RealGM Top 100 LIST- 2014

Moderators: trex_8063, penbeast0, PaulieWal, Clyde Frazier, Doctor MJ

Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 53,560
And1: 22,541
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: RealGM Top 100 LIST- list, voting panel, metathinking 

Post#441 » by Doctor MJ » Thu Oct 9, 2014 3:45 am

ElGee wrote:So, I'm not trying to be a naysayer of this project. Clearly it drives discussion better than any other project for many of the same reasons that people get so angry about the results of the GOAT list. One might think peaks would drive better discussion, but it somehow doesn't. And that leaves me wondering about basic methods of communication...just what exactly are people discussing in a GOAT discussion?


To be honest the failure of the Peaks project was a gigantic red flag to me, or at least very telling.

By all objective reasoning, it should be easier to make a Peak list than a Career list given that an ideal Career list would essentially be based on inputing years into your mental equation and going from there.

Since Career lists are actually easier than Peak lists, what that tells us is that people are deciding Career stuff by cheating a bit. In many places, they don't actually know how to decide who was better, and where that happens they go by longevity. So you essentially end up with a kind of staircase where guys on the same stair, or tier, are sorted by longevity, but getting on to the stair is based on peak.

That's the basis at least. The more thoughtful of us then try to approximate a more complicated function to make decisions between guys in the same vicinity and make the staircase a bit more like a slide, but you still end up at times with two guys way far apart, never debated against each other...and yet when you look closely the comparison is not clear cut.

I think the practical takeaways of all this are:

1) We all have a lot of room to get better.

2) Getting better should mean some pretty major fluctuations in our lists along the way.

3) In designing projects, we have to determine a task that is hard but not TOO hard for participants to do, and even if they are "cheating" a bit in the project, their continued participation means they are much more likely to learn.

4) The true meaning of the rankings at the very just can't ever be the goal...if only because it should embarrass people to think like that given how much better we can get.

5) And yet, other versions of this list exist all over the internet and in real life, and despite our blunders, we're likely creating the single best one out there among any group efforts that exist.
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board

Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
ElGee
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,041
And1: 1,207
Joined: Mar 08, 2010
Contact:

Re: RealGM Top 100 LIST- list, voting panel, metathinking 

Post#442 » by ElGee » Thu Oct 9, 2014 4:24 am

Doctor MJ wrote:
ElGee wrote:So, I'm not trying to be a naysayer of this project. Clearly it drives discussion better than any other project for many of the same reasons that people get so angry about the results of the GOAT list. One might think peaks would drive better discussion, but it somehow doesn't. And that leaves me wondering about basic methods of communication...just what exactly are people discussing in a GOAT discussion?


To be honest the failure of the Peaks project was a gigantic red flag to me, or at least very telling.

By all objective reasoning, it should be easier to make a Peak list than a Career list given that an ideal Career list would essentially be based on inputing years into your mental equation and going from there.

Since Career lists are actually easier than Peak lists, what that tells us is that people are deciding Career stuff by cheating a bit. In many places, they don't actually know how to decide who was better, and where that happens they go by longevity. So you essentially end up with a kind of staircase where guys on the same stair, or tier, are sorted by longevity, but getting on to the stair is based on peak.

That's the basis at least. The more thoughtful of us then try to approximate a more complicated function to make decisions between guys in the same vicinity and make the staircase a bit more like a slide, but you still end up at times with two guys way far apart, never debated against each other...and yet when you look closely the comparison is not clear cut.

I think the practical takeaways of all this are:

1) We all have a lot of room to get better.

2) Getting better should mean some pretty major fluctuations in our lists along the way.

3) In designing projects, we have to determine a task that is hard but not TOO hard for participants to do, and even if they are "cheating" a bit in the project, their continued participation means they are much more likely to learn.

4) The true meaning of the rankings at the very just can't ever be the goal...if only because it should embarrass people to think like that given how much better we can get.

5) And yet, other versions of this list exist all over the internet and in real life, and despite our blunders, we're likely creating the single best one out there among any group efforts that exist.


Haha. I had the same thoughts regarding how people are mentally cheating, almost word for word, after closing the computer last night. There is something called the "adjustment heuristic" in cognitive science that is not worth getting into here, but if I were to describe the mental rules-of-thumb people seem to subconsciously be employing, you get:

1. group players by tier based on peak/prime
2. make adjustments within tier based on longevity
3. occasionally move people down a tier if their longevity suffers
[players don't really move up a tier based on longevity]

I actual think the majority of people use something akin to a 3-5 year "prime" (1-year peaks are often seen as outliers or handled differently) which essentially addressed the internal question "how good was that guy at his best?" That this is not 1-year is critical, because the mind is performing a smoothing or averaging to try and estimate "peak" value but distributing it across multiple years. Then it creates tiers. Within that tier, it can then sort by longevity. But again, longevity doesn't move players up a tier. Players do drop a tier (or more, but not too far usually) when longevity is a major issue ala Walton. This is a true "adjustment heuristic" kind of move, where they just stop penalizing when it "feels" right.

Thus, for the peaks project, these rules of thumb can't be applied. And it becomes very, very hard for people. Additionally, having now done peak out to nearly 100 players, the difference in all-time peaks becomes fairly small once we leave the top. Much smaller than the small differences seen at the 30-50 or even 50-75 part of a GOAT list. It's not that I won't argue that my #45 all-time peak guy is better than my #55 guy, it's just that at the end of the day I don't think the difference between them in value is really "significant." Ironically, I think this is where having people disagree by 10-20 spots would be fine, and just taking a group average would probably produce a very "intelligent" list.
Check out and discuss my book, now on Kindle! http://www.backpicks.com/thinking-basketball/
User avatar
Clyde Frazier
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 20,238
And1: 26,114
Joined: Sep 07, 2010

Re: RealGM Top 100 LIST- list, voting panel, metathinking 

Post#443 » by Clyde Frazier » Tue Oct 28, 2014 4:28 am

penbeast0 wrote:The project is starting to lag as all of us are focusing on the season opening. We may take a break after this vote; let me know what you think in the Metathinking thread.


I'm as excited as anyone else for the season to start, but I'd still like to continue. I'm still enjoying the discussion, even though it's slowed down.

Should we explore going to 1 day for voting as opposed to 2 once we go past the top 50? Not sure how past projects progressed.
trex_8063
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 12,653
And1: 8,298
Joined: Feb 24, 2013
     

Re: RealGM Top 100 LIST- list, voting panel, metathinking 

Post#444 » by trex_8063 » Tue Oct 28, 2014 4:47 am

I'm OK with continuing, too; I'm still pretty engaged in the project. Also, I'm not sure a one week break is necessarily going to get those who have fallen out to suddenly re-engage with the project (though obv I don't know).
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
User avatar
john248
Starter
Posts: 2,367
And1: 651
Joined: Jul 06, 2010
 

Re: RealGM Top 100 LIST- list, voting panel, metathinking 

Post#445 » by john248 » Tue Oct 28, 2014 5:47 am

I'm fine with continuing as well. Seems like it's been the same participants for a while now.
The Last Word
User avatar
Moonbeam
Forum Mod - Blazers
Forum Mod - Blazers
Posts: 10,331
And1: 5,100
Joined: Feb 21, 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
     

Re: RealGM Top 100 LIST- list, voting panel, metathinking 

Post#446 » by Moonbeam » Tue Oct 28, 2014 7:43 am

I'm very keen to continue. My participation has been spotty due to the busy workload. The semester is nearing an end, however, and I won't have to coordinate a class of 1044 students for much longer, so I should have a bit more time to participate more regularly. I very much enjoy the conversation and hope to continue to learn, particularly about players in the 51-100 range about whom much less has been written.
User avatar
Texas Chuck
Senior Mod - NBA TnT Forum
Senior Mod - NBA TnT Forum
Posts: 92,611
And1: 98,957
Joined: May 19, 2012
Location: Purgatory
   

Re: RealGM Top 100 LIST- list, voting panel, metathinking 

Post#447 » by Texas Chuck » Tue Oct 28, 2014 2:23 pm

just wanted to give a quick shout-out to trex_8063. Despite the fact that he frequently shoots holes in my arguments, I really really enjoy reading his analysis and always come away from his posts feeling like I have a better understand of players and concepts. Been lots of good posts from lots of other posters as well, but I feel like he really brings it strong every thread.


I'm fine with continuing as well. I haven't participated as much in discussions the last couple threads because they have gone in directions where I haven't felt very strongly about the main candidates and haven't felt like I would add much to the discussion, but I still comment where I feel appropriate and am still very much engaged in following the discussion you guys are having. McHale/Schayes for instance has been really good.
ThunderBolt wrote:I’m going to let some of you in on a little secret I learned on realgm. If you don’t like a thread, not only do you not have to comment but you don’t even have to open it and read it. You’re welcome.
tsherkin
Forum Mod - Raptors
Forum Mod - Raptors
Posts: 92,289
And1: 31,869
Joined: Oct 14, 2003
 

Re: RealGM Top 100 LIST- list, voting panel, metathinking 

Post#448 » by tsherkin » Tue Oct 28, 2014 4:24 pm

Chuck Texas wrote:just wanted to give a quick shout-out to trex_8063. Despite the fact that he frequently shoots holes in my arguments, I really really enjoy reading his analysis and always come away from his posts feeling like I have a better understand of players and concepts. Been lots of good posts from lots of other posters as well, but I feel like he really brings it strong every thread.


I'm fine with continuing as well. I haven't participated as much in discussions the last couple threads because they have gone in directions where I haven't felt very strongly about the main candidates and haven't felt like I would add much to the discussion, but I still comment where I feel appropriate and am still very much engaged in following the discussion you guys are having. McHale/Schayes for instance has been really good.



Yeah, and-1 the shout-out. I may not always agree with him, but he makes me think and that's great within the project. Owly, too.
penbeast0
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Posts: 30,423
And1: 9,951
Joined: Aug 14, 2004
Location: South Florida
 

Re: RealGM Top 100 LIST- list, voting panel, metathinking 

Post#449 » by penbeast0 » Tue Oct 28, 2014 8:16 pm

Moonbeam wrote:I'm very keen to continue. My participation has been spotty due to the busy workload. The semester is nearing an end, however, and I won't have to coordinate a class of 1044 students for much longer, so I should have a bit more time to participate more regularly. I very much enjoy the conversation and hope to continue to learn, particularly about players in the 51-100 range about whom much less has been written.


1044 students? I'm a teacher and you can't coordinate that many at a time. You just throw them raw meat then try to make your escape while they are fighting over it. :o
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
penbeast0
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Posts: 30,423
And1: 9,951
Joined: Aug 14, 2004
Location: South Florida
 

Re: RealGM Top 100 LIST- list, voting panel, metathinking 

Post#450 » by penbeast0 » Tue Oct 28, 2014 8:24 pm

Ok, we will keep it going through opening day . . . I figured that was a time where even Wizard fans still feel optomistic that this could be the year until we suffer our normal 3-12 start (we usually turn it around and fight our way to mediocrity to be fair). So, we tend to be more active watching games and on team boards and less interested in past history but there is indeed a core of good posters who have stayed active and most of y'all are good with continuing so that's what we will do. I don't want to go to one-a-days though . . . I will start to count ties as ending the debate if y'all want. That is, if there are 6 votes for Dolph Schayes and 6 total for everyone else, that's a win for Schayes rather than a runoff.
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
penbeast0
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Posts: 30,423
And1: 9,951
Joined: Aug 14, 2004
Location: South Florida
 

Re: RealGM Top 100 LIST- list, voting panel, metathinking 

Post#451 » by penbeast0 » Tue Oct 28, 2014 8:31 pm

ElGee wrote:...

Haha. I had the same thoughts regarding how people are mentally cheating, almost word for word, after closing the computer last night. There is something called the "adjustment heuristic" in cognitive science that is not worth getting into here, but if I were to describe the mental rules-of-thumb people seem to subconsciously be employing, you get:

1. group players by tier based on peak/prime
2. make adjustments within tier based on longevity
3. occasionally move people down a tier if their longevity suffers
[players don't really move up a tier based on longevity]

I actual think the majority of people use something akin to a 3-5 year "prime" (1-year peaks are often seen as outliers or handled differently) which essentially addressed the internal question "how good was that guy at his best?" That this is not 1-year is critical, because the mind is performing a smoothing or averaging to try and estimate "peak" value but distributing it across multiple years. Then it creates tiers. Within that tier, it can then sort by longevity. But again, longevity doesn't move players up a tier. Players do drop a tier (or more, but not too far usually) when longevity is a major issue ala Walton. This is a true "adjustment heuristic" kind of move, where they just stop penalizing when it "feels" right.

Thus, for the peaks project, these rules of thumb can't be applied. And it becomes very, very hard for people. Additionally, having now done peak out to nearly 100 players, the difference in all-time peaks becomes fairly small once we leave the top. Much smaller than the small differences seen at the 30-50 or even 50-75 part of a GOAT list. It's not that I won't argue that my #45 all-time peak guy is better than my #55 guy, it's just that at the end of the day I don't think the difference between them in value is really "significant." Ironically, I think this is where having people disagree by 10-20 spots would be fine, and just taking a group average would probably produce a very "intelligent" list.


That's pretty much how I vote. I think of people in tiers with roughly an 8 year prime and how good they were during it. If a player has excellent longevity, I might move them up within a tier but definitely drop them tiers for having less than 8 prime years (otherwise Sidney Moncrief would be already voted in) or for less than prime star minutes (like Bobby Jones or Manu Ginobili). Thank you for spelling it out for me . . . the difference is that I think that's a reasonable, if not optimal, way to do it.
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
User avatar
Moonbeam
Forum Mod - Blazers
Forum Mod - Blazers
Posts: 10,331
And1: 5,100
Joined: Feb 21, 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
     

Re: RealGM Top 100 LIST- list, voting panel, metathinking 

Post#452 » by Moonbeam » Thu Oct 30, 2014 10:07 am

penbeast0 wrote:
Moonbeam wrote:I'm very keen to continue. My participation has been spotty due to the busy workload. The semester is nearing an end, however, and I won't have to coordinate a class of 1044 students for much longer, so I should have a bit more time to participate more regularly. I very much enjoy the conversation and hope to continue to learn, particularly about players in the 51-100 range about whom much less has been written.


1044 students? I'm a teacher and you can't coordinate that many at a time. You just throw them raw meat then try to make your escape while they are fighting over it. :o


Glad to hear you are also part of the education fraternity!

My students are mostly good to me. Mostly! When assessments are due and my inbox lights up with more than one email per minute, my eyes can start to glaze over, but I've loved it. Now, to get them to consider the merits of Alex English!
User avatar
Clyde Frazier
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 20,238
And1: 26,114
Joined: Sep 07, 2010

Re: RealGM Top 100 LIST- list, voting panel, metathinking 

Post#453 » by Clyde Frazier » Fri Oct 31, 2014 10:25 pm

ElGee wrote:-----


Doctor MJ wrote:-----


Question to you and other veterans of these projects: why has a peaks project failed? Also, was it 1 year peak, 3 year peak, or something else? It seems to me that ranking "the best at their best" would be easier as it allows for a more standardized criteria.
Owly
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,674
And1: 3,173
Joined: Mar 12, 2010

Re: RealGM Top 100 LIST- list, voting panel, metathinking 

Post#454 » by Owly » Sat Nov 1, 2014 12:17 am

Clyde Frazier wrote:
ElGee wrote:-----


Doctor MJ wrote:-----


Question to you and other veterans of these projects: why has a peaks project failed? Also, was it 1 year peak, 3 year peak, or something else? It seems to me that ranking "the best at their best" would be easier as it allows for a more standardized criteria.


Not a veteran, but obviously you can read some of their conversations in here (assuming you have done tbh, but worth noting anyhow)

Main thread (and links from it) is here. It was one year peaks.
viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1197732

As an outsider, i.e. speaking for myself, why I'm not confident in a peak specific project is the small sample size. You see how thing so independent of competition (such as free throw percentage) can fluctuate year to year and you think (or I think) how much of that (percieved level of performance) is the player (i.e. intrinsic, what I could typically expect etc), and how much was extrinsic (circumstance, luck, injuries, matchups and other contextual stuff including level of competition). Not that this stuff isn't a factor every year, but over time luck etc might not "even out" but it should mostly regress to the mean in terms of giving a more "typical" situation and thus show what you might typically expect out of a players career.

Put simply (especially for one year peaks) there's less to go on and a lower confidence threshold about it being "real".
HeartBreakKid
RealGM
Posts: 22,395
And1: 18,828
Joined: Mar 08, 2012
     

Re: RealGM Top 100 LIST- list, voting panel, metathinking 

Post#455 » by HeartBreakKid » Sun Nov 2, 2014 3:29 pm

Hey guys, I'm back now, so I'll be around to finish the next 50ish spots or so.
WorldBeFree
Starter
Posts: 2,307
And1: 406
Joined: Jun 29, 2014
   

Re: RealGM Top 100 LIST- list, voting panel, metathinking 

Post#456 » by WorldBeFree » Mon Nov 3, 2014 12:12 am

This is a joke no iverson in the top 45 Wow

Sent from my D2303 using RealGM Forums mobile app
penbeast0
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Posts: 30,423
And1: 9,951
Joined: Aug 14, 2004
Location: South Florida
 

Re: RealGM Top 100 LIST- list, voting panel, metathinking 

Post#457 » by penbeast0 » Mon Nov 3, 2014 1:10 am

WorldBeFree wrote:This is a joke no iverson in the top 45 Wow

Sent from my D2303 using RealGM Forums mobile app


If you have an intelligent argument for Iverson, make it. If that's all you've got, please don't bother to post in this project.
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
WorldBeFree
Starter
Posts: 2,307
And1: 406
Joined: Jun 29, 2014
   

Re: AW: RealGM Top 100 LIST- list, voting panel, metathinkin 

Post#458 » by WorldBeFree » Mon Nov 3, 2014 1:55 am

penbeast0 wrote:
WorldBeFree wrote:This is a joke no iverson in the top 45 Wow

Sent from my D2303 using RealGM Forums mobile app


If you have an intelligent argument for Iverson, make it. If that's all you've got, please don't bother to post in this project.

Iverson is the best player of all time for his size. He carried a bad sixers team to the finals and provided the only loss for the lakers. Why is Howard ranked before him? Iverson could take everyone and every night, he had his problems, but from a playing state point he was at least on the level of Wade and better then nash or some others. He has no rings i know, but he was a great player and to leave him out i just dont get it. I wont argue with the older guys who are listed infront him, i never saw them play. Miller also a all time great but i dont believe he is better then iverson infact miller himself said he wouldnt put himself in the next 10 list (next guys who.make the all time greatest list of the mvp) on opener court. So clearly the players know how great iverson was, i was expecting him in the top 30 at least. No.one could stop this guy....
Edit: i mean what did a guy like Durant do better then guys like iverson or t-mac to this point of his career. I dont hate on Durant, he is pretty damn good just explain it to me, imagine he will not ever win a Ring. Then he has scoring titles a mvp, what did he more until this point of his career. Iverson could score at his rate. Again not hating on Durant, just asking.
Why is nash so high? For worst D ever? Yes he has 2 mvp 's, again I dont hate on any guy on this list. Ray allen is great, but he never carried a team like iverson did.

Btw love the love for payton, usually i dont see him on this type of lists

Sent from my D2303 using RealGM Forums mobile app
User avatar
john248
Starter
Posts: 2,367
And1: 651
Joined: Jul 06, 2010
 

Re: AW: RealGM Top 100 LIST- list, voting panel, metathinkin 

Post#459 » by john248 » Mon Nov 3, 2014 6:34 am

WorldBeFree wrote:
penbeast0 wrote:
WorldBeFree wrote:This is a joke no iverson in the top 45 Wow

Sent from my D2303 using RealGM Forums mobile app


If you have an intelligent argument for Iverson, make it. If that's all you've got, please don't bother to post in this project.

Iverson is the best player of all time for his size. He carried a bad sixers team to the finals and provided the only loss for the lakers. Why is Howard ranked before him? Iverson could take everyone and every night, he had his problems, but from a playing state point he was at least on the level of Wade and better then nash or some others. He has no rings i know, but he was a great player and to leave him out i just dont get it. I wont argue with the older guys who are listed infront him, i never saw them play. Miller also a all time great but i dont believe he is better then iverson infact miller himself said he wouldnt put himself in the next 10 list (next guys who.make the all time greatest list of the mvp) on opener court. So clearly the players know how great iverson was, i was expecting him in the top 30 at least. No.one could stop this guy....
Edit: i mean what did a guy like Durant do better then guys like iverson or t-mac to this point of his career. I dont hate on Durant, he is pretty damn good just explain it to me, imagine he will not ever win a Ring. Then he has scoring titles a mvp, what did he more until this point of his career. Iverson could score at his rate. Again not hating on Durant, just asking.
Why is nash so high? For worst D ever? Yes he has 2 mvp 's, again I dont hate on any guy on this list. Ray allen is great, but he never carried a team like iverson did.

Btw love the love for payton, usually i dont see him on this type of lists

Sent from my D2303 using RealGM Forums mobile app


I don't give extra points to a player just because he's short relative to his peers. Stockton doesn't get extra love just because he's 6'1".

In short...I think Iverson had good value for that 01 Sixers team. He was the volume scorer with a 106 ORTG that year. When he's in there, the team does draw more fouls, shoot more 3's, and that team was better off for it since the defense was a 99 DRTG team (iirc 99 ORTG without AI). But his offense doesn't compare to Kobe, LeBron, Wade, Allen, and some other guys aside from huge volume. I don't have a list past 50, but I think he would fall in the mid-50s range. The Iverson discussion will come up.
The Last Word
ceiling raiser
Lead Assistant
Posts: 4,531
And1: 3,754
Joined: Jan 27, 2013

Re: RealGM Top 100 LIST- list, voting panel, metathinking 

Post#460 » by ceiling raiser » Mon Nov 3, 2014 5:44 pm

EDIT: Wrong thread, sorry.
Now that's the difference between first and last place.

Return to Player Comparisons