EPTYou're arguing about things like domination, consistence, form of opponents beaten which are 100% subjective.
For those things there's nothing "obvious".
INnoVation Fan Club - Page 131
| Forum Index > Fan Clubs |
|
Charoisaur
Germany16081 Posts
You're arguing about things like domination, consistence, form of opponents beaten which are 100% subjective. For those things there's nothing "obvious". | ||
|
pvsnp
7676 Posts
On June 22 2017 06:26 Charoisaur wrote: pvsnp said "obviously enough" in regards to results which can be objectively quantified. You're arguing about things like domination, consistence, form of opponents beaten which are 100% subjective. For those things there's nothing "obvious". Yes, exactly. The context was quantifiable results. Thank you for picking up on that, unlike Olli. | ||
Olli
Austria24422 Posts
On June 22 2017 06:27 pvsnp wrote: Yes, exactly. The context was quantifiable results. Thank you for picking up on that, unlike Olli. Perhaps you should have actually provided said context if you were going to invoke it later. You made this list: Chronologically: 2013: INnoVation 2014: Zest 2015: First Zest, then Inno 2016: Zest 2017: Inno ... and then concluded that "INnoVation is obviously ahead". That list has little to do with quantifiable results and is entirely incomplete. The entire argument here, from the very beginning, was never "INnoVation is better than Zest in terms of quantifiable results", it was "INnoVation is better than Zest". So why exactly did you think this entire argument was purely based on raw numbers to begin with? Raw numbers are stupid. If you watch football (not soccer, football), raw stats would tell you that Ander Herrera is as good a player as N'Golo Kanté is. Kanté is arguably the best player in the world in his position, though, Herrera is lucky to make the top 10. Quantifiable results! Statistics and numbers in any argument that involves a judgment at the end ("INnoVation is better than Zest"), which is what this here is, require clear criteria and context to be understood correctly. You've completely ignored the latter and jumped straight ahead to the conclusion. | ||
|
pvsnp
7676 Posts
On June 22 2017 06:34 Olli wrote: Perhaps you should have actually provided said context if you were going to invoke it later. You made this list: ... and then concluded that "INnoVation is obviously ahead". That list has little to do with quantifiable results and is entirely incomplete. The entire argument here, from the very beginning, was never "INnoVation is better than Zest in terms of quantifiable results", it was "INnoVation is better than Zest". So why exactly did you think this entire argument was purely based on raw numbers to begin with? Raw numbers are stupid. If you watch football (not soccer, football), raw stats would tell you that Ander Herrera is as good a player as N'Golo Kanté is. Kanté is arguably the best player in the world in his position, though, Herrera is lucky to make the top 10. Quantifiable results! Statistics and numbers in any argument that involves a judgment at the end ("INnoVation is better than Zest"), which is what this here is, require clear criteria and context to be understood correctly. You've completely ignored the latter and jumped straight ahead to the conclusion. Dude, I DID provide the context. Read the rest of my post instead of cherry-picking that bit. I'm specifically talking only about titles won (their "trophy cabinets"). I even spell out the reasoning: Since LotV, Zest was ahead after winning GSL, and Inno has now taken the lead after winning SSL. Literally measuring only one thing, tournament titles. The reason 2013 has Inno is because he won more/better titles, ditto for 2014 Zest, and so on. The reason I think that "INnoVation is better than Zest in terms of quantifiable results", it was "INnoVation is better than Zest". are the same thing is because quantifiable results are the only way to objectively and irrefutably declare one player better than another, be it in football or basketball or Starcraft. This is not to say that the numbers are perfect. If those numbers fail to capture the entire context of the situation, that simply means we don't have enough numbers to objectively quantify otherwise subjective aspects and therefore lack the objectivity to reach any objective conclusion. LIKE IN THE CASE OF INNOVATION VS ZEST. | ||
|
Charoisaur
Germany16081 Posts
Raw numbers are stupid. If you watch football (not soccer, football), raw stats would tell you that Ander Herrera is as good a player as N'Golo Kanté is. Kanté is arguably the best player in the world in his position, though, Herrera is lucky to make the top 10. Quantifiable results! Statistics and numbers in any argument that involves a judgment at the end ("INnoVation is better than Zest"), which is what this here is, require clear criteria and context to be understood correctly. You've completely ignored the latter and jumped straight ahead to the conclusion. that's a weird comparison. Comparing tournament results to some stats nobody cares about. the stats you're talking about are the equivalent to APM, time supply blocked, ressouces spent etc. nobody cares about those, they're irrelevant when talking about how good a player is. | ||
|
Olli
Austria24422 Posts
On June 22 2017 07:00 Charoisaur wrote: that's a weird comparison. Comparing tournament results to some stats nobody cares about. the stats you're talking about are the equivalent to APM, time supply blocked, ressouces spent etc. nobody cares about those, they're irrelevant when talking about how good a player is. Ok then. Is Rafael Nadal a better player than Roger Federer? | ||
|
pvsnp
7676 Posts
On June 22 2017 07:06 Olli wrote: Ok then. Is Rafael Nadal a better player than Roger Federer? Analogies are almost always false equivalence fallacies. Football is not tennis is not Starcraft, even if they are analogous in many respects. Muscle fatigue for instance is a big distinction and one that cannot be objectively quantified. Football is a team game as well. | ||
|
Olli
Austria24422 Posts
On June 22 2017 07:08 pvsnp wrote: Analogies are almost always false equivalence fallacies. Football is not tennis is not Starcraft, even if they are analogous in many respects. So pick out those respects and try to see the point I'm making. Statistics are more misleading when they're out of context than when put into it, that's what I'm saying. As is the case with Herrera and Kanté, as is the case with Nadal and Federer, as is the case with INnoVation and Zest. In raw numbers, INnoVation might lead? In actual, intelligently interpreted numbers however, there's very valid arguments to put Zest above him. I've explained these multiple times now. | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On June 22 2017 07:06 Olli wrote: Ok then. Is Rafael Nadal a better player than Roger Federer? Do you expect him to look at all the results of these two players now?  On June 22 2017 07:10 Olli wrote: So pick out those respects and try to see the point I'm making. Statistics are more misleading when they're out of context than with it, that's what I'm saying. It is NOT out of context though. The context gets added through both innovation and Zest playing in the same era, region, etc. There is context to these results. edit: ofc the "context" isn't 100% perfect, aka there are differences here and there. But overall speaking it is close enough to be able to compare these two players based on their results. This is NO taeja vs Innovation/Zest scenario or Mvp vs Innovation one (where you have different eras) | ||
|
Charoisaur
Germany16081 Posts
On June 22 2017 07:06 Olli wrote: Ok then. Is Rafael Nadal a better player than Roger Federer? Federer has won more Grand Slam tournaments so I guess he's better? I'm not really into tennis though | ||
|
Olli
Austria24422 Posts
On June 22 2017 07:11 Charoisaur wrote: Federer has won more Grand Slam tournaments so I guess he's better? I'm not really into tennis though If you looked at Grand Slams alone, you might consider Federer the better player. If you consider that he played in a lot more of them, Nadal won his in a shorter timespan, has won more titles overall and also leads their head to head record, you might be inclined to think differently. Then it depends on what you value most. It's a subjective judgment in the end, there's no way around it. Same with INnoVation vs Zest. I've explained my criteria earlier, I've explained why raw numbers can never paint a truly telling picture, especially not something as shallow as "INnoVation has 3 Starleagues, therefore he's better". Now I'm perfectly fine with people thinking INnoVation is better, if they can reasonably argue for it. But INnoVation "obviously" being better, and this isn't just pvsnp's post but others that said the same, is stupid and I'll argue against that. | ||
|
pvsnp
7676 Posts
On June 22 2017 07:10 Olli wrote: So pick out those respects and try to see the point I'm making. Statistics are more misleading when they're out of context than when put into it, that's what I'm saying. As is the case with Herrera and Kanté, as is the case with Nadal and Federer, as is the case with INnoVation and Zest. In raw numbers, INnoVation might lead? In actual, intelligently interpreted numbers however, there's very valid arguments to put Zest above him. I've explained these multiple times now. I do understand. What I have explained multiple times is that THERE IS NO SINGLE WAY TO "intelligently interpet numbers." i agree that there are very valid arguments for Zest > Inno. What you overlook is that there are ALSO equally valid intelligent interpretations that put Inno > Zest. Because interpretation is SUBJECTIVE. My limited knowledge of tennis says Federer, btw. | ||
|
Olli
Austria24422 Posts
On June 22 2017 07:18 pvsnp wrote: I do understand. What I have explained multiple times is that THERE IS NO SINGLE WAY TO "intelligently interpet numbers." i agree that there are very valid arguments for Zest > Inno. What you overlook is that there are ALSO equally valid intelligent interpretations that put Inno > Zest. Because interpretation is SUBJECTIVE. This entire argument is based on said interpretation of results, you're the one who wanted to simplify it to quantifiable data only. Plus you conveniently left a lot of it out because it doesn't benefit the "INnoVation beats Zest" cause. | ||
|
pvsnp
7676 Posts
On June 22 2017 07:20 Olli wrote: This entire argument is based on said interpretation of results, you're the one who wanted to simplify it to quantifiable data only. Yes. Because quantifiable data is the only OBJECTIVE aspect. Adding subjective interpretation will lead you to (surprise surprise) a subjective conclusion. And as I have been saying the whole time, there are many equally valid subjective conclusions, so the only way to arrive at a single, obvious, answer is through objectivity. I realize that the obvious answer is imperfect, because it ignores a great deal of unquantifiable results. But it's as close to a "correct" answer as is possible to get without straying into subjective measures. | ||
|
Philozovic
France1677 Posts
On June 16 2017 17:45 Olli wrote: You've conveniently ignored all the points I made, but that's fine. This discussion is already over anyway. That's because you made no point at all On June 15 2017 16:58 Olli wrote: That's how ridiculous IPLTAC was. He had nearly a 90% winrate against all the best Korean teams fielding the very best players in the world. He all- or multikilled Prime (Marineking was winning MLGs around that time, Maru, Creator were Code S players, Creator won WCS Korea shortly after), Startale (Bomber, Squirtle, Curious, Life), Slayers (Puzzle, Min, CoCa, Genius), and IM 1,5 times (Yonghwa, Yoda, Nestea, Losira, Seed and First, Yonghwa). He had three map losses, two of which came to players who won a GSL around that time (Seed and Sniper). The other to Alicia, a TvP specialist who placed second at two MLGs in 2012. That run is incredible. Nearly all the above players were Code S level, and some of them were flat out the best players in the world. The argument isn't "Taeja was bad, Inno was good", but that a lot of the leagues you argued happened exactly during those times when INnoVation was the best player in the world - not the best team league player, the best player period. Taht has little to do with him being good in teamleagues, or Taeja being bad in them, but their overall skill. So you have to take peak performance of others into account as well to see who really did better when they were in form. And nobody beats Taeja in that department. I don't really care whether INnoVation goes down as the best team league player ever, but I'm not happy if these titles get thrown around easily. Taeja should be up for consideration in my opinion, as should MMA. I'd rather have the discussion than have INnoVation proclaimed as the best team leaguer ever immediately. Perhaps I just value things differently, that wouldn't surprise me. I make very little distinction between on- and offline, I value peak performance against opponents of players' specific eras a lot more than most. I'm not comparing Taeja and Innovation in Individual league just in Teamleague. Taeja never played a GSLT game for Zenex his first team. He then won one GSTL (May 2011) with Slayers All killing Zenex in the first round, losing to leenock in the second, wasn't field in the final. Zenex won 2 games out of 10 in 2011 one against Fxo (mOoNan, SLoG, Oz .... scary line up) The next GSTL Slayers went 1-4 Taeja wasn't field in the first two game then beat MKP before losing to HongUn. He all killed Funited (SocceR, Moon, ThorZain, NaNiwa) and beat super nova before losing to MC in the last game. At the very best Taeja run with Slayers was above average, he beats scrubs left and right and beat some good players, lost against better than him. Then IPLTAC : He didn't play the first two games and was field against prime which he all killed : -AnNyeong never made code S -BBoongBBoong made one code S in two years with prime beating Heart (one code S in two years and none at that point) Avenge (0 code S) and Keen (solid player) -Creator : 1 code S in 2 years, won WCS through pvp, average in TvP, Taeja beat him few weeks prior in IPL Fight club -Maru : Average code S player at that time 2 RO 32 1 Ro16 in 5 code S in 2012 -MKP : One of the best at that time Great AK no doubt Round 4 : TL lost against Slayers, -Beat Puzzle (Slayers Ace, double Ro8 2011/2012, was starting to be shit after that, still solid win) -Lost against Alicia : 0 code S 2012, 3 code S in 2011 Not so great Round 5 : TL Won against MVP -Beat Tails (0 code S in 2 years) -Beat Super (1 code S in the last GSL of 2012 none at that point) -Lost against Sniper (1 code S at that point Ro32, won a GSL 3 month later, good team player) Round 6 : TL won against Startale 4 kill -Life : wasn't god tier yet, still very solid -Curious :5 straight code S in 2012 -Squirtle : One of the best protoss of 2012 if not the best -Bomber Wasn't all that good in 2012 but still Ok so that is impressive as fuck Loser Final : TL beat Slayers 5-3 4 kill -Genius : 4 straight code S in 2012, lost the first one against DRG -Coca : 0 code S in 2012, retired shortly after -Min : never made it to code S -Puzzle : Slayers Ace, double Ro8 2011/2012, was starting to be shit after that, still solid win Slayers was not a very good team was here only because the face noone Prime and Startale were much better Final : All kill IM first game -Seed : Code S champion, 4 code S in 2012 -Yongwha : 0 code S in 2 years -Losira : Very Good player in 2011, didn't make code S in 2012, disapointing MLG in 2012 but one of IM best player during IPLTAC -Nestea : God in GSL, shit outside played only one game in IPLTAC, still was Nestea -Yoda : 2 code S in 2012, none at that point Solid Line up of Korean but appart Seed and the name of Nestea nothing out of the extraordinary I still think that that Startale line-up was much better Second BO9 : -Beat First : IM best player during IPLTAC, no code S in 2012 but good MLG run during that Summer --Yongwha : 0 code S in 2 years Lost against Seed TL didn't win IPLTAC 3. MVP 3 best player (Sniper, Keen, DRG) were not taken down by Taeja he lost the two most important games (Slayers Game one to avoid loser bracket and IM game two), still taking down prime and especially Startale wasn't small feat. He beat 4 top players : MVP, Squirtle, Life, Seed lost against 2 : Sniper, Seed He beat 11 Code S regular or player with good result in 2012 : Creator (could be in the first group), Maru, Puzzle*2, Genius, Curious, Nestea, Yoda (could be in the third group), Bomber, First, Losira and lost against Alicia He beat 8 scrubs : AnNyeong , BBoongBBoong, Tails, Super, Coca, Min, Yongwha *2 That is a great run, but how is it even comparable to Inno accomplishement in Team League ? Especially when you look at the fact that Taeja was shit during Proleague (9-10) even if he did beat Inno twice and lost one against him He went 29–24 in ATSC against Korean and never won a single one (and the one TL got second he didn't play any of the three PO match against acer) Inno is 30–7 in ATSC against Korean how can you even debate for Taeja ? You could argue MMA is better than Inno (and he may very well be), You could even argue that sOs or Flash or Zest is better than Inno in team league (even if they are not) but TAEJA ????? | ||
|
Olli
Austria24422 Posts
On June 22 2017 07:22 pvsnp wrote: Yes. Because quantifiable data is the only OBJECTIVE aspect. You're bringing a knife to a gun fight and complaining that others are using guns. This entire argument is about judging who the better player is. We've gone through the results multiple times. That means this is now the time for interpretation - development of clear criteria and a comparison alongside them. Quantifiable data is only ever part of an argument, never the argument itself, unless the data already renders any interpretation redundant. The numbers show they're close. Either player can come out ahead, depending on your criteria. I'm arguing here because people have said that INnoVation is "obviously" the better player and "obviously" deserves a higher ranking in the all-time-greatest list. We've established that numbers don't tell the whole story and in a lot of scenarios will actually deceive you, so why would you assume your "objective" ranking (which it never was, you've chosen the numbers and statistics yourself and ignored others) is any better? | ||
|
pvsnp
7676 Posts
On June 22 2017 07:28 Olli wrote: You're bringing a knife to a gun fight and complaining that others are using guns. This entire argument is about judging who the better player is. We've gone through the results multiple times. That means this is now the time for interpretation - development of clear criteria and a comparison alongside them. Quantifiable data is only ever part of an argument, never the argument itself, unless the data already renders any interpretation redundant. The numbers show they're close. Either player can come out ahead, depending on your criteria. I'm arguing here because people have said that INnoVation is "obviously" the better player and "obviously" deserves a higher ranking in the all-time-greatest list. We've established that numbers don't tell the whole story and in a lot of scenarios will actually deceive you, so why would you assume your "objective" ranking (which it never was, you've chosen the numbers and statistics yourself and ignored others) is any better? Knives and guns? Am I about to die of a gunshot wound? Surely you remember what I said about false equivalence fallacies? Determining the correct answer is not at all analogous to a life-and-death struggle. That being the case I see no problem at all in calling you out on your injection of subjectivity in what should be an objective analysis--that is if you are truly trying to convince anyone. Subjective arguments can always be rejected and replaced with my own subjectivity. | ||
|
Olli
Austria24422 Posts
I've repeatedly shown you how what you call an objective argument is actually not that, and that you're completely missing the point of this entire debate. You can't select certain statistics such as titles won, divide them up into categories that you defined and that each carry different value (Starleagues, KR weekenders, regular weekenders), leave out certain other measurable factors such as time spent at the top, dominance over the scene, etc. - and then claim that your argument is objective because it's quantifiable. You've already set criteria, you've already assigned subjective value, otherwise you would be measuring other/more/less data. Any argument does this from the very start. Any thesis begins with certain assumptions, and they are always subjective. So come on now, don't be so deluded as to think you're the only one putting together an objective argument. Nobody here is, and at least I'm not pretending to. | ||
|
Elentos
55585 Posts
| ||
|
pvsnp
7676 Posts
On June 22 2017 07:39 Olli wrote: And it certainly doesn't help that you're only here to appear witty. My dastardly motive is revealed! Alas, if only I was forewarned of your skill at Legilimency! Mind-reading on Interwebs forums is not very reliable, just an FYI. | ||
| ||
