RealGM Greatest Peaks Project---List, Interest, Metathinking thread

[Clyde Frazier]

I'm in. Agree with 36 hr time limit. Also agree with combining votes for players regardless of year. People are pretty split on dirk's peak, for example.

[I would be in favor of a side thread for deciding on the year, too.]

[NyCeEvO]

I'd like to participate.

I didn't get involved in the top 100 players as much as I wanted to because I didn't have the time to do the necessary research that I would be sufficient for making an informed decision.

Not only should focusing on peaks require less research but only covering 50 players seems way more manageable.

The only request I'd make is for it not to be too early in September. We have academia/school in high gear along with things like fantasy sports starting. It'll be a busy time for most people. If we could wait til mid-to-late September, a lot of the hoopla should have died down by then.

[Dr Positivity]

I am interested, I will try to participate a lot as I missed the entire top 100 and am fresh

[eminence]

Hey all, been looking through videos and reading some pieces of some of the older guys, but wondering if anybody has any estimated per/100 numbers or anything like them for some of the earlier players(googling gave me a couple options, but just looking for a consensus better source)? Tough to get a feel for how regular the youtube performances were for these guys without some numbers for context.

[SideshowBob]

I'm down

[trex_8063]

Hey all, been looking through videos and reading some pieces of some of the older guys, but wondering if anybody has any estimated per/100 numbers or anything like them for some of the earlier players(googling gave me a couple options, but just looking for a consensus better source)? Tough to get a feel for how regular the youtube performances were for these guys without some numbers for context.

I have some numbers (Per 100 possession estimates and relative TS%) I can PM you for lots of older guys. Who in particular are you interested in?

[eminence]

Hey all, been looking through videos and reading some pieces of some of the older guys, but wondering if anybody has any estimated per/100 numbers or anything like them for some of the earlier players(googling gave me a couple options, but just looking for a consensus better source)? Tough to get a feel for how regular the youtube performances were for these guys without some numbers for context.

I have some numbers (Per 100 possession estimates and relative TS%) I can PM you for lots of older guys. Who in particular are you interested in?

Oh boy, kinda long list: Oscar, Cousy, Frazier, West, Sharman, Greer, Sam Jones, Connie Hawkins, Billy Cunningham, Arizin, Hondo, Mikkelsen, Heinsohn, Jerry Lucas, Schayes, Pettit, Reed, Thurmond, Bellamy, Johnston, Mikan, Unseld, Russell, Wilt are the ones I can think of. And I completely understand if not all of them are available.

[trex_8063]

Hey all, been looking through videos and reading some pieces of some of the older guys, but wondering if anybody has any estimated per/100 numbers or anything like them for some of the earlier players(googling gave me a couple options, but just looking for a consensus better source)? Tough to get a feel for how regular the youtube performances were for these guys without some numbers for context.

I have some numbers (Per 100 possession estimates and relative TS%) I can PM you for lots of older guys. Who in particular are you interested in?

Oh boy, kinda long list: Oscar, Cousy, Frazier, West, Sharman, Greer, Sam Jones, Connie Hawkins, Billy Cunningham, Arizin, Hondo, Mikkelsen, Heinsohn, Jerry Lucas, Schayes, Pettit, Reed, Thurmond, Bellamy, Johnston, Mikan, Unseld, Russell, Wilt are the ones I can think of. And I completely understand if not all of them are available.

I've got most of them; with be away from a computer for much of the next couple weeks, but I'll get you all the ones I have in the next week or so.

[SactoKingsFan]

Hey all, been looking through videos and reading some pieces of some of the older guys, but wondering if anybody has any estimated per/100 numbers or anything like them for some of the earlier players(googling gave me a couple options, but just looking for a consensus better source)? Tough to get a feel for how regular the youtube performances were for these guys without some numbers for context.

I have some numbers (Per 100 possession estimates and relative TS%) I can PM you for lots of older guys. Who in particular are you interested in?

Oh boy, kinda long list: Oscar, Cousy, Frazier, West, Sharman, Greer, Sam Jones, Connie Hawkins, Billy Cunningham, Arizin, Hondo, Mikkelsen, Heinsohn, Jerry Lucas, Schayes, Pettit, Reed, Thurmond, Bellamy, Johnston, Mikan, Unseld, Russell, Wilt are the ones I can think of. And I completely understand if not all of them are available.

fpliii has the per 100 stats for Wilt, Kareem and Russell. I have some other per 100 stats, but only have them for Frazier and Reed on my phone.

Willis Reed per 100:

65: 21.6 PTS, 16.3 TRB, 1.9 AST, -.19 TS%
66: 18.6 PTS, 13.9 TRB, 1.4 AST, +1.05 TS%
67: 23.2 PTS, 16.2 TRB, 1.8 AST, +4.47 TS%
68: 23.9 PTS, 15.1 TRB, 2.3 AST, +3.92 TS%
69: 23.6 PTS, 16.3 TRB, 2.6 AST, +7.13 TS%
70: 23.8 PTS, 15.2 TRB, 2.2 AST, +4.1 TS%
71: 22.7 PTS, 14.9 TRB, 2.2 AST, +.99 TS%
72: 18.1 PTS, 11.7 TRB, 2.7 AST, -2.74 TS%
73: 18.3 PTS, 14.3 TRB, 3.0 AST, +.19 TS%

Walt Frazier per 100:

69: 20.2 PTS, 7.1 TRB, 9.1 AST, +6.93 TS%
70: 22.1 PTS, 6.4 TRB, 8.7 AST, +6.4 TS%
71: 21.3 PTS, 6.7 TRB, 6.6 AST, +5.59 TS%
72: 25.4 PTS, 7.3 TRB, 6.4 AST, +7.16 TS%
73: 23.4 PTS, 8.1 TRB, 6.5 AST, +3.59 TS%

[trex_8063]

I have some numbers (Per 100 possession estimates and relative TS%) I can PM you for lots of older guys. Who in particular are you interested in?

Oh boy, kinda long list: Oscar, Cousy, Frazier, West, Sharman, Greer, Sam Jones, Connie Hawkins, Billy Cunningham, Arizin, Hondo, Mikkelsen, Heinsohn, Jerry Lucas, Schayes, Pettit, Reed, Thurmond, Bellamy, Johnston, Mikan, Unseld, Russell, Wilt are the ones I can think of. And I completely understand if not all of them are available.

fpliii has the per 100 stats for Wilt, Kareem and Russell. I have some other per 100 stats, but only have them for Frazier and Reed on my phone.

Willis Reed per 100:

65: 21.6 PTS, 16.3 TRB, 1.9 AST, -.19 TS%
66: 18.6 PTS, 13.9 TRB, 1.4 AST, +1.05 TS%
67: 23.2 PTS, 16.2 TRB, 1.8 AST, +4.47 TS%
68: 23.9 PTS, 15.1 TRB, 2.3 AST, +3.92 TS%
69: 23.6 PTS, 16.3 TRB, 2.6 AST, +7.13 TS%
70: 23.8 PTS, 15.2 TRB, 2.2 AST, +4.1 TS%
71: 22.7 PTS, 14.9 TRB, 2.2 AST, +.99 TS%
72: 18.1 PTS, 11.7 TRB, 2.7 AST, -2.74 TS%
73: 18.3 PTS, 14.3 TRB, 3.0 AST, +.19 TS%

Walt Frazier per 100:

69: 20.2 PTS, 7.1 TRB, 9.1 AST, +6.93 TS%
70: 22.1 PTS, 6.4 TRB, 8.7 AST, +6.4 TS%
71: 21.3 PTS, 6.7 TRB, 6.6 AST, +5.59 TS%
72: 25.4 PTS, 7.3 TRB, 6.4 AST, +7.16 TS%
73: 23.4 PTS, 8.1 TRB, 6.5 AST, +3.59 TS%

I concur (fwiw); my estimates differ by 0.1 here and there, rTS differ by a few hundredths of a percent here and there.

[acrossthecourt]

I don't think rebounds per possession are useful from that era. There were so many more misses it's kinda pointless to compare. You can do TRB% estimates.

Rule e) helps guys with multiple peaks a lot. We may need to vote on seasons first. Like, say, we agree on 12 nominees for the opening round and then we have a thread for voting on specific seasons for those players. Then every round we nominate a player and vote for a season. The player with the most nominations gets in the voting pool, and the season chosen most often is the designated one. But when you vote a player in, we already have a season chosen beforehand.

For example, in the first round someone could vote for Shaq (2000) and nominate Dirk (2011) while someone else nominates Dirk (2007).

(That still helps players with multiple peaks, but you still have to be voted in so it's not a glaring issue.)

[Gregoire]

I want to participate for sure.

[trex_8063]

I don't think rebounds per possession are useful from that era. There were so many more misses it's kinda pointless to compare. You can do TRB% estimates.

By the same token pts or ast per 100 poss are "not very useful" (as more missed shots means fewer of both per possession). I still think per 100 poss estimates are helpful to put some of those old era players stats into perspective; one just has to be conscious of the fact that reb (even per 100 poss) were higher then, and pts and ast were lower.

Not that your method isn't helpful, too.

Rule e) helps guys with multiple peaks a lot.

I don't think it "helps" guys with multiple peaks, but rather just is not penalizing them for having broad or multiple peaks.

We may need to vote on seasons first. Like, say, we agree on 12 nominees for the opening round and then we have a thread for voting on specific seasons for those players. Then every round we nominate a player and vote for a season. The player with the most nominations gets in the voting pool, and the season chosen most often is the designated one. But when you vote a player in, we already have a season chosen beforehand.

For example, in the first round someone could vote for Shaq (2000) and nominate Dirk (2011) while someone else nominates Dirk (2007).

(That still helps players with multiple peaks, but you still have to be voted in so it's not a glaring issue.)

Again, I see this different (I get the feeling at least Quotatious agrees with me). For instance, if for Dirk we by consensus (beforehand) decide his peak is '07 and tell people you MUST consider '07 Dirk only......we might have a handful of people thinking "well, I'd normally give this spot to Dirk IF I could use '11 version, but since I can't, I'm going to vote for someone else". So thus the method you propose still penalizes guys for having multiple or broad peaks......just not quite as much.

This is problematic because (imo) the WHO is much more important than the WHEN.

For instance when we're discussing and comparing players posters will often make statements such as "I think so and so is a top 10 peak of a all-time" or similar, with no mention of what year they're referring to......because ultimately within the context of the MOST of these discussions regarding career value and legacy it is how high a player peaked that is relevant, not what year said peak occurred.
If the majority agrees that Lebron is a top 5 (or perhaps top 3-4) peak all-time, I don't think he should be relegated to #6 or 7 because no one can agree whether it's '09 or '13 or '12 (ditto for guys like Dirk or Kobe or Wade or Wilt). To me, that sort of misses the point of what a peaks project should be about.

I kind of like that idea we've already hashed out (determining year AFTER the player earns his spot), unless a bunch of people voice disagreement.

[acrossthecourt]

I don't think rebounds per possession are useful from that era. There were so many more misses it's kinda pointless to compare. You can do TRB% estimates.

By the same token pts or ast per 100 poss are "not very useful" (as more missed shots means fewer of both per possession). I still think per 100 poss estimates are helpful to put some of those old era players stats into perspective; one just has to be conscious of the fact that reb (even per 100 poss) were higher then, and pts and ast were lower.

Not that your method isn't helpful, too.

Rule e) helps guys with multiple peaks a lot.

I don't think it "helps" guys with multiple peaks, but rather just is not penalizing them for having broad or multiple peaks.

We may need to vote on seasons first. Like, say, we agree on 12 nominees for the opening round and then we have a thread for voting on specific seasons for those players. Then every round we nominate a player and vote for a season. The player with the most nominations gets in the voting pool, and the season chosen most often is the designated one. But when you vote a player in, we already have a season chosen beforehand.

For example, in the first round someone could vote for Shaq (2000) and nominate Dirk (2011) while someone else nominates Dirk (2007).

(That still helps players with multiple peaks, but you still have to be voted in so it's not a glaring issue.)

Again, I see this different (I get the feeling at least Quotatious agrees with me). For instance, if for Dirk we by consensus (beforehand) decide his peak is '07 and tell people you MUST consider '07 Dirk only......we might have a handful of people thinking "well, I'd normally give this spot to Dirk IF I could use '11 version, but since I can't, I'm going to vote for someone else". So thus the method you propose still penalizes guys for having multiple or broad peaks......just not quite as much.

This is problematic because (imo) the WHO is much more important than the WHEN.

For instance when we're discussing and comparing players posters will often make statements such as "I think so and so is a top 10 peak of a all-time" or similar, with no mention of what year they're referring to......because ultimately within the context of the MOST of these discussions regarding career value and legacy it is how high a player peaked that is relevant, not what year said peak occurred.
If the majority agrees that Lebron is a top 5 (or perhaps top 3-4) peak all-time, I don't think he should be relegated to #6 or 7 because no one can agree whether it's '09 or '13 or '12 (ditto for guys like Dirk or Kobe or Wade or Wilt). To me, that sort of misses the point of what a peaks project should be about.

I kind of like that idea we've already hashed out (determining year AFTER the player earns his spot), unless a bunch of people voice disagreement.

I'm sorry but that's silly. Simply rearranging words and bolding things doesn't make something true.

It's all about voting for how good a player's particular peak was. If someone doesn't value a particular season highly, then that's useful information and a real opinion. But mixing that up and allowing people to vote for multiple seasons, essentially, means you wash away that signal and a multiple peak guy gets a real advantage. And in most cases it'll be like this: a person prefers 2007 Dirk but because 2011 Dirk is on the board the vote will probably just go to 2011 Dirk anyway.

It is in no way penalizing players with multiple peaks. That doesn't make sense. It's not like votes are being split. You can still vote for the player.

[eminence]

I don't think rebounds per possession are useful from that era. There were so many more misses it's kinda pointless to compare. You can do TRB% estimates.

By the same token pts or ast per 100 poss are "not very useful" (as more missed shots means fewer of both per possession). I still think per 100 poss estimates are helpful to put some of those old era players stats into perspective; one just has to be conscious of the fact that reb (even per 100 poss) were higher then, and pts and ast were lower.

Not that your method isn't helpful, too.

Rule e) helps guys with multiple peaks a lot.

I don't think it "helps" guys with multiple peaks, but rather just is not penalizing them for having broad or multiple peaks.

We may need to vote on seasons first. Like, say, we agree on 12 nominees for the opening round and then we have a thread for voting on specific seasons for those players. Then every round we nominate a player and vote for a season. The player with the most nominations gets in the voting pool, and the season chosen most often is the designated one. But when you vote a player in, we already have a season chosen beforehand.

For example, in the first round someone could vote for Shaq (2000) and nominate Dirk (2011) while someone else nominates Dirk (2007).

(That still helps players with multiple peaks, but you still have to be voted in so it's not a glaring issue.)

Again, I see this different (I get the feeling at least Quotatious agrees with me). For instance, if for Dirk we by consensus (beforehand) decide his peak is '07 and tell people you MUST consider '07 Dirk only......we might have a handful of people thinking "well, I'd normally give this spot to Dirk IF I could use '11 version, but since I can't, I'm going to vote for someone else". So thus the method you propose still penalizes guys for having multiple or broad peaks......just not quite as much.

This is problematic because (imo) the WHO is much more important than the WHEN.

For instance when we're discussing and comparing players posters will often make statements such as "I think so and so is a top 10 peak of a all-time" or similar, with no mention of what year they're referring to......because ultimately within the context of the MOST of these discussions regarding career value and legacy it is how high a player peaked that is relevant, not what year said peak occurred.
If the majority agrees that Lebron is a top 5 (or perhaps top 3-4) peak all-time, I don't think he should be relegated to #6 or 7 because no one can agree whether it's '09 or '13 or '12 (ditto for guys like Dirk or Kobe or Wade or Wilt). To me, that sort of misses the point of what a peaks project should be about.

I kind of like that idea we've already hashed out (determining year AFTER the player earns his spot), unless a bunch of people voice disagreement.

In bigtime agreement with trex on this one, it should be up to the individual voter to decide whatever players peak. Consensus peak year on a player is a very different topic.

[RSCD3_]

Nominate a player and a year first.

Count all the votes by player name. After said winner has been determined, have everyone willing even people who didn't vote for who won choose a peak.

Example

3 players

12 Votes Dirk 2011
6 Votes Dirk 2006
17 Votes Jerry West 1969
10 Votes Charles Barkley 1993
6 Votes Charles Barkley 1990

Dirk wins the vote and said total amount of voters decide on dirks peak years not just the people who voted for him.

Let's say 33-18

2011 Dirk wins





Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[Quotatious]

Nominate a player and a year first.

Count all the votes by player name. After said winner has been determined, have everyone willing even people who didn't vote for who won choose a peak.

Example

3 players

12 Votes Dirk 2011
6 Votes Dirk 2006
17 Votes Jerry West 1969
10 Votes Charles Barkley 1993
6 Votes Charles Barkley 1990

Dirk wins the vote and said total amount of voters decide on dirks peak years not just the people who voted for him.

Let's say 33-18

2011 Dirk wins





Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

I really like your idea. We wouldn't even have to create separate threads to determine a player's peak if there is no consensus. It'll make things easier and allow to project to run more smoothly. I hope Trex accepts it.

[Moonbeam]

Sure, why not? I might not be able to participate each vote, but I can do my best.

[trex_8063]

Nominate a player and a year first.

Count all the votes by player name. After said winner has been determined, have everyone willing even people who didn't vote for who won choose a peak.

Example

3 players

12 Votes Dirk 2011
6 Votes Dirk 2006
17 Votes Jerry West 1969
10 Votes Charles Barkley 1993
6 Votes Charles Barkley 1990

Dirk wins the vote and said total amount of voters decide on dirks peak years not just the people who voted for him.

Let's say 33-18

2011 Dirk wins





Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

I really like your idea. We wouldn't even have to create separate threads to determine a player's peak if there is no consensus. It'll make things easier and allow to project to run more smoothly. I hope Trex accepts it.

What RSCD_3 has proposed was exactly what I was suggesting. I DO think it will be in a separate thread, though, in an effort to keep the main project moving (e.g. suppose Lebron gets voted in as the #4 peak with opinions split up between '09, '12, and '13......can initiate a separate thread to determine consensus on the peak year, and meanwhile---at the same time---start the #5 peak thread).

[JordansBulls]

I'd participate. Seems like really 2 more guys are in contention with Durant and Curry in 2014 and 2015.