EPTOn April 20 2018 23:33 c3rberUs wrote:
For every FlaSh there was a Stats
For every Jaedong there was an OzSucksBallsWithoutMe
Seriously though, I didn't think much about this angle of 'measuring' performance. I mean, yes the management of proleague entries and matchups are important in all matches but I never put thought into this. That said, unless stats are heavily skewed, I think credit should be given credit and it shouldn't diminish a player's reputation.
For every FlaSh there was a Stats
For every Jaedong there was an OzSucksBallsWithoutMe
Seriously though, I didn't think much about this angle of 'measuring' performance. I mean, yes the management of proleague entries and matchups are important in all matches but I never put thought into this. That said, unless stats are heavily skewed, I think credit should be given credit and it shouldn't diminish a player's reputation.
I see little problem with players having success under ridiculous circumstances being ridiculed, especially if the said player was unable to duplicate his success outside of those outlandish fortunes of circumstance.
There were numerous players with serious flaws to their game that would have been exposed in any well designed competitive platform, yet were allowed to find success in the ProLeague based on that narrow spectrum of skill for a sustained period of time.
There's so much nuance required for drawing conclusions from ProLeague records, due to how it is one of the worst metrics to compare players from different eras, and how the match-up distribution for various players varies so much more than other competitive platforms, yet I have seen people quote it casually as if we were discussing overall individual league title count.
This blog was written not to deny these players' right to claim excellence under specific circumstances, but rather pointing out one of the many dangers of taking ProLeague records at face value.
