|
Braavos36372 Posts
Is it possible to quantify the StarLeague finishes? Looking at the great history threads for the OSL and MSL, created by jkillashark, we can take the Top 4 finishes of all the StarLeagues and rank them.
For ease of analysis, let’s limit the placements to Top 4 and eliminate any difference between 3rd and 4th, as some tournaments (MSL) did not have a 3rd/4th match.
We can assign point values to every placement. For example, the easiest point system would be to make a StarLeague win equal 3 points, second equal 2 points, and semifinal appearance equal 1 point. However, we would end up with results like this:
- OSL Iloveoov – 2 Win, 0 Second, 2 Semi – 8 Points
- OSL Yellow – 0 Win, 2 Second, 5 Semi – 9 Points
I think very few people agree that Yellow has had a better OSL career than Iloveoov. Judging by the polls in the old Consistent vs Champion thread, TL.net users valued a first place much more than the 3-2-1 point system, which would make a StarLeague win equal to one second and one third place finish.
Yellow never had stats like this.
So how do we create a ratio between first and second place finishes that does justice to how much more important wins are? Let’s take a look at the most important sample case under the 3-2-1 point system:
- OSL Nada – 3 Win, 1 Second, 0 Semi – 11 points
- OSL Boxer – 2 Win, 4 Second, 1 Semi – 15 points
We know Boxer is the pioneer that took ProGaming to where it is now, but just looking at tournament finishes, who had the better career between him and Nada? Many people would argue that Nada does, especially since he is 3-1 in the Finals while Boxer is 2-4.
Winning #4 would've made the OSL Boxer vs OSL Nada argument much easier.
While I personally disagree and believe wins are much, much more important than second places, an argument can be made that it is very close between these two players, since Boxer appeared in six OSL finals and Nada only 4. However, nobody can really argue that 15 points to 11 points with Boxer on top is the correct ratio for evaluating their careers.
If we want it to be closer or if we want Nada on top, we would have to make wins much more valuable. A 4-2-1 (1st-2nd-Semi) point distribution would give Nada 14 points and Boxer 17, while a 6-2-1 would have Nada at 20 and Boxer at 21. Thus the main question remains:
Do three second places equal a StarLeague win?
Because that is what a 6-2-1 point system is saying. If we polled the players and the fans, I suppose there would be some disagreement, but judging by the “Consistent vs Champion” thread, many people on TL believe a win is worth an indefinable number of second places. Obviously we cannot make a win worth 1000 points and a second place worth 1, but we can tweak it a bit. Let’s try a 7-2-1 system, which would make an OSL win worth slightly more than three runner-ups.
- OSL Nada – 3 Win, 1 Second, 0 Semi – 23 points
- OSL Boxer – 2 Win, 4 Second, 1 Semi – 23 points
- OSL July – 2 Win, 2 Second, 0 Semi – 18 points
- OSL Iloveoov – 2 Win, 0 Second, 2 Semi – 16 points
- OSL Yellow – 0 Win, 2 Second, 5 Semi – 9 points
While there is no completely accurate way to do this, 7-2-1 is pretty close. It puts Boxer and Nada tied, and places Iloveoov and July well above Yellow but keep Yellow above the one-hit OSL winners like Freemura or Sync.
Now let’s take a look at the big picture, including all OSL and MSL results. I’ve taken the liberty to only include the Top 10 players, as I don’t think anyone cares that Issac had a semifinal appearance back in 2001 (Coca-Cola OSL). I eliminated all players who only earned one 2nd place.
+ Show Spoiler [OSL Point Chart] +- 23 Pts. – Nada – 3 Win, 1 Second, 0 Semi
- 23 Pts. – Boxer – 2 Win, 4 Second, 1 Semi
- 18 Pts. – July – 2 Win, 2 Second, 0 Semi
- 16 Pts. – Iloveoov – 2 Win, 0 Second, 2 Semi
- 14 Pts. – Garimto – 2 Win, 0 Second, 0 Semi
- 11 Pts. – Reach – 1 Win, 1 Second, 2 Semi
- 9 Pts. – Anytime – 1 Win, 1 Second, 0 Semi
- 9 Pts. – Casy – 1 Win, 0 Second, 2 Semi
- 9 Pts. – Nal_rA – 1 Win, 1 Second, 0 Semi
- 9 Pts. – Yellow – 0 Win, 2 Second, 5 Semi
- 8 Pts. – Grrrr – 1 Win, 0 Second, 1 Semi
- 8 Pts. – Kingdom – 1 Win, 0 Second, 1 Semi
- 8 Pts. – Xellos – 1 Win, 0 Second, 1 Semi
- 7 Pts. – Freemura – 1 Win, 0 Second, 0 Semi
- 7 Pts. – Savior – 1 Win, 0 Second, 0 Semi
- 7 Pts. – Sync – 1 Win, 0 Second, 0 Semi
- 4 Pts. – HOT – 0 Win, 2 Second, 0 Semi
- 4 Pts. – GoodFriend – 0 Win, 1 Second, 2 Semi
- 3 Pts. – Junwi – 0 Win, 0 Second, 3 Semi
- 2 Pts. – GoRush – 0 Win, 0 Second, 2 Semi**
- 2 Pts. – Chrh – 0 Win, 0 Second, 2 Semi**
**Included for combined list
+ Show Spoiler [MSL Point Chart] +- 28 Pts. – Nada – 3 Win, 3 Second, 1 Semi
- 25 Pts. – Savior – 3 Win, 2 Second, 0 Semi
- 23 Pts. – Iloveoov – 3 Win, 0 Second, 2 Semi
- 13 Pts. – Nal_rA – 1 Win, 1 Second, 4 Semi
- 8 Pts. – Boxer – 1 Win, 0 Second, 1 Semi
- 7 Pts. – Bisu – 1 Win, 0 Second, 0 Semi
- 7 Pts. – GoRush – 1 Win, 0 Second, 0 Semi
- 6 Pts. – Yellow – 0 Win, 3 Second, 0 Semi
- 4 Pts. – Reach – 0 Win, 2 Second, 0 Semi
- 3 Pts. – Kingdom – 0 Win, 1 Second, 1 Semi
- 2 Pts. – Chrh – 0 Win, 0 Second, 2 Semi**
- 2 Pts. – GoodFriend – 0 Win, 0 Second, 2 Semi**
**Included for combined list
+ Show Spoiler [OSL + MSL Point Chart] +- 51 Pts. – Nada – 6 Win, 4 Second, 1 Semi
- 39 Pts. – Iloveoov – 5 Win, 0 Second, 4 Semi
- 32 Pts. – Savior – 4 Win, 2 Second, 0 Semi
- 31 Pts. – Boxer – 3 Win, 4 Second, 2 Semi
- 22 Pts. – Nal_rA – 2 Win, 2 Second, 4 Semi
- 18 Pts. – July – 2 Win, 2 Second, 0 Semi
- 15 Pts. – Reach – 1 Win, 3 Second, 2 Semi
- 15 Pts. – Yellow – 0 Win, 5 Second, 5 Semi
- 14 Pts. – Garimto – 2 Win, 0 Second, 0 Semi
- 11 Pts. – Kingdom – 1 Win, 1 Second, 2 Semi
- 9 Pts. – Anytime – 1 Win, 1 Second, 0 Semi
- 9 Pts. – Casy – 1 Win, 0 Second, 2 Semi
- 9 Pts. – GoRush – 1 Win, 0 Second, 2 Semi
- 9 Pts. – Xellos – 1 Win, 0 Second, 2 Semi
- 8 Pts. – Grrrr – 1 Win, 0 Second, 1 Semi
- 7 Pts. – Bisu – 1 Win, 0 Second, 0 Semi
- 7 Pts. – Freemura – 1 Win, 0 Second, 0 Semi
- 7 Pts. – Sync – 1 Win, 0 Second, 0 Semi
- 6 Pts. – GoodFriend – 0 Win, 1 Second, 4 Semi
- 4 Pts. – HOT – 0 Win, 2 Second, 0 Semi
- 4 Pts. – Chrh – 0 Win, 0 Second, 4 Semi
This final chart is assuming that an MSL win is equivalent to an OSL win. Since we know that the OSL has been more prestigious, there’s no concrete evidence that it’s been any harder to win an OSL title than MSL. Arguments can be made about format, number of players, qualification system, etc, but the easiest solution is to just make both leagues equal.
Interesting notes about stats:- Nada is #1 by quite a bit. Will anyone ever catch him?
- Savior has more points than Boxer. 4 wins, 2 losses vs 3 wins, 4 losses.
- Iloveoov is an amazing 5-0 in finals. Clutch player!
- It looks strange to have Yellow, who is 0-5 in finals, higher than Garimto, who is 2-0.
- For all the talk about one-win nobodies and parity, this list is actually quite small.
Chasing a Genius. The Maestro has won an OSL since this pic. Can he do it?
I understand that ProLeague, invite tournaments, and other factors (the “Boxer” effect) should be factored into the equation, but just looking at individual leagues, can this chart be used to quantitatively evaluate a player’s career?
Poll: Is this an accurate way to evaluate a player's OSL/MSL career?
(Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
(Vote): 7-2-1 is not an accurate ratio.
 
|
GrandInquisitor
New York City13113 Posts
# 32 Pts. – Savior – 4 Win, 2 Second, 0 Semi
# 31 Pts. – Boxer – 3 Win, 4 Second, 2 Semi
This is why I don't like the 7-2-1. Honestly, 4 wins and 2 second places beat 3 wins, 4 second places, and 2 semis?
It should be a 4-2-1, and:
* OSL Nada – 3 Win, 1 Second, 0 Semi – 11 points
* OSL Boxer – 2 Win, 4 Second, 1 Semi – 15 points
I don't buy that Nada did better in OSL than Boxer. I think it's pretty clear that even though they both participated in the same number of OSL's (approximately), Boxer made it to the final four 7 times while Nada made it only 4 times. That put his performance over NaDa's, in my book.
A 4-2-1 system gives, for OSL/MSL combined:
NaDa 33
Oov 24
Boxer 22
Savior 20
rA 16
Yellow 15
July 12
Reach 12
Garimto 8
Kingdom 8
And I find that list much more palatable.
|
Braavos36372 Posts
how is that more palatable
you have July, who has 2 OSL wins and 4 OSL appearances, below yellow, who has 0 OSL wins and 5 OSL appearances.
how can you reward someone for consistently losing when the pressure is on? 0-5 > 2-2?
edit: this is the old consistent vs champion debate.
should someone with a win or two be valued higher than someone with 10 top4s but no wins?
in my opinion wins should count a lot more because they occur when it matters. pressure situations are what define players' careers, and they should be judged in those situations.
you can keep going down the line, adding invite tournaments, top 10 finishes, qualifications, everything, all the way down to how many practice games they win. but the only thing separating them is pressure, and the most pressure is applied in the finals. thats why a finals win is that much more important than a loss.
would yellow trade all his 5 finals losses for ONE win? a true champion and competitor knows the answer to that, and it's a definitive YES.
|
I can't imagine a win being much better than two finals losses, if better at all. With the smaller 16 man OSL of old and late, a finals win means winning 4 rounds (with an implied early loss in the next league compared to...) two finals losses, which means getting through 3 rounds twice, with losses only against champion-caliber players.
3-2-1 works for me.
|
GrandInquisitor
New York City13113 Posts
the biggest problem I have, as I explained to you on AIM: You're ignoring -all- the results in which a player lost before the semis. You're punishing players who lose in semis and finals but not players who sucked too much to get to the final four in the first place.
The best measure of greatness is how many wins, finals, and semis you've made as a ratio over how many OSL's you entered into the first place.
|
Braavos36372 Posts
i just don't see how you can say that
4-2-1 -- two finals losses = 1 finals win
3-2-1 -- two finals losses > 1 finals win
that in my mind is so ridiculous, because if you go in any sport and ask the fans, players, historians, whatever, if they would value 2 runner ups vs 1 grand champion, and all of them would not even take the question seriously.
nobody remembers second place. it's nice to have on your resume but all it does is show how few wins you have.
OSL 4-2-1:
Iloveoov: 10
Yellow: 9
OSL 3-2-1:
Iloveoov: 8
Yellow: 9
Anyone looking at this would say, wow these players are close!
But we all know there's a huge world of difference between these two guys.
One is arguably the most dominant OSL player ever, and second or third all time, one of the five players to have 2 OSL wins, and the other guy is a perennial loser.
4-2-1, 3-2-1 are saying
2-0 finals and 4 overall top4s
vs
0-2 finals and 7 overall top4s
...are relatively similar careers.
|
GrandInquisitor
New York City13113 Posts
Okay, I think I've isolated it.
The problem is that neither side is taking into consideration how many leagues they entered into in the first place. But let us assume that everyone's entered into the same number of OSL's:
Given that, the reward you give for making it to the final four is vastly larger than the reward you give to those that win in the finals. Say everyone enters into 15 OSL's. One person wins exactly twice and loses in the first round ("chokes", if you will) thirteen times. The other makes it to the final four thirteen straight times but loses each time.
I would consider the second player to be far greater than the first. Clearly you would disagree, and that's a difference in opinion between us.
|
Braavos36372 Posts
anyone can make extreme cases like that.
lets say there are 10 OSLs.
Player A wins 4 times and loses in the first round 6 times.
Player B wins 0 times and loses in the finals 8 times, losing in the first round 2 times.
Looking at these two players' careers you would say B is equal or better according to 4-2-1 or 3-2-1.
But if we were to look at those from a ProGaming standpoint Player A would be the greatest player in OSL history while Player B would simply be a player remembered for always choking and making the finals a lot.
You don't see that huge difference?
If you factor in number of Starleagues entered Garimto would be #1 by a mile. Longevity should NOT be punished, but choking in the finals should.
|
I think you have to ask yourself what it is you are trying to measure. Is it how much they deserve to be in the history books or is it the difficulty of the achievement?
If it's the history books you should just count the wins straight off without adding points for the other places since you are right that no one cares about the 2nd place. And with such high point for the winner the list wouldn't really be that different.
But if it's about the achievement this system is too harsh to the 2nd - 4th placers. Yes, fans and experts care about the winner but it's not 3.5 times harder to win the final considering both players have to take the same extremely hard path until that last game.
|
I would recommend a 10-4-2-1 format.
10 for first
4 or second
2 for semis
1 for qualifying
I think it is an accomplishment in itself to consistently qualify for the OSL and it should be rewarded. This system keeps a win more than twice as valuable than a 2nd place finish but still leaves enough room to give a small reward to those who are consistent but never win.
|
7-2-1 totally isnt fair
a first place shouldnt rank more than 3 times of a second place, i mean yellow shouldnt be lower than a one hit wonder i.e casy
runner - ups should count more 
|
United States20661 Posts
I really don't know what you have against YellOw.
The main contention I have is against the middle ranks:
# 9 Pts. – Anytime – 1 Win, 1 Second, 0 Semi
# 9 Pts. – Casy – 1 Win, 0 Second, 2 Semi
# 9 Pts. – Nal_rA – 1 Win, 1 Second, 0 Semi
# 9 Pts. – Yellow – 0 Win, 2 Second, 5 Semi
# 8 Pts. – Grrrr – 1 Win, 0 Second, 1 Semi
# 8 Pts. – Kingdom – 1 Win, 0 Second, 1 Semi
# 8 Pts. – Xellos – 1 Win, 0 Second, 1 Semi
# 7 Pts. – Freemura – 1 Win, 0 Second, 0 Semi
# 7 Pts. – Savior – 1 Win, 0 Second, 0 Semi
# 7 Pts. – Sync – 1 Win, 0 Second, 0 Semi
I don't think Anytime should be over YellOw. He is incredibly inconsistent. Yes, in those two OSLs where he got first and second, he did very well. But he sucks at qualifying for them in the first place, and also seems to be very bad at winning when he's seeded.
Then there's Casy. He basically won that OSL over YellOw - the series against ChOJJa was quite one sided, and JJu went 0-6 in final four. So in a sense, the brackets screwed YellOw there. But he won, which is nice and all - but he basically only had to play TvT and TvZ. On very Terran maps. In one StarLeague. I like his style, but, as Pressure said, he seems to be a one-hit wonder.
rA in OSL.. maybe yes, he should be higher than YellOw. Overall most consistent Protoss - between him and Reach. And he wins StarLeagues other than Findall FreeMarket Open Challenger StarLeague or whatever that one was called.
Then YellOw. 2 finals, 5 semis. In several he dropped to Terrans on horrible maps [NFZ, HoV, DoB, NJS, basically all islands and then some] 2-3. Maps and scores should be some consideration, I think. I mean, YellOw's 0-3 against BoxeR was ugly. So was July's 0-3 against oov. Such things should be valued less than a solid 2-3 series. I don't know how those points would work. You COULD have it be that taking a set at finals is worth x number of points, and a set at semis is x number of points, etc.
Grrrr... Ok. Whatever. He pioneered progaming and all that, but as a player? Did you watch those games? 12 hatchery cracklings with 24 sunken walls? Lurkerling in ZvZ? Amusing, I suppose.
Kingdom is a nice player. Took an OSL. Not too consistent though. Either demonstrates incredible micro/macro/sense, or looks like a complete fool. So while he gives us gems like Kingdom vs Rage, he also gives us.. not so good matches like Kingdom vs July.
sAviOr's one OSL win already puts him that high on the chart. But it forgets his complete inability to even pass INTO StarLeague for several years - even when he was doing so well in MSL.
Main issues for me: consistency is not valued. series scores are not valued. first place still overrated. maps not valued (I suppose difficult to do so, though). matchups throughout the path not valued.
P.S. I don't see why some people like Silver get the stick for being good at one MU (ZvP), decent at the mirror, and absolutely atrocious at the other. Casy is similarly good at one MU (ZvT), decent at the mirror, and atrocious in TvP. Casy is a smarter player, with greater sense, but Silver isn't as bad as people make him out to be.
Similarly, why does Shine get bashed for cheesing every game, whereas UpMagic does not?
|
Braavos36372 Posts
On May 30 2007 16:30 tenbagger wrote:
I would recommend a 10-4-2-1 format.
10 for first
4 or second
2 for semis
1 for qualifying
I think it is an accomplishment in itself to consistently qualify for the OSL and it should be rewarded. This system keeps a win more than twice as valuable than a 2nd place finish but still leaves enough room to give a small reward to those who are consistent but never win.
i believe that simply qualifying for two starleagues is not worth a 3rd place (child vs iris)
On May 30 2007 16:33 Pressure wrote:7-2-1 totally isnt fair a first place shouldnt rank more than 3 times of a second place, i mean yellow shouldnt be lower than a one hit wonder i.e casy runner - ups should count more
Yellow isn't below any one hit wonder, in fact he's above Garimto
To LastRomantic:
I agree it's a flawed system, but there's no objective way to evaluate maps or matchups. the 0-3 vs 2-3 scores are debatable, but many would argue that a win is a win, and it's 1 title to 0 titles regardless of how close the loser got.
regarding Grrrr, there's no one consensus point where the OSL became "hard" so you can't discount wins from before a certain time period. you could argue that yes it's harder to win an OSL now than before player-field wise, but given the practice resources, sponsors, etc of today, it might have actually been harder real-life wise.
it'd be very difficult to come up with a "difficulty" rating for each OSL, which would include analyzing the parity and average win percentages of all the participants, total playerbase, # of progamers, even salaries. it's similar for saying player X won with only one matchup while player Y won with easy maps, etc. i'm sure there's a way to attempt to analyze it, but we simply don't have the time or resources to make an accurate assessment of it.
RE: Casy, Yellow, Anytime, Savior, and qualifying
You can argue that it's infinitely harder to qualify for Starleague when Savior was trying to qualify for it than when Yellow was. Coming out of modern prelims and ODT is much, much different than what Yellow did earlier.
Also, I agree that valuing qualification is one of the main flaws of this rating system, but look at it this way:
You see a player qualifying as something to be rewarded, ie +1 point for qualifying.
But I see that qualifying more should inherently reward the player already because he gets another chance to make Top4. Thus more qualifications lead to more Top4 which leads to more points. Thus qualifications ARE factored in if you look at it this way.
It's a difference in opinion. Some people believe simply qualifying a billion times isn't worth qualifying once and winning, while others believe differently. Why not give points to making it to ODT Round 2? Or ODT Round 1? Or out of offline Prelims? The line has to be drawn somewhere and I drew it really high. Qualifying matters--it gets your more chances to win, but nothing more.
|
United States20661 Posts
Totally random (Actually no, the thing about salaries made me think of it):
Anyone here read Starcnomics?
I need to learn Korean.
I wonder if they did any extensive analysis of this? Probably not, but curious.
|
GrandInquisitor
New York City13113 Posts
The ideal system would work as follows:
It would measure each time the player tried to get into OSL. Then they are awarded a certain number of points based on how they finished, of course exponentially increasing based on how far they advance.
The problem is that that's hard. So we just ignore how many times the player tried to qualify, or even how many times they qualified period. We just assume they all started in group stages.
This is always going to be a problem, but it is particularly bad with your system Hot_Bid. You award just one point for a player to even qualify out of their group, win their quarterfinal, and make it to their semifinal. You award them one more for winning that semifinal. And then all of a sudden you give five points for winning the final.
Look, under that system, the one hit wonder Sync, who won a ridiculously easy OSL but was too fucking chobo to make it to another Final Four in his whole career, is somehow ranked ahead of GoodFriend who made it to five Final Fours, and got to finals once too. Don't talk about "trading" trophies - I would trade a thousand second places for a single first place, but that doesn't mean that YellOw is worse than Sync. Think in terms of who you would want on your ProLeague team. The guy that got lucky one year and is awful normally, or the guy that is consistently in the top 5? In football terms, do you want Dan Marino or Trent Dilfer (who, in 2001, did what Marino never did and won a Super Bowl)? In tennis terms, do you want Thomas Johansson, or David Nalbandian? Golf has its Phil Mickelson, basketball has Stockton/Malone - the point is, there's plenty of Great Players that haven't won a championship, but demonstrate their greatness by being incredibly consistent year after year, surviving through one-hit wonders.
You speak of performing under pressure, and choke artists, and it's clear you value that to an incredible extent. (I remember the NBA topic.) Fine. But realize that Starcraft is by no means a pure skill-based game. The better player doesn't always win. Random shit happens. We try to negate this with longer series, but 3-2 series, 2-1 series, that anyone could have had, that might have turned on the basis of build order luck. Then you have historically nasty maps, which only further discredit one-hit-wonders that only managed to win a single OSL when the maps (presumably) favored them and couldn't even qualify when the maps didn't.
If it were, say, chess, then you can make this argument better. But you can't in Starcraft, a game almost as random and unfair as NFL playoffs (god that overtime rule is the stupidest fucking rule in professional sports).
|
United States20661 Posts
Didn't Mickelson win, eventually? :O
irrelevant.
YellOw's below Anytime, who I consider a one-hit wonder.
Casy is debatable.
|
OSL Iloveoov – 2 Win, 0 Second, 2 Semi – 8 Points
OSL Yellow – 0 Win, 2 Second, 5 Semi – 9 Points
This works for me. Yellow had a great OSL career. He's had an equal or greater presence as oov has had in the OSL. He's just no longer performing at that level in terms of wins, so people forget about all of those appearances. This just says nothing about oov's period of dominance, current strong play, great MSL career, etc.--things you automatically associate with his tag that don't show up in those three statistics.
|
just remember that boxer gets 50 points for being boxer;o
|
Braavos36372 Posts
On May 30 2007 20:38 Myrmidon wrote:
OSL Iloveoov – 2 Win, 0 Second, 2 Semi – 8 Points
OSL Yellow – 0 Win, 2 Second, 5 Semi – 9 Points
This works for me. Yellow had a great OSL career. He's had an equal or greater presence as oov has had in the OSL. He's just no longer performing at that level in terms of wins, so people forget about all of those appearances. This just says nothing about oov's period of dominance, current strong play, great MSL career, etc.--things you automatically associate with his tag that don't show up in those three statistics.
i guess thats a huge difference of opinion between us
iloveoov was a golden mouse contender, someone who was one of the only five players ever to win more than one starleague
yellow never won one and was known for not coming through in the finals and semis
you're basically saying that karl malone should be remembered as an equal or greater presence as michael jordan
it's not because yellow doesn't win now, it's because hes NEVER won one... that's what haunts his career. his longevity and consistency and what he brought to the zerg race is admirable, but to say that he's equal to one of the great all time starleague winners (oov) is ridiculous... you're basically saying a runner up is equivalent to a winner
|
I havn't read all the comments so this might have been mentioned, but one pretty good way (imo) to evaluate a career (in most things) is by checking how much (prize) money they have made. If the prizes are say 10,000 6,000 3,000 for 1st 2nd and 3rd, then the point system should be 10-6-3. I guess that invitational stuff that gives monetary prizes could be counted out if you want to, and just include the OSL and MSL prizes... and if the prizes has changed since the past, then that also means the competition has changed... meaning if the first price now is higher than it was back in the days, it probably also means that its harder to win now since the players are competing accordingly. (More prize-money, more players interested, more competition etc etc)
|
On May 30 2007 17:04 Hot_Bid wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2007 16:30 tenbagger wrote:
I would recommend a 10-4-2-1 format.
10 for first
4 or second
2 for semis
1 for qualifying
I think it is an accomplishment in itself to consistently qualify for the OSL and it should be rewarded. This system keeps a win more than twice as valuable than a 2nd place finish but still leaves enough room to give a small reward to those who are consistent but never win. i believe that simply qualifying for two starleagues is not worth a 3rd place (child vs iris)
Ok, how about 10-4-3-1
I think that "simply qualifying" is in itself quite an achievement. Especially for those who had to work their way up from the offline qualifiers, advance from the challenge league and then advance again from the dual tournament. We're talking about something like 8 consecutive series wins against really tough competition. I feel strongly that those who consistently qualify for the majors should be credited for their accomplishments.
|
Braavos36372 Posts
yeah but when you're making standings that ranks the best, simply qualifying already has the award of another chance to win hence they are rewarded anyway
|
GrandInquisitor
New York City13113 Posts
no they aren't. a player that wins once and doesn't qualify nine times vs a player that got to semifinals 7 times and qualified 3 times are rated the same according to 7-2-1
|
I think a 5-2-1 system would be the best
|
If you count all the special events Yellow won,he would be much higher on the list.
|
Braavos36372 Posts
On June 02 2007 17:12 GrandInquisitor wrote:
no they aren't. a player that wins once and doesn't qualify nine times vs a player that got to semifinals 7 times and qualified 3 times are rated the same according to 7-2-1
again, that is where we differ in opinion
if you're going to rank people in the starleague, i don't see why extra points should be given for the baseline requirement--making starleagues
if player A made the starleague 15 times
and player B made the starleague 1 time
which would you say has a better chance of being higher on the ranking? obviously player A right? that's the inherent reward in making it more times
if they couldn't do anything with the qualifications, that's their problem
you are seeing qualification into the OSL as an accomplishment, which it is. however, it's just a PREREQUISITE for the ranking.
this is like complaining that "#2 finishes" or "# of times in semifinals" should be included in the golden mouse... when it clearly ONLY measures wins
this ranking is a projection of top 4 finishes in the major leagues. if you took a look at the list and ask yourself who has the most titles, with very few exceptions, the top 10 or so in the rankings are ALL players who have qualified the most. that is their inherent reward for qualifying a lot: they get lots of chances to make top4.
|
so.. no opinions about my idea?
|
If you are going to put that many points for the winner, just do it like the winter olympics, sort by gold, then silver, then bronze. Simpler and just the way you like it 
|
Just to know: Hot_Bid, how long have you been following progaming?
|
Braavos36372 Posts
i've read the reports since Xellos > Yellow (Olympus Spring 2003) but I've only seriously followed it since Nada > Anytime this past fall (Shinhan2 Fall 2006)
i have though watch all the OSL finals and the last 5-6 MSL finals, i was on a trip to china and just put them all on my ipod
|
Well, i guess this is why you'll never understand Yellow's fans 
Yellow was for a while the only zerg who could do shit against terrans on heavily favoured terran maps.
I mean, he lost coca cola osl when vahalla was chosen to be the map played twice. Vahalla was a zerg graveyard, as well as ragnarock. Legacy of char would have been played twice, the result would certainly have been different.
Of course, i can't say Yellow isn't a choker, he did choke against Nada in kpga2 (nobody would thought the kid would become the most achieved pro at the time), maybe against Xellos, probably one of the most amazing series ever (but then again, Xellos was just the man at that time, who else has 3-0 Boxer?), i don't believe so against Casy, he was once again fucked up hard by the maps.
But for years he was the only hope of zerg. He was the only one who could do well enough to get to final/semi and didn't fail miserably with a 3-0. He spent years ranked #2, to different players.
So yes, he was never able to win any real league, only special events (although you would say some of them were pretty damn big, snickers looked a lot more like an SL than a special event) and i perfectly understand why you rate him that way. But for a lot of people around at that time, he represents more than this, he's Boxer rival, he was one of the most consistent pro, if not the most, for a few years, he represented the zerg at very high level until July came.
No other zerg would come close, except Chojja or HOT, but only for a short period of time. Yellow was able to last long, just like Boxer did. And just like Boxer, he was a model for all lot of players at the time.
Watching the finals makes you think Yellow was bad of course, since he lost all of them. But then, all of those who had the chance to see his other games have a different point of view.
I'd say i agree with your ranking (and that's what i voted anyway), because you're right, i'm pretty sure every pro would prefer to be Sync and win once before disapearing than to become Yellow and never ever win. But for fans, it's not that simple. Yellow gets (maybe i should say got now !)a lot of love, while Sync doesn't exactly make the crowds go wild
It all depends from what point of view you consider it. From a pro point of view or from a fan point of view. That's why you'll have trouble making this kind of ranking.
Let's take another example: You can say Nada achieved more than Boxer and i would agree. But you can't exactly call Boxer a choker, he won the 3 first finals he entered. Then he lost -barely most of the time- the others. Some people might consider this more valuable, especially because it makes him a model as he never seems to give up and that's something we need at least as much as Nada destroying July or Chojja. He makes it a lot more interesting than one sided rape.
And that's why rankings are nice, but will never be able to show everything. There are a few things that cannot be described with just your results, just the way it is in tennis.
|
Braavos36372 Posts
i fully agree with you. i do not believe a numerical ranking fully expresses a players' career, nor should it.
if you're going to measure the pure success, in terms of numerical victories, i believe 6-2-1 or 7-2-1 is much more accurate.
but if you're going to measure impact on history, fans, and brood war overall, i think it's pretty easy to say that the list goes:
1. Boxer
2. Yellow
and there's really no comparison, regardless of how many championships are won. the maps were absolutely horrible back then, some nightmare zvt maps that with the no zerg pioneer to follow, Yellow did amazingly well. it's really just too bad that he wasn't able to win just one final.
what i disagree with is that people are putting a lot of stock into second place finishes and simple qualifications for the starleagues. that's really what this article is about, not tearing down Yellow specifically but rather the worth of a "runner-up."
yellow in certain instances is a special case, yes its romantic and somewhat justified to feel that his 2nds are worth something more, but you really can't say that about everyone.
|
Didn't feel like reading all of the comments but why do u count by only finals. lets say Player A gets 10 3-0 wins in a Star league then loses in the semi final to Player B who beats him and wins the Star league, but won all his matches by 2-1. that would make Player A be 31-2 and Player B 22-11. would that make Player A worse than Player B? I think we should count by win ration and not Finals appearances.
|
Braavos36372 Posts
On June 07 2007 22:40 ff7legend wrote:
Didn't feel like reading all of the comments but why do u count by only finals. lets say Player A gets 10 3-0 wins in a Star league then loses in the semi final to Player B who beats him and wins the Star league, but won all his matches by 2-1. that would make Player A be 31-2 and Player B 22-11. would that make Player A worse than Player B? I think we should count by win ration and not Finals appearances.
i think it's pretty safe to say if Player B beats Player A and goes onto win the Starleague, Player B is better than Player A regardless of what win ratio it was
do you even remember the win ratios for players in starleagues last year?
|
Ya but which one is a better player overall. take for example NaDa and Hwasin. Hwasin has beat NaDa twice so far if i remember correctly(not sure where). Does that mean Hwasin could win 3 msl's, just because he beat NaDa?
Edit: no i don't remember the ratios
|
Braavos36372 Posts
nada won 3 msls in 2002
how long for a player to slump and lose before you can say they are "worse"?
you can go starleague by starleague... nada was eliminated in this starleague, so yes you can say a lot of players are "better" than nada
are they better than him when viewing all of BW history? of course not, nada is regarded as probably the best player of all time
but are they better than nada this season? yes
|
Chojja won an MSL, and has made multiple final/semifinal appearances in both OSL and MSL.
I believe you've completely missed him in the rankings.
|
Braavos36372 Posts
holy crap you are totally right
i'm not going to go back and change it but wow i can't believe i just missed him, i think i just took all the OSL winners
in all seriousness wth i just forgot him
|
I thought it would be cool to see how Hot_Bid's 7-2-1 system held up, so I added modern players:
51 Pts. – Nada – 6 Win, 4 Second, 1 Semi
48 Pts. – Flash – 6 Win, 2 Second, 2 Semi
46 Pts. – Jaedong – 5 Win, 4 Second, 3 Semi
39 Pts. – Iloveoov – 5 Win, 0 Second, 4 Semi
33 Pts. – Savior – 4 Win, 2 Second, 1 Semi
31 Pts. – Boxer – 3 Win, 4 Second, 2 Semi
26 Pts. – Bisu – 3 Win, 1 Second, 3 Semi
25 Pts. – July – 3 Win, 2 Second, 0 Semi
22 Pts. – Nal_rA – 2 Win, 2 Second, 4 Semi
18 Pts. – Stork – 1 Win, 4 Second, 3 Semi
15 Pts. – Reach – 1 Win, 3 Second, 2 Semi
15 Pts. – Yellow – 0 Win, 5 Second, 5 Semi
15 Pts. – Fantasy – 1 Win, 3 Second, 2 Semi
14 Pts. – Garimto – 2 Win, 0 Second, 0 Semi
12 Pts. – Jangbi – 1 Win, 2 Second, 1 Semi
11 Pts. – Kingdom – 1 Win, 1 Second, 2 Semi
10 Pts. – GoRush – 1 Win, 0 Second, 3 Semi
10 Pts. – Xellos – 1 Win, 0 Second, 3 Semi
10 Pts. – Calm – 1 Win, 0 Second, 3 Semi
9 Pts. – Anytime – 1 Win, 1 Second, 0 Semi
9 Pts. – Casy – 1 Win, 0 Second, 2 Semi
9 Pts. – Luxury – 1 Win, 0 Second, 2 Semi
9 Pts. – Hydra – 1 Win, 0 Second, 2 Semi
8 Pts. – Grrrr – 1 Win, 0 Second, 1 Semi
8 Pts. – Mind – 1 Win, 0 Second, 1 Semi
8 Pts. – GGPlay – 1 Win, 0 Second, 1 Semi
7 Pts. – Freemura – 1 Win, 0 Second, 0 Semi
7 Pts. – Sync – 1 Win, 0 Second, 0 Semi
7 Pts. – fOrGG – 1 Win, 0 Second, 0 Semi
7 Pts. – Effort – 1 Win, 0 Second, 0 Semi
6 Pts. – GoodFriend – 0 Win, 1 Second, 4 Semi
5 Pts. – Kal – 0 Win, 1 Second, 3 Semi
4 Pts. – HOT – 0 Win, 2 Second, 0 Semi
4 Pts. – Chrh – 0 Win, 0 Second, 4 Semi
4 Pts. – Iris – 0 Win, 1 Second, 2 Semi
4 Pts. – ZerO – 0 Win, 1 Second, 2 Semi
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/staff/Hot_Bid/Column/oovrecord.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/staff/Hot_Bid/Column/nadarecord.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/staff/Manifesto7/saviornadaSH3Finals/saviorpreview.JPG)
