|
Valhalla18444 Posts
On August 14 2007 16:54 Luddite wrote:
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.
With the sheer magnitude of games Nada has played, you would still consider luck as a possibility for ALL of his success?
If you didn't catch it the first time, Nada has six individual league titles. It seems like you haven't watched a lot of Nada's games or closely followed the leagues he's won. You don't get lucky that many times.
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
On August 14 2007 16:57 gravity wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2007 16:54 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: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:
[quote]
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).
You need to consider the manner in which he wins these games, not just that he wins them. Nada is defined as a clutch player more because of his execution under stress, and I've said that's the point of this article. The numbers are merely interesting statistics that talk up his success.
I don't think this "It could be that Nada is just doing as well as he ought to not that he plays especially well under pressure" point of yours holds up. The more you know about Nada besides the numbers, the less credible that point is.
|
On August 14 2007 17:01 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2007 16:57 gravity wrote:On August 14 2007 16:54 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: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:
[quote]
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). You need to consider the manner in which he wins these games, not just that he wins them. Nada is defined as a clutch player more because of his execution under stress, and I've said that's the point of this article. The numbers are merely interesting statistics that talk up his success.
Well if it's based on looking at actual games then it's just your opinion, you shouldn't talk about it like some sort of incontrovertible fact.
I don't think this "It could be that Nada is just doing as well as he ought to not that he plays especially well under pressure" point of yours holds up. The more you know about Nada besides the numbers, the less credible that point is.
The more you know about how observationally biased and statistically ignorant people are, the more likely that something like this is all in your head.
|
CA10828 Posts
thanks for writing this article on nada. i enjoyed the read ^_^
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
On August 14 2007 17:05 gravity wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2007 17:01 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:On August 14 2007 16:57 gravity wrote:On August 14 2007 16:54 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: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:
[quote]
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). You need to consider the manner in which he wins these games, not just that he wins them. Nada is defined as a clutch player more because of his execution under stress, and I've said that's the point of this article. The numbers are merely interesting statistics that talk up his success. Well if it's based on looking at actual games then it's just your opinion, you shouldn't talk about it like some sort of incontrovertible fact. Show nested quote +I don't think this "It could be that Nada is just doing as well as he ought to not that he plays especially well under pressure" point of yours holds up. The more you know about Nada besides the numbers, the less credible that point is. The more you know about how observationally biased and statistically ignorant people are, the more likely that something like this is all in your head.
I don't understand why you think you can have a solid point or relevant opinion if you haven't watched the games. You are missing the entire point of the article, because it sure isn't about numbers.
Nada plays above his average level mechanically proportional to how important the game is. This isn't an opinion, it's a fact.
|
On August 14 2007 16:58 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2007 16:54 Luddite wrote:
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. With the sheer magnitude of games Nada has played, you would still consider luck as a possibility for ALL of his success? If you didn't catch it the first time, Nada has six individual league titles. It seems like you haven't watched a lot of Nada's games or closely followed the leagues he's won. You don't get lucky that many times.
Obviously Nada is a good player, and I'm certainly not saying that he does nothing but get lucky. What I am saying, though, is that a player needs a certain amount of luck to win a starleague, because ALL of his opponents there will be damn good.
Nada's been playing well for a long time, so it's no surprise that he would win titles, but every single one of those titles involved some luck as well as skill. Midas hasn't played as long, so it's not really all that surprising that he hasn't yet managed to battle his way through a field of 16 or 24 players who are ALL really good.
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
On August 14 2007 17:28 Luddite wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2007 16:58 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:On August 14 2007 16:54 Luddite wrote:
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. With the sheer magnitude of games Nada has played, you would still consider luck as a possibility for ALL of his success? If you didn't catch it the first time, Nada has six individual league titles. It seems like you haven't watched a lot of Nada's games or closely followed the leagues he's won. You don't get lucky that many times. Obviously Nada is a good player, and I'm certainly not saying that he does nothing but get lucky. What I am saying, though, is that a player needs a certain amount of luck to win a starleague, because ALL of his opponents there will be damn good. Nada's been playing well for a long time, so it's no surprise that he would win titles, but every single one of those titles involved some luck as well as skill. Midas hasn't played as long, so it's not really all that surprising that he hasn't yet managed to battle his way through a field of 16 or 24 players who are ALL really good.
Well... Nada has been around since 2002, Midas has been around since 2003. I think you're kind of off-base but you're right in that I couldn't rightly say that Midas never will or is incapable of winning a league title.
|
wow. this discussion is getting bogged down in what actually constitutes 'clutch.' the point of the article was that nada performs great in clutch situations; midas doesn't. we can all agree on that. whether or not nada plays better in clutch situations than otherwise is somewhat beside the point.
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
On August 14 2007 18:19 iosef wrote:
wow. this discussion is getting bogged down in what actually constitutes 'clutch.' the point of the article was that nada performs great in clutch situations; midas doesn't. we can all agree on that. whether or not nada plays better in clutch situations than otherwise is somewhat beside the point.
Totally agree
Since I wrote it kinda feel obligated to clear things up though 
|
Two players have practically the same wining percentage over a significant period of time. One has six titles and the other has none. The notion of one being more clutch that the other is simply undeniable.
|
On August 14 2007 13:39 Carnac wrote:
Nice read, Steve!
One thing I feel I have to add though: iloveoov has never lost a final, but Nada has (to oov coincidendally as well as Gorush).
Hmm Oov did lose to July in the iTV final. Sure that league wasnt MSL nor OSL, but still many well known pros participating(16 I think maybe more) so not comparable to the special events IE Blizzcon, IEF or anything like that. Not up there with the KT-KTF in terms of prizemoney but I think July got a nice chunk of money for winning it.
|
On August 14 2007 17:28 Luddite wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2007 16:58 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:On August 14 2007 16:54 Luddite wrote:
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. With the sheer magnitude of games Nada has played, you would still consider luck as a possibility for ALL of his success? If you didn't catch it the first time, Nada has six individual league titles. It seems like you haven't watched a lot of Nada's games or closely followed the leagues he's won. You don't get lucky that many times. Nada's been playing well for a long time, so it's no surprise that he would win titles, but every single one of those titles involved some luck as well as skill...
YellOw is longer around than NaDa.. please show me his titles..
+ NaDa was just unstoppable when he won his titles..
|
Nada is the most successful progamer in everyway. Nice read fakesteve.
|
This really drives home why NaDa is such an enduring champion. He's come back and won when it counts, which has chalked up the 6 titles he now holds. A champion in every sense of the word.
|
Awesome read FakeSteve =)
You have a gift of writing and I love reading it. I definately agree with NaDa being a true champion. He almost never chokes, and as your statistics showed, truly dominates in bo's.
NaDa in my opinion is also one of the few top-tier pros who has no weaker matchup at all. He excels at all 3 of them and his control is remarkable.
Midas comes out strong in one game, owning shit. But in a couple of games against the same opponent I guess he becomes easy to read and gets raped instead. He should do something to his consistancy.
|
On August 14 2007 16:54 Luddite wrote:
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.
Lol are you for real?
Nada has won 3 OSL:s and 3 MSL titles. If you call that luck, you have no idea what you are talking about quite frankly.
Besides, everyone who has followed progaming knows that NaDa kicks serious ass and luck is not a factor, especially because he is macro-oriented (although his micro is brutal as well) and small mistakes won't usually cost him or his opponent the game.
|
On August 14 2007 17:28 Luddite wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2007 16:58 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:On August 14 2007 16:54 Luddite wrote:
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. With the sheer magnitude of games Nada has played, you would still consider luck as a possibility for ALL of his success? If you didn't catch it the first time, Nada has six individual league titles. It seems like you haven't watched a lot of Nada's games or closely followed the leagues he's won. You don't get lucky that many times. Obviously Nada is a good player, and I'm certainly not saying that he does nothing but get lucky. What I am saying, though, is that a player needs a certain amount of luck to win a starleague, because ALL of his opponents there will be damn good. Nada's been playing well for a long time, so it's no surprise that he would win titles, but every single one of those titles involved some luck as well as skill. Midas hasn't played as long, so it's not really all that surprising that he hasn't yet managed to battle his way through a field of 16 or 24 players who are ALL really good.
DUDE,
Nada has beaten every good player in the book and in an convincing manner. It's not so much about luck as you think, Nada doesn't have to avoid any MU:s since he rules in every single one of them.
I definately agree with Nada performing better under pressure, and I've been a fan of his for years now, seeing alot of games of his, and he definately plays superbly when the stakes are high and sometimes is kind of "meh" in games that aren't that important.
|
I think its a matter of a certain level you can reach. Nada has the ability for play close to perfect when he's at the top of his peaks while a player like say Midas or Light fails to deliver that little extra you need to win leagues. That being said despite Midas not winning any leagues he's not as peaky(both up and down) as Nada. Some games Nada plays in his peaks Id say that noone could have beaten him, but other games practically any pro could have beaten him.
Nada has horrible horrible horrible plays at times. Midas always plays above a certain level and has less of those horrible plays. Yes Nada has shown stability with his records and percentage, but when I look at some of the games he loses I wonder if it's him playing. An example is his match against Cool[fOu] @ Geometry in proleague where he got raped with ease - Cool played very good but you shouldnt see a player like Nada losing TvZ on a map like that. Vs pure mutas. Ever. What also comes to mind is the proleague match he decided going barracks on 5th! scv vs a zerg on requiem a couple of years ago.
When you see Midas lose it's often a short onesided game(for example DT drop) or his opponent counters his strategy/bo perfectly. It's not him messing up his micro or macro.
That being said gutsy plays are neccessary to not be too predictable, but if Nada played normal like Midas(mostly does) every game he would have most likely outplayed his opponents lategame and had a even more impressive record.
To put it short Nadas highest level > Midas highest level, but Midas lowest level > Nadas lowest level. This is based on watching the games they lose not on their overall records which I believe Nada has the best percentage and would then logically be the most stable player.
|
GrandInquisitor
New York City13113 Posts
Good article. Though reading the article title, I thought it was Hot_Bid was going to write ;D
|
Nice one. Keep them coming.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
