RealGM Top 100 All-Time (2017)

[Gibson22]

I'm interested in participating.

[kayess]

I will vote when able, if possible.

[70sFan]

Yeah, I'm always interested in discussion about basketball. I'd try to bring some information here and there. I'll also remind you about some older stars that are often forgotten in such talks

Please contribute...

Sent from my SM-G920P using RealGM mobile app

I'll try.

Thanks for this kind words. I really appreciate that

[An Unbiased Fan]

Not gonna lie but I've soured on these types of projects recently. 90% of the time we're rehashing old conversations, no one changes their opinions on guys, and its basically 2 people arguing from the POV of their drastically different standards.

Pretty much agree 100% with this. The 2011 project was great for the most part, but the 2014 was bad enough that I just lost interest in RealGM. Way too many agendas, and the biggest problem is that people will use criteria to put one player in at a spot, but not extend it to others. One rank PER will be a big reason, then the next rank RAPM will take over, and the next it will be about MVPs. A the end of the day, everyone has their own criteria(whether it be peak, overall career, RAPM, titles on team that never won before lol, etc.), but...everyone should be consistent with their reasoning. Shifting criteria always signals agendas to me.

That said, I do wish the voting panel good luck, these projects can be fun and educational at the same time. Forgot this place still existed, but glad it's still active. My only suggestion would be to settle on solid voting process, otherwise things will devolve into madness. During the 2014 project, I felt a better way to go about things would have been to nominate players from each era(Pre-ABA, Pre-3pt line, Expansion era, Post-Lockout)....and then vote from that group at each rank. Mainly because these projects are loooonnnng, lose people over time otherwise, and it keeps interest. So for example, in the first nomination thread you would have discussions for the best of each era, and then a vote. This makes things more manageable instead of the clusterbleep that usually occurs. For the pre-ABA era you would have names like Russell, Wilt, Mikan, Baylor, West thrown around. Much easy for nominations to compare players who played at the same time and under similar rules. Pre-3pt line era would group players like KAJ, Walton, and Dr. J together. Expansion era would have Magic, Bird, MJ...again much more comparable out the gate. Post-lockout would be Shaq, Kobe, TD, Lebron, etc. From there, you have the voting panel choose between the 4 nominees of each era. A much harder task due to differing eras, but better to have that task later than when it comes to nominations(just gets ugly and tiresome for many). Could even simply take 2 nominees from each era and then you have a nice ballot of eight players to vote on. Once a player is selected, you only have to have a nominating thread from that era.

Just a bit of advice, and again good luck.

[MisterHibachi]

I don't think I know enough about the earlier players to deserve a vote, but I would like to participate in the discussion if possible, and maybe vote if I do an have opinion on the players being considered at the time.

[Quotatious]

The 2011 project was great for the most part, but the 2014 was bad enough that I just lost interest in RealGM. Way too many agendas, and the biggest problem is that people will use criteria to put one player in at a spot, but not extend it to others. One rank PER will be a big reason, then the next rank RAPM will take over, and the next it will be about MVPs. A the end of the day, everyone has their own criteria(whether it be peak, overall career, RAPM, titles on team that never won before lol, etc.), but...everyone should be consistent with their reasoning. Shifting criteria always signals agendas to me.

There isn't much difference between 2011 and 2014 projects in terms of the approach that the participants had. There was a lot of inconsistency both times. It's just that some new stats were available in 2014, so there was more that we could rely on. Let's be real, the reason why you (and any Kobe fan) strongly dislikes the 2014 project, is the fact that KG was ranked over Kobe, which strongly opposes the so-called "conventional wisdom" and is just too hard to swallow for you guys. Ardee even openly stated that making sure Kobe gets voted over KG in 2017 project, is the main purprose of him participating in it...Anybody with that type of approach should be pretty much disqualified from participating, if you ask me. It's not about rankings, it's about discussion. Even if someone posted a decent GOAT argument for, let's say, Allen Iverson (as incredulous as it may seem at first glance) I would listen to it, as long as the reasoning would make sense (I don't think it's possible to make a GOAT argument for AI, but you know what I mean, it's just a theoretical example).

[mischievous]

Well the time is upon us to do another Top 100 of All-Time project. PLEASE READ ALL OF THIS OP TO BE FAMILIAR WITH THE PROCESS AND GUIDELINES

Links to prior lists:
Doctor MJ's spreadsheet with information back to 2006 and some 2003
RealGM Top 100 List 2008
RealGM Top 100 List 2011
Poster Pre-Lists from before 2014 project
RealGM Top 100 List 2014


Anyone and everyone is free to participate in the discussion during the course of this project. However, the voter pool will be pre-approved by a panel of moderators. Tenured posters in good standing will be allowed into the voter pool immediately.
Newer/less-known posters or posters with questionable records may be asked to participate in the discussion WITHOUT being allowed a counted vote for a few threads, to demonstrate capable knowledge, genuine intent, and ability to converse in a respectful manner. If they pass this “trial period”, they will then be made eligible voters.

Pending details of user record and history, the “trial period” may be longer and more arduous for some than it is for others.

But here’s the important part: YOU MUST STATE YOUR DESIRE TO VOTE IN THE PROJECT IN THIS THREAD.


This top 100 list is to comprise the greatest in all of BAA/NBA/ABA history (EDIT: where Mikan is concerned, you may also consider NBL as far back as '47). I am not going to stipulate a specific criteria that we all must follow. Everyone is free to be guided by their own values as to their ranking. However, the one thing I do ask [given this is to be an ALL-TIME list] is that you consider ALL players from all eras of BAA/NBA/ABA history.

I know there are a few individuals who only rank players post-merger or some other relatively arbitrary cut-off. For the purposes of this project, that is simply inadequate. I ask that you familiarize yourself [to the best of your ability] with players from all eras (going back as far as the BAA), and from the ABA as well, so that you can make educated speculations on the appropriate rank of players in an “all-time” sense.

If you do not feel up to that task, I would ask that you be up front about this and refrain from voting in the project (though please still participate in the discussion).


Given we are not forcing a specific set of criteria on posters, please be aware as we move thru this project that the criteria of other posters will often differ from your own. As such, there isn’t always a “right and wrong” in much of this…...just differing value systems. Please hold that in mind and be respectful to one and other.

If you’re going to participate, I would like it if you would take a little time [if you haven’t already done so] to outline your criteria in this thread:

Official Criteria Thread

That way, anyone you are debating with/against can at least get an idea of where you’re coming from.


The project is likely to start at the end of June and will take ~8 months to finish. It’s a long process, and I hope those participating stick with it to the end (imo, it’s a lot of the later positions that get interesting, as there’s so much less separating each individual place once we’re past ~#50).
While the resulting list is always a big curiosity for me, too, it’s the discussion that I hope we can make vibrant, textured, and useful for future reference.


If there are no major objections, the process will be the same as on the 2014 project:
1) We will vote for one position/rank at a time, starting at #1 and proceeding to #100.
2) Each eligible voter can cast their vote for ONE player. Votes MUST be accompanied by some arguments that demonstrate you have given serious consideration to your choice (i.e. something like “won six MVP’s” or “highest ppg of all-time” or similar is not adequate; your vote will not be counted if adequate justification is not provided).
3) You may change your vote if you feel compelled to do so. If you do wish to change your vote, please edit your original vote post and otherwise just give me a heads-up post that you’ve changed your vote.
4) The vote for each thread/position will be open for ~48 hours. At the end of that 48-hour period if one player has a majority of the total vote, that player will be awarded the rank being voted on. If no single player has a majority of the vote, we will enter a 24-hour run-off vote between the top 2 vote recipients (or rarely the top 3, in event of a tie). If your original vote was cast for one of the players in the run-off, you do NOT need to repeat your vote once we go into run-off (your original vote will simply be counted). i.e. only vote in the run-off if you original vote was NOT for one of the two run-off contestants (or if you wish to change your original vote).
5) We (the panel of moderators) will be watching closely for any evidence of collusion or “manipulation” of the vote. If we become suspicious an individual is participating in this manner, he or she may be removed from the voter panel, pending further investigation and/or trial period. EDIT: those guilty of any other general misbehavior may also be removed from the voter panel.


I think that’s about it. Again, if you want to vote, please make your request here. Any questions, concerns, etc you may have, now is the time to ask as well.

Voter Panel
trex_8063
eminence
Colbini
Clyde Frazier
Quotatious

PaulieWal
Texas Chuck
drza
Dr Spaceman
fpliii

Hornet Mania
Eddy_JukeZ
SactoKingsFan
Blackmill
JordansBulls

RSCD3_
BasketballFan7
micahclay
PockyCandy
ardee

RCM88x
Tesla
Joao Saraiva
LA Bird
MyUniBroDavis

kayess
2klegend
penbeast0
MisterHibachi
70sFan

Can you add me on? I'm not sure how good my arguments will be but i'll give it a go.

[trex_8063]

Can you add me on? I'm not sure how good my arguments will be but i'll give it a go.

Done.

[Doctor MJ]

I'd like to be included.

[trex_8063]

I'd like to be included.

Of course. Was hoping you'd enter your voice to the project.

[THKNKG]

I'd like to propose an alternative voting option, so I'd welcome opinions. With there being spots where there could be as many as 5+ candidates mentioned, I feel that using the single transferable vote method would be really beneficial, as it gives a clearer indicator of who the majority truly want, and prevents (to some degree) the need for strategic voting.

Here's an example. Let's say we're somewhere around the 10-12 spots, and the results are as follows: Kobe - 40%, Karl Malone - 30%, David Robinson - 20%, others - 10%.

Now, it would typically end up being - Kobe has the majority, so he wins.


However, this doesn't take into account this: what if those who voted for others/DRob (or even Malone) would have voted for a non-Kobe candidate as their second choice? Put another way, what if 8/20 voted for Kobe, but the 6/20 that voted for Malone and the 4/20 that voted for DRob all had the same person (Jerry West, let's say) as their second choice. That would mean Jerry was 10/20 as the second choice, and Kobe was only 8/20.

Therefore, this is where the STV comes into play. Candidates must have a majority: 50%. If a candidate gets 50% they win. If not, that's where this happens.

Another example: #1 pick. Let's say 20 people vote. 8 people vote MJ, 2 vote Wilt, 6 vote Russell, and 4 vote Kareem. Jordan doesn't have the majority, so what do we do? Well, in this system, everyone has the option of ranking their players in order (ex. 1. Wilt, 2. Russell, 3. Kareem, etc.).

If no majority is reached, the smallest vote getter (in this case wilt), has their votes transferred to their second place winner (for the sake of ease, we'll say both voted Jordan as #2). Those votes get bumped to Jordan, giving him the majority he needs. If it doesn't give a majority, the next lowest (in this case Kareem) has their vote transferred to their second place winner.

Just an option I feel would allow for fairer voting. You can vote what you truly feel on your first vote, and not have to worry about strategy, as your 2,3,4,5th votes cover that part.

This was long winded, but I feel it would be really beneficial. Thoughts?

[janmagn]

I'd like to propose an alternative voting option, so I'd welcome opinions. With there being spots where there could be as many as 5+ candidates mentioned, I feel that using the single transferable vote method would be really beneficial, as it gives a clearer indicator of who the majority truly want, and prevents (to some degree) the need for strategic voting.

Here's an example. Let's say we're somewhere around the 10-12 spots, and the results are as follows: Kobe - 40%, Karl Malone - 30%, David Robinson - 20%, others - 10%.

Now, it would typically end up being - Kobe has the majority, so he wins.


However, this doesn't take into account this: what if those who voted for others/DRob (or even Malone) would have voted for a non-Kobe candidate as their second choice? Put another way, what if 8/20 voted for Kobe, but the 6/20 that voted for Malone and the 4/20 that voted for DRob all had the same person (Jerry West, let's say) as their second choice. That would mean Jerry was 10/20 as the second choice, and Kobe was only 8/20.

Therefore, this is where the STV comes into play. Candidates must have a majority: 50%. If a candidate gets 50% they win. If not, that's where this happens.

Another example: #1 pick. Let's say 20 people vote. 8 people vote MJ, 2 vote Wilt, 6 vote Russell, and 4 vote Kareem. Jordan doesn't have the majority, so what do we do? Well, in this system, everyone has the option of ranking their players in order (ex. 1. Wilt, 2. Russell, 3. Kareem, etc.).

If no majority is reached, the smallest vote getter (in this case wilt), has their votes transferred to their second place winner (for the sake of ease, we'll say both voted Jordan as #2). Those votes get bumped to Jordan, giving him the majority he needs. If it doesn't give a majority, the next lowest (in this case Kareem) has their vote transferred to their second place winner.

Just an option I feel would allow for fairer voting. You can vote what you truly feel on your first vote, and not have to worry about strategy, as your 2,3,4,5th votes cover that part.

This was long winded, but I feel it would be really beneficial. Thoughts?

Sounds very interesting and something worth a try in my opinion

Lähetetty minun LG-H440n laitteesta Tapatalkilla

[Dr Positivity]

I will participate

[trex_8063]

I'd like to propose an alternative voting option, so I'd welcome opinions. With there being spots where there could be as many as 5+ candidates mentioned, I feel that using the single transferable vote method would be really beneficial, as it gives a clearer indicator of who the majority truly want, and prevents (to some degree) the need for strategic voting.

Here's an example. Let's say we're somewhere around the 10-12 spots, and the results are as follows: Kobe - 40%, Karl Malone - 30%, David Robinson - 20%, others - 10%.

Now, it would typically end up being - Kobe has the majority, so he wins.

This isn't quite how it would work (sorry if it wasn't clear enough from the OP).

But 40% isn't a majority, is it? In your hypothetical scenario, Kobe received more votes than anyone else, yes......but he did NOT obtain a majority; the majority (60%, to be precise) went to someone other than Kobe.
The method I've proposed (which was used in the last project) was if a single player received a majority (that is: >50% of the total vote), they win the spot. If no one receives >50% of the total vote, then we would enter a 24-hour run-off vote between the top two recipients (that would be Kobe and Karl, in your above hypothetical). Whoever then wins the run-off gets the spot.


At any rate, I was planning on presenting an alternate voting system (once the voter panel is more fully fleshed out), to see if people wanted something different. What I was thinking of (and which should potentially satisfy your concerns) was a ballot system, similar to how the MVP vote is done (except we won't go 5 ballots deep).

Gimme a day or two, and I will present alternate options (and I'll quote everyone involved to grab their attention).

[trex_8063]

I will participate

Done.

[THKNKG]

I'd like to propose an alternative voting option, so I'd welcome opinions. With there being spots where there could be as many as 5+ candidates mentioned, I feel that using the single transferable vote method would be really beneficial, as it gives a clearer indicator of who the majority truly want, and prevents (to some degree) the need for strategic voting.

Here's an example. Let's say we're somewhere around the 10-12 spots, and the results are as follows: Kobe - 40%, Karl Malone - 30%, David Robinson - 20%, others - 10%.

Now, it would typically end up being - Kobe has the majority, so he wins.

This isn't quite how it would work (sorry if it wasn't clear enough from the OP).

But 40% isn't a majority, is it? In your hypothetical scenario, Kobe received more votes than anyone else, yes......but he did NOT obtain a majority; the majority (60%, to be precise) went to someone other than Kobe.
The method I've proposed (which was used in the last project) was if a single player received a majority (that is: >50% of the total vote), they win the spot. If no one receives >50% of the total vote, then we would enter a 24-hour run-off vote between the top two recipients (that would be Kobe and Karl, in your above hypothetical). Whoever then wins the run-off gets the spot.


At any rate, I was planning on presenting an alternate voting system (once the voter panel is more fully fleshed out), to see if people wanted something different. What I was thinking of (and which should potentially satisfy your concerns) was a ballot system, similar to how the MVP vote is done (except we won't go 5 ballots deep).

Gimme a day or two, and I will present alternate options (and I'll quote everyone involved to grab their attention).

Sounds good, I'm interested to see.

[An Unbiased Fan]

The 2011 project was great for the most part, but the 2014 was bad enough that I just lost interest in RealGM. Way too many agendas, and the biggest problem is that people will use criteria to put one player in at a spot, but not extend it to others. One rank PER will be a big reason, then the next rank RAPM will take over, and the next it will be about MVPs. A the end of the day, everyone has their own criteria(whether it be peak, overall career, RAPM, titles on team that never won before lol, etc.), but...everyone should be consistent with their reasoning. Shifting criteria always signals agendas to me.

There isn't much difference between 2011 and 2014 projects in terms of the approach that the participants had. There was a lot of inconsistency both times. It's just that some new stats were available in 2014, so there was more that we could rely on. Let's be real, the reason why you (and any Kobe fan) strongly dislikes the 2014 project, is the fact that KG was ranked over Kobe, which strongly opposes the so-called "conventional wisdom" and is just too hard to swallow for you guys. Ardee even openly stated that making sure Kobe gets voted over KG in 2017 project, is the main purprose of him participating in it...Anybody with that type of approach should be pretty much disqualified from participating, if you ask me. It's not about rankings, it's about discussion. Even if someone posted a decent GOAT argument for, let's say, Allen Iverson (as incredulous as it may seem at first glance) I would listen to it, as long as the reasoning would make sense (I don't think it's possible to make a GOAT argument for AI, but you know what I mean, it's just a theoretical example).

Actually, my main problem with 2014 was the lack of discussion. I could care less whether KG was over Kobe, it was the shifting criteria that drove things down. I learned a ton about Russell for example, thanks to 2011 and the work people did analyzing his defensive impact, that's what I hope you guys can get in 2017. In 2014 something like RAPM would be used for player A, but not player B. I'm not really a fan of JordanBull's methodology, but he's consistent with it. People should use what ever they want to rank players, just use the same logic at each rank, and don't diverge away because it doesn't point to the player you would prefer at a spot.

But most of all, it seems many posts were simply ignored, and people would just pop in right before voting and drop a name with zero reasoning. There were great arguments from posters in 2014, but not enough actually discussion from the majority of the panel. 2011 was better in that regard. Definitely something to watchout for.

[trex_8063]

Might be proposing some changes to the voting procedure soon. And although this thread has been up for a few days, I wanted to better fill out the voter panel before I talk about changes to the procedure. So am once more pitching to various [mostly] clean record regs and brainy types that I think the project would benefit from their input (some of you I'm bothering for the second time).....any of you guys want to be part of the voter panel for this project?

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[Bad Gatorade]

So I don't know if I'd actually be able to participate as a voter... life has taken a busy turn for me, and I've taken some time off from here. But I'll try and throw in my 2c when I can

[trex_8063]

So I don't know if I'd actually be able to participate as a voter... life has taken a busy turn for me, and I've taken some time off from here. But I'll try and throw in my 2c when I can

Bad Gatorade, sorry I forgot about you. We'd definitely benefit from whatever participation you're able to provide. I'll add you to the panel.