RealGM

HeartBreakKid wrote:How's about for tie-breakers we just do a sudden-death type of thing? Next vote wins (like Pen voted a bit after the tie breaker for Pierce).

MLS style penalty shoot-out >>>>

2 issues with sudden death:

1. To do it right, it requires constant monitoring. I'm looking to check on stuff once per day.

2. The reality is that folks had the opportunity to be the deciding vote this last time and opted not to. Sure if I force sudden death as the policy that might change the behavior, but clearly there's a bit of an aversion to playing that role.

There's actually a really simple solution if we want to ever avoid runoff:

Thread runner breaks ties.

If I'm tallying and see it's a tie that I haven't weighed in on, I give the nod to one guy and he wins.
If I'm tallying and see it's a tie that I have weighted in on, I remove my nod to one guy and he loses.

In this particular case, that would still have meant that Pierce won, just ftr.

Let me know what y'all think. I'll simply start doing this if it seems like what people would prefer.

This is our first poll, I am not concerned with changing the run-off formatting. Maybe if every other vote starts going to a poll then it would be worth changing, but sporadic instances seem fine.

Hey, Looking to have a vote by the 50th Mark. Want to engage in more conversation and immerse myself to build some mental dedication towards this project.

What are the guidelines for getting a vote?

HeartBreakKid wrote:I think we should consider changing voting system again.

Now that we are getting to the half way mark, votes are starting to split in many different directions for nominations and there is now a huge amount of disfranchisement in the most recent threads, and it's likely going to be like this for 50 more threads.

I haven't read most of the threads so feel free to disregard if this process has been tried and failed. The further you move down the list the more viable candidate there are. That's the essential problem this project always faces, besides waning interest the further you move down.

I'd recommend a two round voting process

Stage 1: Every voter recommends 3 candidates for the run-off votes with weights (3 for tentative first).

Stage 1 should be very brief.

Stage top 3 candidates move forth with discussion limited to those 3 candidates. 1 vote for first.

WintaSoldier1 wrote:Hey, Looking to have a vote by the 50th Mark. Want to engage in more conversation and immerse myself to build some mental dedication towards this project.

What are the guidelines for getting a vote?

Keep it up a bit longer so I can confirm you're consistently participating now that you're on my radar.

Beyond that:

a) Be respectful of others.
b) Aim to be participate consistently and vote with each thread.

Let me know if you have further questions Winta!

sp6r=underrated wrote:

HeartBreakKid wrote:I think we should consider changing voting system again.

Now that we are getting to the half way mark, votes are starting to split in many different directions for nominations and there is now a huge amount of disfranchisement in the most recent threads, and it's likely going to be like this for 50 more threads.

I haven't read most of the threads so feel free to disregard if this process has been tried and failed. The further you move down the list the more viable candidate there are. That's the essential problem this project always faces, besides waning interest the further you move down.

I'd recommend a two round voting process

Stage 1: Every voter recommends 3 candidates for the run-off votes with weights (3 for tentative first).

Stage 1 should be very brief.

Stage top 3 candidates move forth with discussion limited to those 3 candidates. 1 vote for first.

So I'll just say that I'm reluctant to add more complexity to the system. More complexity would make for slightly better preference calibration, but I don't think it would help the discussion/disfranchisement.

Doctor MJ wrote:

sp6r=underrated wrote:

HeartBreakKid wrote:I think we should consider changing voting system again.

Now that we are getting to the half way mark, votes are starting to split in many different directions for nominations and there is now a huge amount of disfranchisement in the most recent threads, and it's likely going to be like this for 50 more threads.

I haven't read most of the threads so feel free to disregard if this process has been tried and failed. The further you move down the list the more viable candidate there are. That's the essential problem this project always faces, besides waning interest the further you move down.

I'd recommend a two round voting process

Stage 1: Every voter recommends 3 candidates for the run-off votes with weights (3 for tentative first).

Stage 1 should be very brief.

Stage top 3 candidates move forth with discussion limited to those 3 candidates. 1 vote for first.

So I'll just say that I'm reluctant to add more complexity to the system. More complexity would make for slightly better preference calibration, but I don't think it would help the discussion/disfranchisement.

I also cringe a little at the idea of changing the rules halfway through (unless we're hit with a scenario that really forces your hand).

At most, I'd be open to widening the list of candidates to SIX players per thread, which actually isn't even without precident in the project already (we've had six candidates in prior threads......could just make it the norm down the back-half of the project).

I don't really care what rules we use as long as we are consistent so I vote for no changes unless necessary. Going to 6 isn't a problem though because, as you said, we've been doing that off and on.

Doctor MJ wrote:

sp6r=underrated wrote:

HeartBreakKid wrote:I think we should consider changing voting system again.

Now that we are getting to the half way mark, votes are starting to split in many different directions for nominations and there is now a huge amount of disfranchisement in the most recent threads, and it's likely going to be like this for 50 more threads.

I haven't read most of the threads so feel free to disregard if this process has been tried and failed. The further you move down the list the more viable candidate there are. That's the essential problem this project always faces, besides waning interest the further you move down.

I'd recommend a two round voting process

Stage 1: Every voter recommends 3 candidates for the run-off votes with weights (3 for tentative first).

Stage 1 should be very brief.

Stage top 3 candidates move forth with discussion limited to those 3 candidates. 1 vote for first.

So I'll just say that I'm reluctant to add more complexity to the system. More complexity would make for slightly better preference calibration, but I don't think it would help the discussion/disfranchisement.

I don't think this suggestion would be a big complexity change and I think would benefit "disfranchisement":

AEnigma wrote:The only real change I might suggest is to look at the top three nominees to start rather than the top two.To some extent people should be paying attention to whether their nomination ordering makes sense (e.g. if you are the only person voting for or nominating a player, you should be prepared to make them your alternate if listing them as your primary is sabotaging your intended alternates).

Another idea might be to count the top two based on primaries… and then also add in whomever had the most alternate votes as a third. Say we have a hypothetical initial nomination distribution of 1-1-3-4-2, but the voters for Players B, C, and E all have Player A as their alternate (Player D voters declined to list any). So then you go to the second round, and the count becomes 4-0-3-4-0, and then third round the count becomes 7-0-0-4-0. That is an extreme hypothetical which to some extent I would expect to solve itself (if two people switch their order, that would suffice), but the potential marginalisation of the most popular secondary votes is the only major “flaw” I see in the present system.

Not sure which one is a better solition(i imagine the first one is a trivial adjustment in terms of complexity though) but I'd advocate for one of the two being implemented with nominees and inductees in mind

Linking this thread so people can access the discussion easily even if it falls off the front page.

At the 2/3rds mark I support expanding to six possible candidates.

Modernish guys I'd like to see still make the ballot at some point, have any been discussed at length yet?

Paul George
Rudy Gobert
Jrue Holiday
Damian Lillard
Kyle Lowry
Shawn Marion
Rasheed Wallace

eminence wrote:Modernish guys I'd like to see still make the ballot at some point, have any been discussed at length yet?

Paul George
Rudy Gobert
Jrue Holiday
Damian Lillard
Kyle Lowry
Shawn Marion
Rasheed Wallace

Rasheed Wallace is the only one that people talked about at this point.

eminence wrote:Modernish guys I'd like to see still make the ballot at some point, have any been discussed at length yet?

Paul George
Rudy Gobert
Jrue Holiday
Damian Lillard
Kyle Lowry
Shawn Marion
Rasheed Wallace

Jrue? He is a 2 time all-star, only 1 ring where he wasn't that great (He had great plays, but kind of 'meh' the rest of the post-season). Doesn't have the stats (150+ scoring, 39 in assists but lots of ok guys ahead of him)

Dame was 85 in 2020; 53 on hoopshype list. I have to assume he will be coming up soon.

PG is interesting due to high peaks and just now getting some traction on longevity stats (95 in scoring)

Always love speculating how another 2 years of MVP/All NBA/Stats will impact the listing. Like Jokic could jump 10 spots in the next 2 years assuming he wins MVP this year and has some post-season success. Does Giannis plateau a bit or does he put together a finals run that probably gets him Top 20 (after adding another 2 years of stats and first-team to his resume)

eminence wrote:Modernish guys I'd like to see still make the ballot at some point, have any been discussed at length yet?

Paul George
Rudy Gobert
Jrue Holiday
Damian Lillard
Kyle Lowry
Shawn Marion
Rasheed Wallace

I’d rather vote for Tatum and Doncic than some of these guys

Jrue is probably in my top 100, but still a ways away. I have him at the bottom of that list of names.

Number of all-star appearances is not an especially meaningful marker. For example, Manu also only has two.

Dr Positivity wrote:

eminence wrote:Modernish guys I'd like to see still make the ballot at some point, have any been discussed at length yet?

Paul George
Rudy Gobert
Jrue Holiday
Damian Lillard
Kyle Lowry
Shawn Marion
Rasheed Wallace

I’d rather vote for Tatum and Doncic than some of these guys

I definitely think it makes sense to look at Tatum & Doncic in with these other guys.

Tatum in particular is a guy I think we need to not overlook. He's generally less respected than the top players of his generation, but his impact indicators are quite consistent, he isn't injury prone, and he's had a ton of playoff success.

Doncic I'm expecting will get a serious push from others at some point soon. Obviously I'm more of a skeptic there, and I think pretty much all of these guys have a better track record for impact - along with better longevity - than Luka does.

George makes total sense as a candidate. I tend to hold it against him that he seemed to blame the Pacers for not doing anything really wrong other than succeed beyond expectations when George was young, along with the fact that the team really didn't miss him afterward. I don't trust him as a franchise player.

Gobert I've been expecting people to start championing, and I'll also say that it's a damn shame that they gave KAT the all-star nod over him. I still have skepticism of him in the playoffs though.

Jrue is a guy I thought I might champion if the Bucks had a great playoff run last year but felt like a non-starter as a candidate after horrific upset loss - granted only the first with Holiday. And yeah he's only a two-time all-star, but that's because the voters are wrong. If you trusted them you'd think draftmate DeRozan had the better career, but I think the answer is Jrue by a wide margin.

While it's wrong to say that Dame has slipped relative to last time at this point, I'm not surprised that support for him has been soft given the soft start to his time in Milwaukee. Going to a win-or-bust team and seeming to make them more likely to bust really doesn't help. Still seems like a guy we need to be discussing in the near future.

Lowry is a guy I've thought championing last project and so I certainly see the case for him, but the foundation of that candidacy was the time in Toronto with his pre-Raptor career basically being without much to speak of, and now that he's ending his career once again irrelevant on his non-Raptor teams, it's hard to get behind him that much.

I'm low on Marion compared to most. I think he absolutely had the chance to have a clear cut Top 100 career. Unfortunately, he developed a horrendous attitude and pushed his way out of the only place he ever looked like a star. Clearly the fact that he eventually landed in Dallas and played as a role player on a champion really washed away the bitter taste for many, but I think folks should never forget that this was a man who thought he was capable of going from a 20 PPG guy in Phoenix to a 30 PPG on another team, and instead his scoring went down and the first two post-Phoenix teams pretty quickly realized he really wasn't that useful to them.

And then there's Sheed was had an attitude worse than Marion's in many ways, but always stayed impactful, and actually seemed to prefer being a supporting player on a contender to having to do heavy lifting as opposed not liking the former and being utterly incapable of the latter like Marion was.

In terms of who I'd be siding with next, I honestly think it might be Tatum. If not him, probably Sheed.

Doctor MJ wrote:I'm low on Marion compared to most. I think he absolutely had the chance to have a clear cut Top 100 career. Unfortunately, he developed a horrendous attitude and pushed his way out of the only place he ever looked like a star. Clearly the fact that he eventually landed in Dallas and played as a role player on a champion really washed away the bitter taste for many, but I think folks should never forget that this was a man who thought he was capable of going from a 20 PPG guy in Phoenix to a 30 PPG on another team, and instead his scoring went down and the first two post-Phoenix teams pretty quickly realized he really wasn't that useful to them.

On Marion my impression is

- you seem to have been pretty negative on him
- that seems to have been driven by an intangible perspective, especially regarding his departure from Phoenix.

I do recall he was unhappy at his status, that he perhaps wasn't promoted enough, that he didn't always see eye to eye with the coaches (e.g. some thought he was much better at the 4), that he'd made a request to be traded ...

But you also go further that he saw himself as a first option type, in this instance a "30ppg" guy. I don't have a recollection of that particular angle which isn't to say it say it isn't true. Do you have sources on him seeing himself in that light? Thanks.