Why Discussing Sports is Fun by DJEtterStyle TeamLiquid: Final Edits
My great-great-great grandfather demonstrating his "clairvoyance" to an attractive young lass (not pictured). His predictions turned out to be entirely wrong, but his aura was so powerful that she slept with him anyway. Basically, my great-great-great grandmother was a total slut.
A certain user, bearnet2001, recently wrote in his blog that By.Flash was going to be the next big thing. "I know people have made this prediction before and it's not very original," he said, "but I'm going with it and not retracting it, unlike some who make a million predictions and ignore them when they are wrong, but claim 'I knew it' when one of them comes true."
His post irritated me, and I was left trying to figure out why. And that's when it hit me: the value of a prediction has very little to do with whether it turns out to be right or not. A prediction is useful and "good" when it is based around solid evidence and argued compellingly. To use football as an example (I'll switch to StarCraft later), if a hypothetical Bears team, one with a top-ranked defense and offense, ended the regular season with a flawless 16-0 record and were up against an equally hypothetical 9-7 Cowboys team in the first round of the playoffs, quoting those statistics and saying that the Bears really should win would be a "good" prediction, regardless of the actual results of the game. And maybe someone would shoot back with the fact that the Cowboys have the best run defense in the game, which should counter the Bears' run-based offense. That person could also bring up the fact that the Cowboys, despite their record, are on a six-game winning streak. Maybe they've looked like a whole new team lately, or maybe they haven't lost since they got their new coach. That'd be a "good" prediction, too, and yet they're predicting completely different results! There are too many intangible things that go into sports on any given day; all we can do is take what we know (or what we've seen), apply it to the situation at hand, and hope that we turn out to be right.
So it's really not about being right at all. It's about presenting a compelling case for why you're going to be right in the first place, not thumbing your nose at the person who turned out to be wrong. There's no need to defend your reasoning after the fact; you've already made your case, and the results don't necessarily make you any more right or wrong.
This argument holds especially true for StarCraft; we're often dealing with individuals, and individuals are far more dynamic (in terms of rate of change) than teams. To use another hypothetical example, let's consider Casy, the guy that I like to pick on when it comes to having a weak matchup. Casy is obviously a skilled StarCraft player. He has excellent multitasking and a strong grasp of micromanagement. So why are his TvP statistics so abysmal? I'm not going to answer that question now (and I probably never will), but there's a different question I'd like to pose: who's to say that, tomorrow, Casy won't wake up and "get" TvP? It's happened to me. I woke up one morning, played a game, and suddenly PvZ "made sense" to me. I was literally a different player overnight. So when I predict that Casy is going to horribly lose a TvP, I'm not made a fool of when my new, hypothetical Casy mops the floor with a Protoss opponent. The real fool is the person who claimed that Casy would win despite there being no compelling evidence to support his point of view.
Predictions in StarCraft are made even more difficult by the fact that the playing field, unlike most other sports, is rarely level. A Zerg player might have shown all the evidence in the world of being a better player than his Protoss opponent (in ZvP, of course), but if the game is on Paradoxxx, I'm picking the Protoss player to win every time. Most maps aren't so clear-cut, though, and a person is left trying to gauge the balance of a map against the skill of the players. Even then, there's the distinct possibility of a player using an off-the-wall strategy that takes both skill and the map, for the most part, completely out of the equation.
It's this unpredictability, this very thing that makes crafting a "good" prediction so horribly difficult, that makes StarCraft such a—dare I say it?—fun source of debate. Fans lose interest in a sport when its outcome is too predictable, and StarCraft is anything but predictable. But as much as fans want unpredictability, they also want variety. That’s where StarCraft moves past the typical computer game. On any given day, any player can beat any other player using any variety of strategies on any number of maps. That's why fans keep watching day after day. The game is always different, the outcome of a game is always a topic of debate, and there's always an alternate angle from which to approach a situation.
But the real fun of professional StarCraft is that, like all sports, it's just a game. As hard as athletes might prepare for competitions, the fate of the world does not depend upon the outcome of any particular game. In the end, they don't matter. They're spectacles, diversions. As seriously as we might take them, it's up to us to remember that, in the end, they're really not serious at all. It's just fun to take them seriously, which is why we—all of us—consider ourselves fans.
The retrospective judging of predictions annoys me too. I remember seeing some people arguing about it several PRs ago and I had to restrain myself from jumping in (can't let my post count get too high, you know).
The worst was when Midas chose Savior as his first single elim opponent in Shinhan 3. Tons of people were arguing afterwards that his decision was unsound because he lost. I even remember someone saying that if he had won it would have been a good decision but since he lost it was a bad one. I hope those people try poker someday.
P.S. sorry if I'm not supposed to be commenting yet
All I can say is sports is different than poker. I understand downswings and percentages, but a lot was riding on that pick. Midas' career was riding on that pick.
None of us fans were sure if Midas was ready to make "the leap" into greatness. He gambled on his ability to beat Savior and he wasn't ready. The only real way to know if Midas was ready is if he won. So in that way, it was results-dependent.
I strongly believe had Midas won, he would be the favorite to win that OSL, but it wasn't guaranteed. But if he lost, he'd be forever damaged goods. His confidence completely shot and unable to in the future completely unable to perform in pressure situations (even moreso than how much he chokes now). It really was a crossroads in his career, and is it really worth risking so much at the possibility of winning that OSL when we knew it'd go 3 games and Midas' history in those situations compare to Savior's was just laughable? We all knew what was going to happen in game 3.
Look at where his career is headed now, was it really worth the risk? Midas should've picked an easy opponent, built confidence, gotten a seed into Daum. That was the correct decision.
He went for it, you do have to admire his courage a little, but it remains a ridiculously stupid decision.
What I meant to say was that it was a stupid decision win or lose, but the ONLY way to justify it is if Midas won. By losing, he had no other way of arguing that the decision was wise.
I agree. The same thing applies to many other disciplines as well. When someone is making a scientific claim, this comes up a lot. Whether or not your claim is actually right isn't what allows science to change. You have to back it up so other people can actually see how you came to that conclusion.
I learned in a science/philsophy class that someone created three criteria for... something. I wish I could remember what it was. One was you had to be justified in your claim, and there were two others. If anyone knows what reference I'm referring to, please point it out =)
Yeah that picture is pure gold, it cracks me up all the time.
I still think you're being too hard on Midas, Hot_Bid. He's not really a notorious choker..., take for example this PL season. He is 3-2 in ace matches and one of the losses was against Nal_rA on Peaks, a map that is 1-9 TvP this season... And with the competition being so stiff nowadays things like guaranteed entry to the next Starleague season almost don't exist anymore. I mean even back in the day top players failed to qualify for OSL/MSL on occasion, but today it's much harder.
I agree with you that yes Midas doesn't always choke, but until his achievements match his supposed skill level (one of the very top Terrans) then he'll always have that deficiency hanging above his head.
Midas imo took being in Shinhan3 and having an opportunity to be auto-seeded. he had qualified for so many Starleagues that he lost sight of how hard the qualification process was.
His chances of getting into Daum were actually quite high if he just didn't pick Savior (which motivated Savior so much too). It's all the more reason why he should've picked someone else.
Losing to Anytime in that semi was a defining moment in his career though. midas hasn't done shit since either, which makes it stand out even more.
Great players define themselves by seizing the moment and getting all they can out of it. That's what makes a player like Anytime, who by all rights has been fairly streaky throughout his career, very special. When he has an opportunity to make a splash, he dives in.
That semi against Anytime was one of many special moments that midas didn't have the gusto to own. That's why Anytime, a player who midas puts to shame statistically, is more special than him.
casy and anytime are like those players in the NBA that shoot a career FG percentage of 35% but can randomly catch fire and score 60 points in one game
midas is like fricken dirk nowitzki (ahah no offense to the germans), hes all great in the regular season and even looks like he could win a championship but when it comes down to the critical moments he fades
I feel the predictability also adds to the fun. Some things have to be predictable in order for the unpredictable to happen. To make a soccer comparison, that is why the sport is so damn fun yet frustrating to watch. Your team can dominate every aspect of the game yet still lose if you don't finish the few chances you get to score.
a bit offtopic: im so glad i discovered poker. I talk to a lot of stupid people who think they are smart and i can tell 100% sure that their logic of thinkin is completely wrong. normaly, after a discusion with that kind of people, u cant prove them your arguments coz they just wont accept it. thats when i think to myself, i sure hope you start playin poker, everyone can use easy money.
once the cards are turned up in poker you know if your decision is right, regardless of results
in this way, predictions are somewhat similar, sometimes you'd still pick Player A > Player B even if Player B won. like i'd pick Bisu > Flash again even after Flash beat him.
but in real life decisions, sometimes it the correctness of a decision is influenced by results. and i consider Midas' decision to pick Savior more like that than like a race in poker.
I predict that Sea.Up and By.Flash will be the strongest Sc players really soon like Boxer and Nada were for a while. And I also predict that MBC Bisu[Shield] will be the next Reach ( Dissapear from any important moments )
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/staff/Hot_Bid/TLFE/SportsFun_by_Etter1.JPG)
