|
Valhalla18444 Posts
On August 14 2007 15:53 gravity wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2007 15:47 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:On August 14 2007 15:45 gravity wrote:
"80.9% of the time, Nada has won the required number of games before his opponent has."
This is actually almost exactly what you would expect from a player with a 60% game winning ratio playing against an average opponent in a Bo3 (0.6*0.6*0.4*(3 choose 2) + 0.6*0.6 = 0.792). Of course, opponents in Bo3's are generally going to be somewhat above average so this does still indicate some "clutch" ability (though on the other hand I didn't take into account Bo5's which should have an even better ratio). I guess the real story is Midas's relative failure in Bo's. First of all, that's not even remotely correct because the opponent has a win ratio as well, and most pros hover in the 55-60% range The average pro must be 50%, if you averaged out Nada's opponents in Bo's I doubt they would be higher than 55%. Also, you have to take into account that a player with .60 win ratio should win 90% of Bo5's against average opposition. (0.6^3 + 0.6^3*0.4*(4 choose 1) + 0.6^3*0.4^2*(5 choose 2) = 0.9072) edit: I guess it's still impressive if other pro's don't come close. Obviously we don't really know exactly what skill his Bo opponents have been so it's hard to prove whether Nada has shown any special "clutch" ability of if it's just his high general skill shining through.
i edited my post a bunch
the math works out that's fine but its not 'what you would expect' at all, its starcraft not a calculator
|
Hong Kong20321 Posts
nice write up fakesteve
both really good terrans...i used to love midas for his tvp so much it was insane shit haha
|
On August 14 2007 15:56 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2007 15:53 gravity wrote:On August 14 2007 15:47 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:On August 14 2007 15:45 gravity wrote:
"80.9% of the time, Nada has won the required number of games before his opponent has."
This is actually almost exactly what you would expect from a player with a 60% game winning ratio playing against an average opponent in a Bo3 (0.6*0.6*0.4*(3 choose 2) + 0.6*0.6 = 0.792). Of course, opponents in Bo3's are generally going to be somewhat above average so this does still indicate some "clutch" ability (though on the other hand I didn't take into account Bo5's which should have an even better ratio). I guess the real story is Midas's relative failure in Bo's. First of all, that's not even remotely correct because the opponent has a win ratio as well, and most pros hover in the 55-60% range The average pro must be 50%, if you averaged out Nada's opponents in Bo's I doubt they would be higher than 55%. Also, you have to take into account that a player with .60 win ratio should win 90% of Bo5's against average opposition. (0.6^3 + 0.6^3*0.4*(4 choose 1) + 0.6^3*0.4^2*(5 choose 2) = 0.9072) edit: I guess it's still impressive if other pro's don't come close. Obviously we don't really know exactly what skill his Bo opponents have been so it's hard to prove whether Nada has shown any special "clutch" ability of if it's just his high general skill shining through. i edited my post a bunch the math works out that's fine but its not 'what you would expect' at all, its starcraft not a calculator
Still, my point was that just doing well in BoX's doesn't necessarily prove that a player is particularly strong in clutch situations rather than just being good in general. You also have to take into account that Nada's winning % would be even higher if it wasn't for long "slump" periods where he didn't reach the BO level at all. So Nada's "effective" winning % during the times he was setting his Best-of records is arguably more than 62%.
The Elo test I mentioned in my other post would be good since it would take into account both how good a player was playing at the time of a BoX (as opposed to looking at his all-time record) and how well his opponent was playing, allowing a more accurate measurement of who is truly "clutch". I wouldn't be surprised if Nada did well on that measurement too though.
I don't really think you're necessarily wrong here, I just like statistics/objective measurements for this kind of thing :p.
|
On August 14 2007 16:02 gravity wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2007 15:56 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:On August 14 2007 15:53 gravity wrote:On August 14 2007 15:47 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:On August 14 2007 15:45 gravity wrote:
"80.9% of the time, Nada has won the required number of games before his opponent has."
This is actually almost exactly what you would expect from a player with a 60% game winning ratio playing against an average opponent in a Bo3 (0.6*0.6*0.4*(3 choose 2) + 0.6*0.6 = 0.792). Of course, opponents in Bo3's are generally going to be somewhat above average so this does still indicate some "clutch" ability (though on the other hand I didn't take into account Bo5's which should have an even better ratio). I guess the real story is Midas's relative failure in Bo's. First of all, that's not even remotely correct because the opponent has a win ratio as well, and most pros hover in the 55-60% range The average pro must be 50%, if you averaged out Nada's opponents in Bo's I doubt they would be higher than 55%. Also, you have to take into account that a player with .60 win ratio should win 90% of Bo5's against average opposition. (0.6^3 + 0.6^3*0.4*(4 choose 1) + 0.6^3*0.4^2*(5 choose 2) = 0.9072) edit: I guess it's still impressive if other pro's don't come close. Obviously we don't really know exactly what skill his Bo opponents have been so it's hard to prove whether Nada has shown any special "clutch" ability of if it's just his high general skill shining through. i edited my post a bunch the math works out that's fine but its not 'what you would expect' at all, its starcraft not a calculator Still, my point was that just doing well in BoX's doesn't necessarily prove that a player is particularly strong in clutch situations rather than just being good in general. You also have to take into account that Nada's winning % would be even higher if it wasn't for long "slump" periods where he didn't reach the BO level at all. So Nada's "effective" winning % during the times he was setting his Best-of records is arguably more than 62%. The Elo test I mentioned in my other post would be good since it would take into account both how good a player was playing at the time of a BoX (as opposed to looking at his all-time record) and his well his opponent was playing, allowing a more accurate measurement of who is truly "clutch". I wouldn't be surprised if Nada did well on that measurement too though. I don't really think you're necessarily wrong here, I just like statistics/objective measurements for this kind of thing :p.
you've completely missed the point of this article then. the first line of your first paragraph is addressed by steve's article
|
On August 14 2007 15:56 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2007 15:53 gravity wrote:On August 14 2007 15:47 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:On August 14 2007 15:45 gravity wrote:
"80.9% of the time, Nada has won the required number of games before his opponent has."
This is actually almost exactly what you would expect from a player with a 60% game winning ratio playing against an average opponent in a Bo3 (0.6*0.6*0.4*(3 choose 2) + 0.6*0.6 = 0.792). Of course, opponents in Bo3's are generally going to be somewhat above average so this does still indicate some "clutch" ability (though on the other hand I didn't take into account Bo5's which should have an even better ratio). I guess the real story is Midas's relative failure in Bo's. First of all, that's not even remotely correct because the opponent has a win ratio as well, and most pros hover in the 55-60% range The average pro must be 50%, if you averaged out Nada's opponents in Bo's I doubt they would be higher than 55%. Also, you have to take into account that a player with .60 win ratio should win 90% of Bo5's against average opposition. (0.6^3 + 0.6^3*0.4*(4 choose 1) + 0.6^3*0.4^2*(5 choose 2) = 0.9072) edit: I guess it's still impressive if other pro's don't come close. Obviously we don't really know exactly what skill his Bo opponents have been so it's hard to prove whether Nada has shown any special "clutch" ability of if it's just his high general skill shining through. i edited my post a bunch the math works out that's fine but its not 'what you would expect' at all, its starcraft not a calculator
of course you would expect a strong player to have a much better win ratio in bo series than all games, thats why series are used to decide important matches. What's impressive about nada is the way he was able to dominate for so long against so many opponents.  However if you wanted to calculate 'clutch' ability statistically, you could take into account the win ratios of players he played in matches which are more important and see if he still beats the odds compared to normal games. a project for someone with a lot of patience perhaps...
edit: FWIW a win ratio of 80%+ in bo matches indicates that nada's "game win ratio" is still around 60% even when playing against the elite group that reach the quarters and semis of starleagues and therefore plays in the bo3/bo5 matches.
|
Hong Kong20321 Posts
statisticky stuff are awesome. i just have no idea how to do them and i hate maths lolooll
|
On August 14 2007 16:06 SoMuchBetter wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2007 16:02 gravity wrote:On August 14 2007 15:56 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:On August 14 2007 15:53 gravity wrote:On August 14 2007 15:47 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:On August 14 2007 15:45 gravity wrote:
"80.9% of the time, Nada has won the required number of games before his opponent has."
This is actually almost exactly what you would expect from a player with a 60% game winning ratio playing against an average opponent in a Bo3 (0.6*0.6*0.4*(3 choose 2) + 0.6*0.6 = 0.792). Of course, opponents in Bo3's are generally going to be somewhat above average so this does still indicate some "clutch" ability (though on the other hand I didn't take into account Bo5's which should have an even better ratio). I guess the real story is Midas's relative failure in Bo's. First of all, that's not even remotely correct because the opponent has a win ratio as well, and most pros hover in the 55-60% range The average pro must be 50%, if you averaged out Nada's opponents in Bo's I doubt they would be higher than 55%. Also, you have to take into account that a player with .60 win ratio should win 90% of Bo5's against average opposition. (0.6^3 + 0.6^3*0.4*(4 choose 1) + 0.6^3*0.4^2*(5 choose 2) = 0.9072) edit: I guess it's still impressive if other pro's don't come close. Obviously we don't really know exactly what skill his Bo opponents have been so it's hard to prove whether Nada has shown any special "clutch" ability of if it's just his high general skill shining through. i edited my post a bunch the math works out that's fine but its not 'what you would expect' at all, its starcraft not a calculator Still, my point was that just doing well in BoX's doesn't necessarily prove that a player is particularly strong in clutch situations rather than just being good in general. You also have to take into account that Nada's winning % would be even higher if it wasn't for long "slump" periods where he didn't reach the BO level at all. So Nada's "effective" winning % during the times he was setting his Best-of records is arguably more than 62%. The Elo test I mentioned in my other post would be good since it would take into account both how good a player was playing at the time of a BoX (as opposed to looking at his all-time record) and his well his opponent was playing, allowing a more accurate measurement of who is truly "clutch". I wouldn't be surprised if Nada did well on that measurement too though. I don't really think you're necessarily wrong here, I just like statistics/objective measurements for this kind of thing :p. you've completely missed the point of this article then. the first line of your first paragraph is addressed by steve's article
You've completely missed the point of my post which is not so much that the article is entirely wrong as that it doesn't have enough information to solidly prove anything.
|
NaDa:
OSL x 3
MSL x3
Thats how it is.. ^^
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
On August 14 2007 16:10 gravity wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2007 16:06 SoMuchBetter wrote:On August 14 2007 16:02 gravity wrote:On August 14 2007 15:56 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:On August 14 2007 15:53 gravity wrote:On August 14 2007 15:47 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:On August 14 2007 15:45 gravity wrote:
"80.9% of the time, Nada has won the required number of games before his opponent has."
This is actually almost exactly what you would expect from a player with a 60% game winning ratio playing against an average opponent in a Bo3 (0.6*0.6*0.4*(3 choose 2) + 0.6*0.6 = 0.792). Of course, opponents in Bo3's are generally going to be somewhat above average so this does still indicate some "clutch" ability (though on the other hand I didn't take into account Bo5's which should have an even better ratio). I guess the real story is Midas's relative failure in Bo's. First of all, that's not even remotely correct because the opponent has a win ratio as well, and most pros hover in the 55-60% range The average pro must be 50%, if you averaged out Nada's opponents in Bo's I doubt they would be higher than 55%. Also, you have to take into account that a player with .60 win ratio should win 90% of Bo5's against average opposition. (0.6^3 + 0.6^3*0.4*(4 choose 1) + 0.6^3*0.4^2*(5 choose 2) = 0.9072) edit: I guess it's still impressive if other pro's don't come close. Obviously we don't really know exactly what skill his Bo opponents have been so it's hard to prove whether Nada has shown any special "clutch" ability of if it's just his high general skill shining through. i edited my post a bunch the math works out that's fine but its not 'what you would expect' at all, its starcraft not a calculator Still, my point was that just doing well in BoX's doesn't necessarily prove that a player is particularly strong in clutch situations rather than just being good in general. You also have to take into account that Nada's winning % would be even higher if it wasn't for long "slump" periods where he didn't reach the BO level at all. So Nada's "effective" winning % during the times he was setting his Best-of records is arguably more than 62%. The Elo test I mentioned in my other post would be good since it would take into account both how good a player was playing at the time of a BoX (as opposed to looking at his all-time record) and his well his opponent was playing, allowing a more accurate measurement of who is truly "clutch". I wouldn't be surprised if Nada did well on that measurement too though. I don't really think you're necessarily wrong here, I just like statistics/objective measurements for this kind of thing :p. you've completely missed the point of this article then. the first line of your first paragraph is addressed by steve's article You've completely missed the point of my post which is not so much that the article is entirely wrong as that it doesn't have enough information to solidly prove anything.
You think the point of the article is "nada is 46-11 in series therefore he is a clutch player"
the point of the article is midas chokes and nada is a clutch player, also look at these interesting statistics  I don't think anyone can argue that Nada isn't a clutch player, given his deserving title as the most successful progamer. I didn't feel it needed proving, just solidifying through a statistic that I felt was relevant and indicative.
|
On August 14 2007 16:10 gravity wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2007 16:06 SoMuchBetter wrote:On August 14 2007 16:02 gravity wrote:On August 14 2007 15:56 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:On August 14 2007 15:53 gravity wrote:On August 14 2007 15:47 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:On August 14 2007 15:45 gravity wrote:
"80.9% of the time, Nada has won the required number of games before his opponent has."
This is actually almost exactly what you would expect from a player with a 60% game winning ratio playing against an average opponent in a Bo3 (0.6*0.6*0.4*(3 choose 2) + 0.6*0.6 = 0.792). Of course, opponents in Bo3's are generally going to be somewhat above average so this does still indicate some "clutch" ability (though on the other hand I didn't take into account Bo5's which should have an even better ratio). I guess the real story is Midas's relative failure in Bo's. First of all, that's not even remotely correct because the opponent has a win ratio as well, and most pros hover in the 55-60% range The average pro must be 50%, if you averaged out Nada's opponents in Bo's I doubt they would be higher than 55%. Also, you have to take into account that a player with .60 win ratio should win 90% of Bo5's against average opposition. (0.6^3 + 0.6^3*0.4*(4 choose 1) + 0.6^3*0.4^2*(5 choose 2) = 0.9072) edit: I guess it's still impressive if other pro's don't come close. Obviously we don't really know exactly what skill his Bo opponents have been so it's hard to prove whether Nada has shown any special "clutch" ability of if it's just his high general skill shining through. i edited my post a bunch the math works out that's fine but its not 'what you would expect' at all, its starcraft not a calculator Still, my point was that just doing well in BoX's doesn't necessarily prove that a player is particularly strong in clutch situations rather than just being good in general. You also have to take into account that Nada's winning % would be even higher if it wasn't for long "slump" periods where he didn't reach the BO level at all. So Nada's "effective" winning % during the times he was setting his Best-of records is arguably more than 62%. The Elo test I mentioned in my other post would be good since it would take into account both how good a player was playing at the time of a BoX (as opposed to looking at his all-time record) and his well his opponent was playing, allowing a more accurate measurement of who is truly "clutch". I wouldn't be surprised if Nada did well on that measurement too though. I don't really think you're necessarily wrong here, I just like statistics/objective measurements for this kind of thing :p. you've completely missed the point of this article then. the first line of your first paragraph is addressed by steve's article You've completely missed the point of my post which is not so much that the article is entirely wrong as that it doesn't have enough information to solidly prove anything.
how's this for proof?
http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/players/147_NaDa
|
On August 14 2007 16:14 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2007 16:10 gravity wrote:On August 14 2007 16:06 SoMuchBetter wrote:On August 14 2007 16:02 gravity wrote:On August 14 2007 15:56 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:On August 14 2007 15:53 gravity wrote:On August 14 2007 15:47 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:On August 14 2007 15:45 gravity wrote:
"80.9% of the time, Nada has won the required number of games before his opponent has."
This is actually almost exactly what you would expect from a player with a 60% game winning ratio playing against an average opponent in a Bo3 (0.6*0.6*0.4*(3 choose 2) + 0.6*0.6 = 0.792). Of course, opponents in Bo3's are generally going to be somewhat above average so this does still indicate some "clutch" ability (though on the other hand I didn't take into account Bo5's which should have an even better ratio). I guess the real story is Midas's relative failure in Bo's. First of all, that's not even remotely correct because the opponent has a win ratio as well, and most pros hover in the 55-60% range The average pro must be 50%, if you averaged out Nada's opponents in Bo's I doubt they would be higher than 55%. Also, you have to take into account that a player with .60 win ratio should win 90% of Bo5's against average opposition. (0.6^3 + 0.6^3*0.4*(4 choose 1) + 0.6^3*0.4^2*(5 choose 2) = 0.9072) edit: I guess it's still impressive if other pro's don't come close. Obviously we don't really know exactly what skill his Bo opponents have been so it's hard to prove whether Nada has shown any special "clutch" ability of if it's just his high general skill shining through. i edited my post a bunch the math works out that's fine but its not 'what you would expect' at all, its starcraft not a calculator Still, my point was that just doing well in BoX's doesn't necessarily prove that a player is particularly strong in clutch situations rather than just being good in general. You also have to take into account that Nada's winning % would be even higher if it wasn't for long "slump" periods where he didn't reach the BO level at all. So Nada's "effective" winning % during the times he was setting his Best-of records is arguably more than 62%. The Elo test I mentioned in my other post would be good since it would take into account both how good a player was playing at the time of a BoX (as opposed to looking at his all-time record) and his well his opponent was playing, allowing a more accurate measurement of who is truly "clutch". I wouldn't be surprised if Nada did well on that measurement too though. I don't really think you're necessarily wrong here, I just like statistics/objective measurements for this kind of thing :p. you've completely missed the point of this article then. the first line of your first paragraph is addressed by steve's article You've completely missed the point of my post which is not so much that the article is entirely wrong as that it doesn't have enough information to solidly prove anything. You think the point of the article is "nada is 46-11 in series therefore he is a clutch player" the point of the article is midas chokes and nada is a clutch player, also look at these interesting statistics I don't think anyone can argue that Nada isn't a clutch player, given his deserving title as the most successful progamer. I didn't feel it needed proving, just solidifying through a statistic that I felt was relevant and indicative.
It's perfectly possible to be a dominant player, the most successful, etc, and not be unusually "clutch", unless by clutch you just mean "not a major choker". You just have to be good enough at your peak.
Hell, if your peak strength was good enough you could actually be a mild "choker" (in terms of performing below expectation in major finals) and still be very successful/win leagues
|
On August 14 2007 16:16 SoMuchBetter wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2007 16:10 gravity wrote:On August 14 2007 16:06 SoMuchBetter wrote:On August 14 2007 16:02 gravity wrote:On August 14 2007 15:56 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:On August 14 2007 15:53 gravity wrote:On August 14 2007 15:47 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:On August 14 2007 15:45 gravity wrote:
"80.9% of the time, Nada has won the required number of games before his opponent has."
This is actually almost exactly what you would expect from a player with a 60% game winning ratio playing against an average opponent in a Bo3 (0.6*0.6*0.4*(3 choose 2) + 0.6*0.6 = 0.792). Of course, opponents in Bo3's are generally going to be somewhat above average so this does still indicate some "clutch" ability (though on the other hand I didn't take into account Bo5's which should have an even better ratio). I guess the real story is Midas's relative failure in Bo's. First of all, that's not even remotely correct because the opponent has a win ratio as well, and most pros hover in the 55-60% range The average pro must be 50%, if you averaged out Nada's opponents in Bo's I doubt they would be higher than 55%. Also, you have to take into account that a player with .60 win ratio should win 90% of Bo5's against average opposition. (0.6^3 + 0.6^3*0.4*(4 choose 1) + 0.6^3*0.4^2*(5 choose 2) = 0.9072) edit: I guess it's still impressive if other pro's don't come close. Obviously we don't really know exactly what skill his Bo opponents have been so it's hard to prove whether Nada has shown any special "clutch" ability of if it's just his high general skill shining through. i edited my post a bunch the math works out that's fine but its not 'what you would expect' at all, its starcraft not a calculator Still, my point was that just doing well in BoX's doesn't necessarily prove that a player is particularly strong in clutch situations rather than just being good in general. You also have to take into account that Nada's winning % would be even higher if it wasn't for long "slump" periods where he didn't reach the BO level at all. So Nada's "effective" winning % during the times he was setting his Best-of records is arguably more than 62%. The Elo test I mentioned in my other post would be good since it would take into account both how good a player was playing at the time of a BoX (as opposed to looking at his all-time record) and his well his opponent was playing, allowing a more accurate measurement of who is truly "clutch". I wouldn't be surprised if Nada did well on that measurement too though. I don't really think you're necessarily wrong here, I just like statistics/objective measurements for this kind of thing :p. you've completely missed the point of this article then. the first line of your first paragraph is addressed by steve's article You've completely missed the point of my post which is not so much that the article is entirely wrong as that it doesn't have enough information to solidly prove anything. how's this for proof? http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/players/147_NaDa
If you think that proves that Nada is "clutch" you don't know either don't know what clutch means or you're just sticking with the very weak "not a serious choker" definition. It's actually possible (though pretty unlikely) that despite all his wins, Nada is actually a "choker" to a small extent (it's more likely that this is true if Nada's peak strength in normal games is much higher than his average, which we don't really know since we don't have Elo ratings (or equivalent) over time for players yet).
In other words, yes Nada does have a lot of wins in finals, but is that more than we would expect from a player of his (seemingly very high) peak strength? We don't have enough information to say.
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
On August 14 2007 16:21 gravity wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2007 16:16 SoMuchBetter wrote:On August 14 2007 16:10 gravity wrote:On August 14 2007 16:06 SoMuchBetter wrote:On August 14 2007 16:02 gravity wrote:On August 14 2007 15:56 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:On August 14 2007 15:53 gravity wrote:On August 14 2007 15:47 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:On August 14 2007 15:45 gravity wrote:
"80.9% of the time, Nada has won the required number of games before his opponent has."
This is actually almost exactly what you would expect from a player with a 60% game winning ratio playing against an average opponent in a Bo3 (0.6*0.6*0.4*(3 choose 2) + 0.6*0.6 = 0.792). Of course, opponents in Bo3's are generally going to be somewhat above average so this does still indicate some "clutch" ability (though on the other hand I didn't take into account Bo5's which should have an even better ratio). I guess the real story is Midas's relative failure in Bo's. First of all, that's not even remotely correct because the opponent has a win ratio as well, and most pros hover in the 55-60% range The average pro must be 50%, if you averaged out Nada's opponents in Bo's I doubt they would be higher than 55%. Also, you have to take into account that a player with .60 win ratio should win 90% of Bo5's against average opposition. (0.6^3 + 0.6^3*0.4*(4 choose 1) + 0.6^3*0.4^2*(5 choose 2) = 0.9072) edit: I guess it's still impressive if other pro's don't come close. Obviously we don't really know exactly what skill his Bo opponents have been so it's hard to prove whether Nada has shown any special "clutch" ability of if it's just his high general skill shining through. i edited my post a bunch the math works out that's fine but its not 'what you would expect' at all, its starcraft not a calculator Still, my point was that just doing well in BoX's doesn't necessarily prove that a player is particularly strong in clutch situations rather than just being good in general. You also have to take into account that Nada's winning % would be even higher if it wasn't for long "slump" periods where he didn't reach the BO level at all. So Nada's "effective" winning % during the times he was setting his Best-of records is arguably more than 62%. The Elo test I mentioned in my other post would be good since it would take into account both how good a player was playing at the time of a BoX (as opposed to looking at his all-time record) and his well his opponent was playing, allowing a more accurate measurement of who is truly "clutch". I wouldn't be surprised if Nada did well on that measurement too though. I don't really think you're necessarily wrong here, I just like statistics/objective measurements for this kind of thing :p. you've completely missed the point of this article then. the first line of your first paragraph is addressed by steve's article You've completely missed the point of my post which is not so much that the article is entirely wrong as that it doesn't have enough information to solidly prove anything. how's this for proof? http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/players/147_NaDa If you think that proves that Nada is "clutch" you don't know either don't know what clutch means or you're just sticking with the very weak "not a serious choker" definition. It's actually possible (though pretty unlikely) that despite all his wins, Nada is actually a "choker" to a small extent (it's more likely that this would be true if Nada's peak strength in normal games is much higher than his average).
I want you to examine the win ratios of Midas and Nada. Nada's is lower, yet he has six individual titles. Midas wins a lot more throwaway, one-off games, like ProLeague and the various qualification rounds, whereas Nada finds himself in series much more often. A player will only play a series if he's top 8 in OSL or top whatever in MSL depending on their format changes. Midas having a better career games win ratio but no success in the individual leagues, versus Nada's lesser career games win ratio but six individual titles? Nada thrives on competition and plays exponentially better the farther he goes in tournaments. This is the definition of a clutch player, and why the article is about him.
|
clutch means performing under pressure. there is no other player that fits that definition better than nada, you can't argue with that. just look at the fields of players he beats his way through in his championships. i don't even know what point you're trying to make anymore other than that you would like to have an elo rating system going on.
|
a perfect example of this is the shinhan2 OSL.
midas has a 2-1 lead vs anytime in the semifinals and in the 4th game has taken his 2nd and 3rd bases much earlier than anytime has. anytime went all 3 branches of tech, dt, robo and stargate, off of 2 bases. midas only needs to macro for a min or two and attack move and hes secured his place in the OSL final. but instead, he sits around and doesnt do much while anytime harasses him to death with reavers and eventually carriers. then in the 5th game midas crumbles, suiciding his entire FD force and dying to goons in 5 min.
nada is 2-2 with anytime in the final and uses perfectly executed, multiple vulture drops in various places in anytimes main and nat, slowly reducing his probe count and stagnating his macro. meanwhile nada continues to build up his army back home and comes with a perfectly timed push of 4 tanks and a crapload of vultures. several minutes later nada claims his 3rd OSL title.
|
On August 14 2007 16:25 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2007 16:21 gravity wrote:On August 14 2007 16:16 SoMuchBetter wrote:On August 14 2007 16:10 gravity wrote:On August 14 2007 16:06 SoMuchBetter wrote:On August 14 2007 16:02 gravity wrote:On August 14 2007 15:56 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:On August 14 2007 15:53 gravity wrote:On August 14 2007 15:47 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:On August 14 2007 15:45 gravity wrote:
"80.9% of the time, Nada has won the required number of games before his opponent has."
This is actually almost exactly what you would expect from a player with a 60% game winning ratio playing against an average opponent in a Bo3 (0.6*0.6*0.4*(3 choose 2) + 0.6*0.6 = 0.792). Of course, opponents in Bo3's are generally going to be somewhat above average so this does still indicate some "clutch" ability (though on the other hand I didn't take into account Bo5's which should have an even better ratio). I guess the real story is Midas's relative failure in Bo's. First of all, that's not even remotely correct because the opponent has a win ratio as well, and most pros hover in the 55-60% range The average pro must be 50%, if you averaged out Nada's opponents in Bo's I doubt they would be higher than 55%. Also, you have to take into account that a player with .60 win ratio should win 90% of Bo5's against average opposition. (0.6^3 + 0.6^3*0.4*(4 choose 1) + 0.6^3*0.4^2*(5 choose 2) = 0.9072) edit: I guess it's still impressive if other pro's don't come close. Obviously we don't really know exactly what skill his Bo opponents have been so it's hard to prove whether Nada has shown any special "clutch" ability of if it's just his high general skill shining through. i edited my post a bunch the math works out that's fine but its not 'what you would expect' at all, its starcraft not a calculator Still, my point was that just doing well in BoX's doesn't necessarily prove that a player is particularly strong in clutch situations rather than just being good in general. You also have to take into account that Nada's winning % would be even higher if it wasn't for long "slump" periods where he didn't reach the BO level at all. So Nada's "effective" winning % during the times he was setting his Best-of records is arguably more than 62%. The Elo test I mentioned in my other post would be good since it would take into account both how good a player was playing at the time of a BoX (as opposed to looking at his all-time record) and his well his opponent was playing, allowing a more accurate measurement of who is truly "clutch". I wouldn't be surprised if Nada did well on that measurement too though. I don't really think you're necessarily wrong here, I just like statistics/objective measurements for this kind of thing :p. you've completely missed the point of this article then. the first line of your first paragraph is addressed by steve's article You've completely missed the point of my post which is not so much that the article is entirely wrong as that it doesn't have enough information to solidly prove anything. how's this for proof? http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/players/147_NaDa If you think that proves that Nada is "clutch" you don't know either don't know what clutch means or you're just sticking with the very weak "not a serious choker" definition. It's actually possible (though pretty unlikely) that despite all his wins, Nada is actually a "choker" to a small extent (it's more likely that this would be true if Nada's peak strength in normal games is much higher than his average). I want you to examine the win ratios of Midas and Nada. Nada's is lower, yet he has six individual titles. Midas wins a lot more throwaway, one-off games, like ProLeague and the various qualification rounds, whereas Nada finds himself in series much more often. A player will only play a series if he's top 8 in OSL or top whatever in MSL depending on their format changes. Midas having a better career games win ratio but no success in the individual leagues, versus Nada's lesser career games win ratio but six individual titles? Nada thrives on competition and plays exponentially better the farther he goes in tournaments. This is the definition of a clutch player, and why the article is about him.
That just proves that Midas is a major choker, not that Nada is especially clutch. He could be doing exactly as expected for a player of his peak skill, which we don't know precisely (but know is very high). You can't just look at lifetime win ratios because those include slumps when the player wasn't playing as many BoXs anyway (and therefore worsening their overall % without affecting their BoX percent as much), and Nada has had more/longer slumps that Midas.
|
I'm not sure I agree with this. When a 60% win rate is considered excellent, it's hard to say whether the difference between Midas and Nada is due to Midas buckling under pressure, or whether it's simply a matter of Midas being unlucky while Nada gets lucky.
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
On August 14 2007 16:51 gravity wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2007 16:25 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:On August 14 2007 16:21 gravity wrote:On August 14 2007 16:16 SoMuchBetter wrote:On August 14 2007 16:10 gravity wrote:On August 14 2007 16:06 SoMuchBetter wrote:On August 14 2007 16:02 gravity wrote:On August 14 2007 15:56 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:On August 14 2007 15:53 gravity wrote:On August 14 2007 15:47 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:
[quote]
First of all, that's not even remotely correct because the opponent has a win ratio as well, and most pros hover in the 55-60% range The average pro must be 50%, if you averaged out Nada's opponents in Bo's I doubt they would be higher than 55%. Also, you have to take into account that a player with .60 win ratio should win 90% of Bo5's against average opposition. (0.6^3 + 0.6^3*0.4*(4 choose 1) + 0.6^3*0.4^2*(5 choose 2) = 0.9072) edit: I guess it's still impressive if other pro's don't come close. Obviously we don't really know exactly what skill his Bo opponents have been so it's hard to prove whether Nada has shown any special "clutch" ability of if it's just his high general skill shining through. i edited my post a bunch the math works out that's fine but its not 'what you would expect' at all, its starcraft not a calculator Still, my point was that just doing well in BoX's doesn't necessarily prove that a player is particularly strong in clutch situations rather than just being good in general. You also have to take into account that Nada's winning % would be even higher if it wasn't for long "slump" periods where he didn't reach the BO level at all. So Nada's "effective" winning % during the times he was setting his Best-of records is arguably more than 62%. The Elo test I mentioned in my other post would be good since it would take into account both how good a player was playing at the time of a BoX (as opposed to looking at his all-time record) and his well his opponent was playing, allowing a more accurate measurement of who is truly "clutch". I wouldn't be surprised if Nada did well on that measurement too though. I don't really think you're necessarily wrong here, I just like statistics/objective measurements for this kind of thing :p. you've completely missed the point of this article then. the first line of your first paragraph is addressed by steve's article You've completely missed the point of my post which is not so much that the article is entirely wrong as that it doesn't have enough information to solidly prove anything. how's this for proof? http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/players/147_NaDa If you think that proves that Nada is "clutch" you don't know either don't know what clutch means or you're just sticking with the very weak "not a serious choker" definition. It's actually possible (though pretty unlikely) that despite all his wins, Nada is actually a "choker" to a small extent (it's more likely that this would be true if Nada's peak strength in normal games is much higher than his average). I want you to examine the win ratios of Midas and Nada. Nada's is lower, yet he has six individual titles. Midas wins a lot more throwaway, one-off games, like ProLeague and the various qualification rounds, whereas Nada finds himself in series much more often. A player will only play a series if he's top 8 in OSL or top whatever in MSL depending on their format changes. Midas having a better career games win ratio but no success in the individual leagues, versus Nada's lesser career games win ratio but six individual titles? Nada thrives on competition and plays exponentially better the farther he goes in tournaments. This is the definition of a clutch player, and why the article is about him. That just proves that Midas is a major choker, not that Nada is especially clutch. He could be doing exactly as expected for a player of his peak skill, which we don't know precisely (but know is very high). You can't just look at lifetime win ratios because those include slumps when the player wasn't playing as many BoXs anyway (and therefore worsening their overall % without affecting their BoX percent as much), and Nada has had more/longer slumps that Midas.
You're saying we can't say Nada isn't especially clutch because we don't know his limit? His continued success over five years isn't enough because he may go into a slump sometime? I don' buy that. Nada has certainly proved himself, the hard fact is that nobody comes close to him in terms of success and by that boundary the definition is solidified.
|
On August 14 2007 16:30 SoMuchBetter wrote:
clutch means performing under pressure. there is no other player that fits that definition better than nada, you can't argue with that. just look at the fields of players he beats his way through in his championships. i don't even know what point you're trying to make anymore other than that you would like to have an elo rating system going on.
If you perform the same in important games as you do in normal games at a given current strength, that's nothing special at all (it's exactly what you would expect, since the pressure applies equally to both players). It's only "clutch" if a player does *better* than expected in important/high pressure situations, which seems quite possible or even likely in Nada's case but is far from proven because we don't have the right evidence.
|
On August 14 2007 16:54 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2007 16:51 gravity wrote:On August 14 2007 16:25 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:On August 14 2007 16:21 gravity wrote:On August 14 2007 16:16 SoMuchBetter wrote:On August 14 2007 16:10 gravity wrote:On August 14 2007 16:06 SoMuchBetter wrote:On August 14 2007 16:02 gravity wrote:On August 14 2007 15:56 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:On August 14 2007 15:53 gravity wrote:
[quote]
The average pro must be 50%, if you averaged out Nada's opponents in Bo's I doubt they would be higher than 55%. Also, you have to take into account that a player with .60 win ratio should win 90% of Bo5's against average opposition. (0.6^3 + 0.6^3*0.4*(4 choose 1) + 0.6^3*0.4^2*(5 choose 2) = 0.9072)
edit: I guess it's still impressive if other pro's don't come close. Obviously we don't really know exactly what skill his Bo opponents have been so it's hard to prove whether Nada has shown any special "clutch" ability of if it's just his high general skill shining through. i edited my post a bunch the math works out that's fine but its not 'what you would expect' at all, its starcraft not a calculator Still, my point was that just doing well in BoX's doesn't necessarily prove that a player is particularly strong in clutch situations rather than just being good in general. You also have to take into account that Nada's winning % would be even higher if it wasn't for long "slump" periods where he didn't reach the BO level at all. So Nada's "effective" winning % during the times he was setting his Best-of records is arguably more than 62%. The Elo test I mentioned in my other post would be good since it would take into account both how good a player was playing at the time of a BoX (as opposed to looking at his all-time record) and his well his opponent was playing, allowing a more accurate measurement of who is truly "clutch". I wouldn't be surprised if Nada did well on that measurement too though. I don't really think you're necessarily wrong here, I just like statistics/objective measurements for this kind of thing :p. you've completely missed the point of this article then. the first line of your first paragraph is addressed by steve's article You've completely missed the point of my post which is not so much that the article is entirely wrong as that it doesn't have enough information to solidly prove anything. how's this for proof? http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/players/147_NaDa If you think that proves that Nada is "clutch" you don't know either don't know what clutch means or you're just sticking with the very weak "not a serious choker" definition. It's actually possible (though pretty unlikely) that despite all his wins, Nada is actually a "choker" to a small extent (it's more likely that this would be true if Nada's peak strength in normal games is much higher than his average). I want you to examine the win ratios of Midas and Nada. Nada's is lower, yet he has six individual titles. Midas wins a lot more throwaway, one-off games, like ProLeague and the various qualification rounds, whereas Nada finds himself in series much more often. A player will only play a series if he's top 8 in OSL or top whatever in MSL depending on their format changes. Midas having a better career games win ratio but no success in the individual leagues, versus Nada's lesser career games win ratio but six individual titles? Nada thrives on competition and plays exponentially better the farther he goes in tournaments. This is the definition of a clutch player, and why the article is about him. That just proves that Midas is a major choker, not that Nada is especially clutch. He could be doing exactly as expected for a player of his peak skill, which we don't know precisely (but know is very high). You can't just look at lifetime win ratios because those include slumps when the player wasn't playing as many BoXs anyway (and therefore worsening their overall % without affecting their BoX percent as much), and Nada has had more/longer slumps that Midas. You're saying we can't say Nada isn't especially clutch because we don't know his limit? His continued success over five years isn't enough because he may go into a slump sometime? I don' buy that. Nada has certainly proved himself, the hard fact is that nobody comes close to him in terms of success and by that boundary the definition is solidified.
I. AM. NOT. SAYING. THAT. NADA. IS. NOT. A. HUGE. SUCCESS. Sheesh. I'm just saying that there's no compelling evidence that he performs better than expected under high pressure conditions, which is the definition of "clutch" (simply failing to choke is not "clutch" because it's exactly what you expect - by definition the average player will perform at expectation in any match regardless of importance/pressure).
The concept of "clutch" only makes sense if it means a player performing *better* than normal under pressure - if they simply hold up under pressure to perform as well as they have been recently in normal games, that's not "clutch", it's just average (because necessarily on average people perform as expected).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
