EPTAll-time Elo ratings by matchup - Page 2
| Forum Index > BW General |
alffla
Hong Kong20321 Posts
| ||
|
L
Canada4732 Posts
Having an adjustment for the upward inflation would be nice. | ||
|
raga4ka
Bulgaria5679 Posts
On July 09 2008 17:00 ScarFace wrote: I did. Except for some wins against thewind and silver, oov was playing the best of the best for the time. Yellow, jju, July, etc. ELO is suppose to reflect comparative dominance, in this it has failed. OOV dominated against the best zvt's in a far longer stretch, but the poorer stats of his opponents have misconstrued the results. In reality, Jaedongs streak is laughable compared to Oov's. Because there was a time where JD in like 40 ZvT games had only 5 - 6 loses and was on 12 games wining streak then he had 3 -4 loses mixed with wins and then again went on another 10 games winnig streak , 1 or 2 loses does not lower your ELO that much compared to the dominance of every terran there was at that time , that kept his ELO high . So i think is quite accurate if you ask me . He certainly can challenge Oov's ELO , Oov could never restore his ELO peak after his streak , thats because July beat him in like 8 games after that ... Edit: It is a shame that July is not in the ZvT ELo peak rankings  | ||
|
noojOh
United States755 Posts
| ||
|
gravity
Australia1847 Posts
On July 09 2008 17:26 Scaramanga wrote: Why isnt flash in the tvz elo ratings, he had a record of like 13-4 a few games back and has only lost to lux recently? He's 12th. | ||
|
lamarine
586 Posts
| ||
|
gravity
Australia1847 Posts
On July 09 2008 17:47 L wrote: ELO rating have consistenly increased with time, with players getting smaller streaks to boot. Having an adjustment for the upward inflation would be nice. The average rating is always exactly 2000 so I don't think inflation is a big issue. The only way inflation of sorts could occur is if on average, players retire with less than 2000 points, but I wouldn't expect that to be a big issue. It's possible to check it though. edit: in fact I will soon. | ||
|
raga4ka
Bulgaria5679 Posts
On July 09 2008 18:12 lamarine wrote: comparing elo picks is not very accurate, cause they had fewer games back than. You are right . I think this topic is very good and it would be good if someone can edit it when someone breaks an ELO peak , because there are players that are at their peaks right now at their strongest or stronger MU like BEST for example. I'm curious how high will BEST and JD set their ELO peaks in the mirror MUs and can someone break them . | ||
|
ohhsuup
64 Posts
On July 09 2008 17:04 Letmelose wrote: It's just ELO ratings. I mean, it's an interesting pointing system, but it's not the gospel truth. Actually I think this list has been arranged pretty well considering how flawed the all-time ELO peaks list is. So how is the all-time ELO peaks list flawed? The TvT rankings really want me to see a game between XellOs and FlaSh. They've never played O.O. XellOs is known for owning high-level Terrans of their time. | ||
|
Spenguin
Australia3316 Posts
 | ||
|
gravity
Australia1847 Posts
Really, the whole question is irrelevant since not enough top players have ever retired from BW to make a significant impact on the amount of ratings points available. It's only been around for 10 years after all  .edit: in fact according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system, player improvement over time will generally cause *de*flation, and since average players have certainly improved a lot since 1999, I doubt *in*flation is the problem, if anything. | ||
|
Letmelose
Korea (South)3227 Posts
On July 09 2008 18:22 ohhsuup wrote: So how is the all-time ELO peaks list flawed? The TvT rankings really want me to see a game between XellOs and FlaSh. They've never played O.O. XellOs is known for owning high-level Terrans of their time. It's flawed for a number of reasons. I would have thought it would be obvious but I guess I'll point them out anyhow. Please take a minute to put aside your absolute belief in some pointing system because some of the things that these points hint is beyond stupid. Do you realize all of the highest ELO peaks were achieved post 2003? It's probably because the ELO ratings only take official Kespa matches into account which means that players of today with their 5 day proleague system benefits tremendously, and great players of yesteryear like IntoTheRain have embarassing ELO peaks because many of their matches were played on prestigious tournmaments that died out before the formation of Kespa. So we're left with players like Iris having higher ELO peaks than Boxer. Lucifer with higher a ELO peak than IntoTheRain. Nal Ra and Nada having their ELO peaks past their actual prime. Actually, the ELO ratings are dominated by players of today with a few of the past legends squeezed here and there. I used to have a problem with this, but I don't anymore. Every pointing system has a flaw of some kind. I DO have a problem though, when people say ignorant things like "OOOOH Sea has the 2nd best TvT eva!!!" because his ELO points happens to represent him well. | ||
|
gravity
Australia1847 Posts
On July 09 2008 20:53 Letmelose wrote: So we're left with players like Iris having higher ELO peaks than Boxer. Lucifer with higher a ELO peak than IntoTheRain. Nal Ra and Nada having their ELO peaks past their actual prime. Actually, the ELO ratings are dominated by players of today with a few of the past legends squeezed here and there. I used to have a problem with this, but I don't anymore. Every pointing system has a flaw of some kind. I DO have a problem though, when people say ignorant things like "OOOOH Sea has the 2nd best TvT eva!!!" because his ELO points happens to represent him well. If you're talking about absolute strength then obviously Iris at his peak was way better in Boxer at his peak (and so forth) due to the continually increasing overall skill level, so I don't see the problem with this. But yes, there's no such thing as a perfect rating system and this is just one way of measuring a player's skill, but I happen to think it's a pretty accurate one as far as things go. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On July 09 2008 22:48 gravity wrote: If you're talking about absolute strength then obviously Iris at his peak was way better in Boxer at his peak (and so forth) due to the continually increasing overall skill level, so I don't see the problem with this. But yes, there's no such thing as a perfect rating system and this is just one way of measuring a player's skill, but I happen to think it's a pretty accurate one as far as things go. his point is not about absolute strength but relative dominance. | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
seems accurate to me. | ||
|
bluemanrocks
United States304 Posts
| ||
|
Letmelose
Korea (South)3227 Posts
On July 09 2008 22:48 gravity wrote: If you're talking about absolute strength then obviously Iris at his peak was way better in Boxer at his peak (and so forth) due to the continually increasing overall skill level, so I don't see the problem with this. But yes, there's no such thing as a perfect rating system and this is just one way of measuring a player's skill, but I happen to think it's a pretty accurate one as far as things go. Of course current day players are better than past players in terms of absolute strength. Hell, B team players of today are better than Boxer of 2001. What does absolute strength have to do with anything especially since you extended the discussion to "all time". If your argument is "the overall skill level is higher now, so it doesn't matter if ELO ratings doesn't do older players justice". Then I guess to each his own. I personally was way more impressed by Boxer's domination during his prime than Iris's, ehem, "domination". | ||
|
Letmelose
Korea (South)3227 Posts
I just wish people would stop forming opinions about the "domination" of players from different eras purely by looking at the ELO peaks. It can lead to pretty retarded conclusions. I'm not saying every conclusion drawn from ELO ratings is wrong (the list on this thread is surprisingly accurate despite its faults), but it gets pretty frustrating when threads like this spawn ignorant comments by people who get too impressed by a bunch of numbers. | ||
|
Goosey
United States695 Posts
| ||
|
FragKrag
United States11552 Posts
| ||
| ||
