|
Loving these stats, the timing graphs in particular are rly cool, thx for your time and effort. Is it possible to have the winrate breakdown by maps as well?
A lot of these maps are very anti Terran cus of Flash so that'll skew the winrates by a big margin, it'll be interesting to see winrates on the most standard maps. For example season 5 had insanely P favored maps, the top Terran players still end up figuring things out but life becomes way harder on the lower end Terrans.
Another interesting stat to see is the winrates based on spawn locations, specifically left side spawns vs right side spawns on older maps. The older maps had bad mineral formations on the left side (non L formations) so it would be interesting to see winrate difference between the old maps and the new maps. If it's too much work to compile that info then forget about it :D.
|
On October 25 2023 19:24 Highwinds wrote:
"Reverse sweeps
The last series stat I’ve registered is the probability of reverse sweeps. In 197 Best-of-5s, we have seen six reverse sweeps. The probability of making a reverse sweep in a Best-of-5 (i.e. the probability that if you’re down 0-2, you go on to win the series) stands at 6%."
Maybe im confused, but how can 6/197 be 6%? Shouldn't it be around 3%? Or is it that only 100 games ended up being a 0-2 to start with. That was the only part that confused me here
It's as you said. I wanted to calculate the probability of a reverse sweep happening once the score is 0-2 so all series that started out 1-1 have been discounted.
So out of the times one player started out 2-0 in a Best-of-5, 6% of those times, the other player then won the last three matches, whereas in 94% of cases, the player who started out 2-0 also won the series.
|
On October 26 2023 00:32 TT1 wrote:
Is it possible to have the winrate breakdown by maps as well?
Glad you enjoyed the stats!
The map balance table has the winrate for each matchup for each of the 13 most played maps. If there are any other map/winrate stats you're interested in, they shouldn't be too hard for me to look up.
Another interesting stat to see is the winrates based on spawn locations, specifically left side spawns vs right side spawns on older maps. The older maps had bad mineral formations on the left side (non L formations) so it would be interesting to see winrate difference between the old maps and the new maps. If it's too much work to compile that info then forget about it :D.
I don't have that information, unfortunately! I have only registered whether it was cross spawns or not...
|
Wow this was amazing, thanks for the work!
|
On October 26 2023 00:32 TT1 wrote:
Loving these stats, the timing graphs in particular are rly cool, thx for your time and effort. Is it possible to have the winrate breakdown by maps as well?
A lot of these maps are very anti Terran cus of Flash so that'll skew the winrates by a big margin, it'll be interesting to see winrates on the most standard maps. For example season 5 had insanely P favored maps, the top Terran players still end up figuring things out but life becomes way harder on the lower end Terrans.
Another interesting stat to see is the winrates based on spawn locations, specifically left side spawns vs right side spawns on older maps. The older maps had bad mineral formations on the left side (non L formations) so it would be interesting to see winrate difference between the old maps and the new maps. If it's too much work to compile that info then forget about it :D.
Oh yeah I remember season 5, the map makers went all out to stop Flash from winning again lmao.
|
Talking about unexpected conclusions due to low sample size, Rain actually was pretty meh at PvT though. I only remember seeing brainless macro hoping to overwhelm, or zealot rushes beating fast expands.
|
I actually really enjoyed reading through that. Thank you.
|
BW is perfection. that was really awesome, thanks.
|
On October 25 2023 03:08 LUCKY_NOOB wrote:The pies and half donuts look tasty! ; D I think we should not forget the finals either (where it really matters in terms of cash) Terrans have won as much as the other 2 races COMBINED!!!!!!!!!!! T = Z + P ( T 10W = Z 6W + P 4W)In terms of raw first place cash won T>Z+PTerran: $ 613,466 (ASL $ 474,347) > Z+P Total: $ 549,839Zerg: $ 338,040 (ASL $ 267,026) Protoss: $ 211,799 (ASL $ 143,911) *according to liquipedia and my calculations excluding VANT36.5 National Starleague and HungryApp Starz League with Kongdoo who are literally NOT named ASL or KSL (1 Z and 1 T victories there).
both HungryApp and VANT36.5 Starleagues should count as an ASL level event, clearly.
thx for these stats, anyway
|
thanks for this really cool I love stats
also FlaSh is clearly OP
|
The stats page has been updated following ASL 17 and 18 (SSL 1). The analysis now covers 2,107 games in total.
Soulkey now tops the Elo chart by a huge margin. Flash's return is looking more interesting than ever.
Lots of stats from the ASL/KSL era of Starcraft 1
|
Netherlands4992 Posts
I missed this the first time around. Very cool. Great work!
Imo another interesting thing would be to see who's best at reverse sweep or worst at it from the top 10 best performers (so we don't see a presumable bottom dweller score worst).
|
About seeding: you claim it having an advantage, but did you take into account the player' overall strength?
I.e. If a player can consistently get into ro8, with seeding (or is more likely), is he also a stronger player on average, or not?
|
Vatican City State90 Posts
Very cool data and analysis.
Protoss with the overall highest winrate across KSL/ASL/SSL
As is well known, SC is pretty much a rock-paper-scissors kind of game. However the advantage of Z over P is smaller than both the advantage of P over T, and the advantage of T over Z.
But people who whine about Protoss being the weakest race will simply reject the evidence and get angry for presenting FACTS to them. Unless you can support your whining with FACTS, SC is a balanced game. PERIOD.
|
That's a lot of CAPS for something not period at all lol. It's like flipping a coin 10 times, getting heads 7 and jumping to the conclusion that this coin is not balanced. Yes 7 out of 10 is a fact but the conclusion you're jumping to is not.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Why? Because op doesn't treat the data properly. Sample size is the obvious problem. But he also doesn't realize the structure of the SLs and players pool can make the data a bit lopsided. The reason Protoss looks best in terms of SL win rate here is because their players pool is the most top-heavy. In details:
Right in the analysis, we see there are 80 players who have ever played in SL, but the distribution is 24  , 27  , 29  .
Then if you look a bit deeper into the top 45 players by win rate, we have 12 , 16 , 17 .
Why this causes a slight "inflation" in win rate for Protoss? Because the top 12 players get to play the top 12 players, plus another 4 players who are weaker than the first 12. Same for PvZ. If you are not clear then imagine Snow + Bisu playing Flash + Light for 100 games. Compare that to Snow + Bisu playing Flash + Light + Royal + JYJ for also 100 games. Surely the win rate for Protoss in the second case would be higher. The impact is obviouly smaller when you have 12 playing 16 , instead of 2 vs 4, but there is an impact nonetheless.
In reality we obviously can't have the ideal situation of top 10 players of a race playing only the top 10 players of another race. But we can still look at the combined individual win rates to find a trend. Take the pair PvZ for example (totally arbitrary, dont have time for PvT and TvZ, others feel free to try). The global win rate in PvZ is 48% for or 52% for . But if we only look at the top players of each race (just do some copy paste to an excel sheet and work it out):
- The top 9 in the PvZ table have a combined record of 238 wins/464 games --> 51.29%.
- In contrast the top 9 have a combined record of 242/418 --> 57.9%.
- But the top 13 have a combined record of 261/481 --> 54.26%
Now you see how the extra 4 players drag the ZvP win rate down (or bump the PvZ win rate up for the ). But to be honest we don't even need data to know that the more lower ranked players we include in the calculation, the lower the win rate of the race becomes.
So a fairer way to look at balance (when you have to work with this limited sample size) is to look at only the games of the top X players of each race. Let's say top 8. Why 8? To be honest you could do the same with 4 5 6 7 9 10 and the results would probably be the same. But I choose 8 here because we have the Ro8 in SL and also I think the undoubtedly top 8 of the modern era are Soulkey Hero Effort JD Queen Soma Action Larva, so the numbers of and players should correspond.
Based on the global win rate of each player, the top 8 for are Flash Last Light Sharp Rush Royal JYJ Mind and for are Snow Mini Rain Best Bisu Stork Shuttle Horang2 (actually the 8th for Protoss is Jaehoon but I replaced him with Horang2 the 9th because apparently Jaehoon didn't play any PvZ???), and the top 8 are as above I mentioned.
Extract the data from Jacky's tables, we got this:
Okay now we can have a glimpse of the trend that we have always seen in sponbbang/eloboard. Each race has a strong and weak matchup, and overall seems to be the weakest.
On an irrelevant note, you can also pick interesting tidbits from the table above. One I noticed is Best has the highest win rate in non-mirror matchups of any Protoss. Not Rain, not Mini. My man Best. In fact his win rate in non-mirror matchups is only behind the legends of the game Flash, Soulkey and Effort. You'd think he had won a title or at least a multiple time runner-up. But no, here's a guy who only got to the semi-finals twice and choked out of Ro8/16/24 regularly. That's partly because of his abysmal PvP, partly because he has played in all the SLs and probably regularly beaten lower ranked players in Ro24/16.
(Edit: actually JYJ is also higher than him, his stats probably boosted by the one season wonder ASL15)
You can also do another version of the top 8 tables, but this time the top 8 is not based on their global win rates (including mirror matchups), but rather the specific matchups, like this:
This even looks closer to the sponbbang/eloboard trend that we have normally always seen ( > > ). And once again, the strong matchup for is not as strong as those of and , while the weak matchup for is also the weakest of any non-mirror matchups.
In conclusion, there are probably still some flaws in the above analysis from me (can't avoid given the whole dataset we have to work with has intrinsic problems), but it's certainly less flawed than the basic analysis from Jacky, as I also pointed out some in post #2 of this thread.
|
Vatican City State90 Posts
As always you trying to pick on me with the dumbest logic. The problem is that you think you are smart, but you are not. You just tire people out until they tap out and say "let that guy think he is right, he will keep arguing until you stop replying", as many people have told me over PMs.
On November 12 2024 01:42 TMNT wrote:
It's like flipping a coin 10 times
Here is an example of your patronizing tone, as usual. The funny thing is you use a patronizing tone to state something 1) basic (sample size) as if you were illuminated and the only one to know it (like a chimp being proud of understanding what a square is), and 2) that is not true in this case: There are over 3600 games, not 10. So as usual, you resort to using a Strawman fallacy, equating a sample size of over 3600 to a sample size of 10.
On November 12 2024 01:42 TMNT wrote:
The reason Protoss looks best in terms of SL win rate here is because their players pool is the most top-heavy.
Here is another example of your "reasoning" that is clearly fallacious, product of your ignorance. You criticize OP's method, but your critique is invalid. You cannot conclude the sample is "lopsided" from the race proportions in the tournaments. Anyone with minimal training in causal inference (which you clearly lack) will know that. Why? Because you need a standardizing factor: For instance if few NEW players choose to play protoss, then they are expected to be underrepresented among tournament players (with the few participating being older). Similarly, if most NEW pro players are e.g. Terran (or Zerg), then other races will be underrepresented. The problem is choosing the appropriate standardizing factor: 1) Total number of players in ladder? 2) total number of players who have tried to qualify to an ASL/SSL? 3) Total number of players who have actually participated in KSL/ASL/SSL? Another standardizing factor? The total number of players wouldn't make sense as anyone can create an account and play for a few days. The only options that make sense are options 2 and 3. OP used option 3. To use a chimp logic that you can understand, if you throw a coin and get 7 heads, you cannot conclude that is a high or low number, you need to know the total number of tosses.
|
On November 12 2024 02:38 cheesehuehue wrote:
Here is an example of your patronizing tone, as usual. The funny thing is you use a patronizing tone to state something 1) basic (sample size) as if you were illuminated and the only one to know it (like a chimp being proud of understanding what a square is), and 2) that is not true in this case: There are over 3600 games, not 10. So as usual, you resort to using a Strawman fallacy, equating a sample size of over 3600 to a sample size of 10.
For one, it's not 3600 games lol. For a guy who multiple times used words such as dumb, ignorance, chimp, etc. to personally attack me (notice that I didn't use any terms to describe you), you just stupidly added the 1242+1166+1260 games of the 3 races together to get ~3600, without realizing that they overlap, and include mirror games.
The total games for the 3 non mirror matchups are 561+517+483. That's around ~1500 games or 500 for each matchup. Now compare that to this from eloboard with 20k+ games for each matchup and explain why don't you use this for an argument with CAPS:
|
Incredible work, thanks for your contribution! Let's see if FlaSh can gain back his ELO.
|
On November 12 2024 02:38 cheesehuehue wrote:
Here is another example of your "reasoning" that is clearly fallacious, product of your ignorance. You criticize OP's method, but your critique is invalid. You cannot conclude the sample is "lopsided" from the race proportions in the tournaments. Anyone with minimal training in causal inference (which you clearly lack) will know that. Why? Because you need a standardizing factor: For instance if few NEW players choose to play protoss, then they are expected to be underrepresented among tournament players (with the few participating being older). Similarly, if most NEW pro players are e.g. Terran (or Zerg), then other races will be underrepresented. The problem is choosing the appropriate standardizing factor: 1) Total number of players in ladder? 2) total number of players who have tried to qualify to an ASL/SSL? 3) Total number of players who have actually participated in KSL/ASL/SSL? Another standardizing factor? The total number of players wouldn't make sense as anyone can create an account and play for a few days. The only options that make sense are options 2 and 3. OP used option 3. To use a chimp logic that you can understand, if you throw a coin and get 7 heads, you cannot conclude that is a high or low number, you need to know the total number of tosses.
And for this point don't expect to throw in a number of red herrings and win the argument. What new players lol? Everyone knows it's the same 30 guys or something who have been playing each other since Remastered. There's also option 4 which is called sponbbang/eloboard but I see you just pretend they didn't exist.
But let's go with option 3 which I never disagreed with in the first place, but you can either process it in the most basic way (like op did) or you can refine it like I did. Like in terms of players pool, what's better than having the same numbers of players for each race for the comparison of win rate? Whether it's top 5/10/20 doesn't matter. The important thing is it's a better method than having 5 players for one race and 10 for the other. If you can't refute that you're just a troll.
Also, for a guy who keeps trying to say it's only Soulkey that is doing good as Zerg recently (it's true), it's clear you acknowledge that he makes it lopsided for Zerg. But when another person use the same argument but for the whole lineup of a race, oh suddenly it becomes invalid lololol. In fact that's a common theme for you in this forum, being a hypocrite and lacking of self-awareness. Like you literally started the conversation with a patronizing tone, aiming at the "Protoss whiners", but then when I presented you with a post of pure analysis and no personal offence, you retaliated like a cunt.
|
Great analysis, keep up the good work!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/raAWXQe.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/DLpk8Ew.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/j8Kxkgh.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/VCIhufS.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/NawV04b.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/PAyfCoA.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/YUUVh8N.png)
