and probably Kobe... Moses would be there too, although he's lower here so i won't get into that..

[Basketballefan]

How exactly did Wade go from 22 in '11 to 23 now?

A good bit of it has to do with different voters, but i think a little also has to do with the fact that people not only forget how good Wade was, but they act like he has been a scrub the past 3 seasons when he has not. The past 3 seasons since the last project, he has won 2 championships, 3 all star games, and has been a top 10-20 player each of those years, how does this not help your legacy? I have no problem with Wade at 23, i think it's fairly reasonable even though i'd have him at 20-21. I was just bothered that some of the posters in the project thought Wade had no argument for the top 25, which was ignorant. Some thought that Frazier was better even though peak wise he's not close to Wade and the longevity simply isn't enough to compensate.

Maybe if Wade can have a bounce back season this year, average something like 22 4 6 55 ts% then people may change their tune a bit.

[Quotatious]

Dirk vs KG year-for-year:
2000: KG
2001: KG
2002: KG
2003: Dirk
2004: KG
2005: Dirk
2006: Dirk
2007: Dirk
2008: KG
2009: Dirk
2010: Dirk
2011: Dirk
2012: Dirk
2013: Wash
2014: Dirk

Why was Dirk better in 2003 and 2012? I think that Garnett was rather clearly better in '03 (and Nowitzki was amazing, as well, but Garnett was arguably at his peak that year), and I think that 2012 should called a wash.

[Texas Chuck]

How exactly did Wade go from 22 in '11 to 23 now?

A good bit of it has to do with different voters, but i think a little also has to do with the fact that people not only forget how good Wade was, but they act like he has been a scrub the past 3 seasons when he has not. The past 3 seasons since the last project, he has won 2 championships, 3 all star games, and has been a top 10-20 player each of those years, how does this not help your legacy? I have no problem with Wade at 23, i think it's fairly reasonable even though i'd have him at 20-21. I was just bothered that some of the posters in the project thought Wade had no argument for the top 25, which was ignorant. Some thought that Frazier was better even though peak wise he's not close to Wade and the longevity simply isn't enough to compensate.

Maybe if Wade can have a bounce back season this year, average something like 22 4 6 55 ts% then people may change their tune a bit.

Please stop saying you don't care when 75% of your posts have been about why isnt Wade higher? And sorry but thinking there are 25 players in the history of basketball better than Dwayne Wade simply isn't ignorant and anyone who truly thought he belonged at 21-22 should easily be able to understand that. I had hoped once he got in you would stop this, but nope......

[Basketballefan]

How exactly did Wade go from 22 in '11 to 23 now?

A good bit of it has to do with different voters, but i think a little also has to do with the fact that people not only forget how good Wade was, but they act like he has been a scrub the past 3 seasons when he has not. The past 3 seasons since the last project, he has won 2 championships, 3 all star games, and has been a top 10-20 player each of those years, how does this not help your legacy? I have no problem with Wade at 23, i think it's fairly reasonable even though i'd have him at 20-21. I was just bothered that some of the posters in the project thought Wade had no argument for the top 25, which was ignorant. Some thought that Frazier was better even though peak wise he's not close to Wade and the longevity simply isn't enough to compensate.

Maybe if Wade can have a bounce back season this year, average something like 22 4 6 55 ts% then people may change their tune a bit.

Please stop saying you don't care when 75% of your posts have been about why isnt Wade higher? And sorry but thinking there are 25 players in the history of basketball better than Dwayne Wade simply isn't ignorant and anyone who truly thought he belonged at 21-22 should easily be able to understand that. I had hoped once he got in you would stop this, but nope......

He asked so i answered, if you don't like it tough.

[Doctor MJ]

I don't get this RGM obsession with KG either...

Here, just for fun:

Dirk vs KG year-for-year:
2000: KG
2001: KG
2002: KG
2003: Dirk
2004: KG
2005: Dirk
2006: Dirk
2007: Dirk
2008: KG
2009: Dirk
2010: Dirk
2011: Dirk
2012: Dirk
2013: Wash
2014: Dirk

Why does KG even top Dirk? 4th place votes are direspectful, and I think landing at 11 is too high... He shouldn't be above West, Oscar, and probably Kobe... Moses would be there too, although he's lower here so i won't get into that..

Well first, careful about using a phrase like "disrespectful" when we talk about an opinion that's if anything too positive. Obviously no one is praising KG in order to spite a bunch of other players.

As far as your year by year assessment, well many would disagree with you on some of those years. I think though the more informative points would be these:

1) I typically find it more useful to start by getting a sense for how good a player is in his prime, and from there consider longevity, as oppose to an approach like this one. Reason being that we have no idea how big the yearly edges are in a list like your, and also you can get the impression one guy dominated over the other when in fact the players in question just peaked at different times.

2) Note your choice of Garnett in '08 after him losing out in the years surrounding. Obviously Garnett wasn't literally a superior player then inferior then superior then inferior. It was just circumstances getting in the way. I would recommend not letting such circumstances dominate your assessment of the players.