Clutch Engage by FakeSteve[TPR] TeamLiquid: Final Edits
Amongst the cream of the progaming crop, the absolute strongest of players, there is a gap between 'winners' and 'champions'. For starters, let's take a look at two players that embody opposite sides of this balance: Midas and Nada. Let's create appropriate context: both Midas and Nada are recognized as cruising at the highest level of Terran gameplay. Both boast strong overall winrates, with Midas at 62.90% and Nada at 61.89%. Both maintain good records in every season of ProLeague, and never seem to have too much trouble qualifying for StarLeagues. When competing against other players, they're the favourite more often than not. So what seperates these two?
The biggest difference is this: some players cave under pressure, some players lay down the law when the stakes are high. Players can be consistantly defeated by their own inherent meekness and nerves, regardless of their abilities in the game. The difference between a 'winner' and a 'champion' is, of course, the tendency to be a choke artist or a clutch player. A choke artist can win bucketfuls of games, and still have titles evade him. A clutch player will shine when faced with elimination.
Midas looking slightly confused for whatever reason.
Midas is a great player, he really is. His skill in every matchup is undeniable, and he boasts win percentages that reflect his skill accurately. Midas is a winner. When thrust into an ODT group with three other pros, Midas will usually advance. When placed onto a ProLeague match roster, he'll reliably come out on top. Players can throw their best one-off or all-in strategies at him, and he'll often bat these attempts aside and slaughter his foe. Nada is the same, he boasts impressive win percentages in every matchup, and will consistently qualify for leagues and win ProLeague games. Yet, despite the similarity in skill, Nada holds the title of "Most Successful ProGamer Of All Time", and Midas has yet to reach the finals in a StarLeague. His consistency in single games is countered by his lack thereof in multi-game series. When put against a single opponent in multiple sets, Midas can rarely seem to collect the three wins he requires to advance from a best of 5. Midas has made several StarLeague semifinal appearances, and hasn't capitalized even once. Watching it happen live is disturbing, as you can physically see Midas' demeanour and play morph from strong competition to a festering blemish on the Terran name. Midas chokes, and so far that's been the bottom line.
Nada is also a great player. He's had high points and low points in his career; the most notable low being the period directly after losing his father. Nada is a constant contender, and he's got the green to talk for him. He's the only player to win the Golden Mouse, he's claimed three MSL championships. Like Midas, Nada is strong, and when faced with ODT or Survivor he'll most likely advance. The difference comes when Nada must play a multiple set series against one opponent. Unlike Midas, Nada wins. If Nada is faced with a best of 5, Nada wins three of those games much more often than not. This is why Nada has won six individual championships. Unlike Midas, who falls easier and easier as a series progresses and his opponents identify and pick apart weaknesses, Nada stands as a barrier. If someone wants to advance past him, that person must win three or five games before Nada does. The chances of that are slim. Very slim.
I know statistics get thrown around quite a bit, and not all of them are meaningful. Here's one that ought to make your ears ring a bit: according to the TLPD, in series best-of-3 or more played out in a single day, Nada is 46-11. Forty-six and fucking eleven. 80.9% of the time, Nada has won the required number of games before his opponent has. Just look at this, let it sink in:
46 - 11
No other player comes close, in volume or ratio. Who are the players with the most prolific eras of dominance? Boxer, iloveOov, and Savior. None of them are anywhere near Nada's total of 57 series played, iloveOov is closest at 30-13 (An interesting note - While counting backwards from the most recent games, the worst ratio I hit for Oov was 14-8). Only Savior is close in ratio at 21-7, and his reign is seemingly overthrown. The legend Boxer's questionable staying power left him at a ratio of 24-18. Nada has stayed qualified for (or seeded in) OSL and MSL, the only place barring some Survivor rounds where best-of-3 or best-of-5 series take place, often enough to accumulate 14 more series played than his closest competition. He has been rock solid in his endeavours, overshadowing Savior's ratio despite Savior's apparent invincibility for nearly two years.
So, Midas wins games, which by definition makes him a winner. But he falls behind on the final legs of the race time and time again. Nada wins games too, lots of them. The difference is, Nada wins titles. Nada succeeds better than anyone else at keeping his level of play current with that of the latest and greatest. Nada is, by definition, a champion.
The phrase 'Clutch Player' is, by definition, Nada.
IMO, Bisu is the ultimate clutch player, even moreso than nada who's a clutch player as well as a consistent winner. ie he'll win 2 consecutive starleague finals against the strongest players of the moment in the respective mu's, but that doesn't stop him from losing to inter.calm and chrh (fuckin chrh again for emphasis) in proleague :-/. bisu has never lost or been behind in a bo5.
I hope that one day, Midas will be able to overcome his "block" and win something. I agree with iosef that Bisu is definitely a player who plays better under high pressure than in a low-pressure situation like proleague (opposite of Midas, it almost seems)
please. bisu doesn't even come close to nada. how long have you been following progaming to make a statement like that?
steve, i'm interested in how you define yellow using these standards. surely you can't just sum him up as a choke artist, but where does that leave him?
On August 14 2007 14:03 iosef wrote: nada also lost to savior.
IMO, Bisu is the ultimate clutch player, even moreso than nada who's a clutch player as well as a consistent winner. ie he'll win 2 consecutive starleague finals against the strongest players of the moment in the respective mu's, but that doesn't stop him from losing to inter.calm and chrh (fuckin chrh again for emphasis) in proleague :-/. bisu has never lost or been behind in a bo5.
Bisu hasn't been around long enough to compare to a guy like Nada
On August 14 2007 14:11 SoMuchBetter wrote: steve, i'm interested in how you define yellow using these standards. surely you can't just sum him up as a choke artist, but where does that leave him?
Yellow is hard to define. For a long time he was just 'the king without a crown'. There was a long period of time where he was a dominant second-best behind Boxer, but he always fell short to the newest sensation. Oov and Xellos were especially hard for him, and he sort of fizzled after that.
On August 14 2007 14:03 iosef wrote: nada also lost to savior.
IMO, Bisu is the ultimate clutch player, even moreso than nada who's a clutch player as well as a consistent winner. ie he'll win 2 consecutive starleague finals against the strongest players of the moment in the respective mu's, but that doesn't stop him from losing to inter.calm and chrh (fuckin chrh again for emphasis) in proleague :-/. bisu has never lost or been behind in a bo5.
Bisu hasn't been around long enough to compare to a guy like Nada
of course. nada is the most dominant player in sc history whereas bisu is a new challenger. in terms of the dichotomy you suggested of winner/champion bisu is interesting because he seems to fall completely on the side of 'champion', even with doubts about his ability to win the more mundane games.
On August 14 2007 14:03 iosef wrote: nada also lost to savior.
IMO, Bisu is the ultimate clutch player, even moreso than nada who's a clutch player as well as a consistent winner. ie he'll win 2 consecutive starleague finals against the strongest players of the moment in the respective mu's, but that doesn't stop him from losing to inter.calm and chrh (fuckin chrh again for emphasis) in proleague :-/. bisu has never lost or been behind in a bo5.
Bisu hasn't been around long enough to compare to a guy like Nada
of course. nada is the most dominant player in sc history whereas bisu is a new up and comer. in terms of the dichotomy you suggested of winner/champion bisu is interesting because he seems to fall completely on the side of 'champion', even with doubts about his ability to win the more mundane games.
"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.
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.
i don't see how even remotely applicable because while the formula makes sense only Nada has a real series win ratio this high, and there are several pros with a better game win ratio. there are too many factors at play in something like this for it to be broken down this simplistically. If it were 'to be expected', then Sea would have multiple OSL titles by now.
and Midas invented the FD build that tore protoss a new asshole for a while, he has no shortage of build orders
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. Yet another good reason for having Elo ratings - players with good "clutch" skill could be measured as they would, over time, gain relatively more rating points from Bo matches compared to other strong players.
edit2: also by "Bo's" I've been meaning Best of X's, not Build Orders. Sorry for the confusion.
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
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 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 15:45 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.
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.
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 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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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).
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 16:54 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.
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.
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 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..
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.
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 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.
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.
Your math is wrong.
Simple proof :
If Nada has a 60% winning ratio against his opponent, and 79.2% in a bo3 Then his opponent has a 40% winning ratio against Nada, and should have 20.8% in a bo3
But apply your formula to the opponent (easy, just switch the 0.4 and the 0.6) : 0.4*0.4*0.6*(3 choose 2) + 0.4*0.4 = ...... 44.8% >_> that's obviously wrong.
---
How to win a bo3 ? win-win, 0.6*0.6=36% win-lose-win, 0.6*0.4*0.6=14.4% lose-win-win, 0.4*0.6*0.6=14.4% Total 64.8% for bo3's (68.2% for bo5's).
---
With a 60% winning ratio, Nada should have won around 65% of his bo3/bo5 series.
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 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.
Your math is wrong.
Simple proof :
If Nada has a 60% winning ratio against his opponent, and 79.2% in a bo3 Then his opponent has a 40% winning ratio against Nada, and should have 20.8% in a bo3
But apply your formula to the opponent (easy, just switch the 0.4 and the 0.6) : 0.4*0.4*0.6*(3 choose 2) + 0.4*0.4 = ...... 44.8% >_> that's obviously wrong.
---
How to win a bo3 ? win-win, 0.6*0.6=36% win-lose-win, 0.6*0.4*0.6=14.4% lose-win-win, 0.4*0.6*0.6=14.4% Total 64.8% for bo3's (68.2% for bo5's).
---
With a 60% winning ratio, Nada should have won around 65% of his bo3/bo5 series.
His overall score of 80%+ is INSANE.
... BUT MIDAS IS SO AWESOME. FLY AGAIN SKT !
haha, you beat me to it. gravity's math is definitely wrong and calling other people statistically ignorant
Also, factor in the fact that opponents tend to be better in bo3 matches than on average, since they had to beat other players to get that far.
i also believe iloveoov is a more clutch player than nada, as he's 5-0 in finals, while nada has lost multiple ones.
i really think someone needs to compile statistics for do-or-die games
that includes:
Proleague ace matches Game3s in Bo3s Game5s in Bo5s Elimination games in Dual or Survivor tournaments (games where if you lose, you're out)
and see who has the best record there. obviously this would take a long time but it'd go a long way to solving the "who is clutch" question, as those situations are clearly ones that have the most intense pressure.
On August 14 2007 22:19 GrandInquisitor wrote: Good article. Though reading the article title, I thought it was Hot_Bid was going to write ;D
you and i are diametrically opposed in this. you like flashy records and high statistics, i don't mind 50% win rates if the guy wins the championship. you'd rather have a high rating in a ladder and i'd rather win the final tournament with a bad record. you'd rather be midas than be casy, which i'll never understand.
and nobody has been talking about how boxer is what, 0-4 in finals since his back-to-back like six years ago? everyone likes to ignore the fact that he's probably one of the most unclutch players when it comes to finals.
Boxer was an underdog in all those finals except maybe the one against Garimto. In fact many would argue that he was actually "clutching" being able to make them as close as they were. That's because he's Boxer and can beat anyone on a given day.
are you sure he was the underdog in all four finals after his win over yellow? i wasn't around to watch all those finals but was it really like that?
and the definition of "clutch" is raising your ability and play level when the stakes get higher. if boxer was truly clutch, he'd at least have won one or two of those. if he had just won one of those four, he'd be discussed with nada as the most accomplished player ever, if he won two of those four there'd be no discussion, he'd be consensus #1.
nobody denies what boxer has done in terms of personality, entertainment, and innovation in brood war but i wish so much that he had just won just one or two of those four finals. it just sucks that he didn't, especially since the anytime and oov ones went to 5 games.
On August 15 2007 04:38 Hot_Bid wrote: and the definition of "clutch" is raising your ability and play level when the stakes get higher.
This is where the ideas sort of fuzz, when trying to pick iloveoov or Nada. Nada has been around longer, and has won a title in various leagues at virtually every point of his career, including one just last fall. Oov won his titles when he was dominating everyone, there wasn't anyone who could touch him, there was no occasion to rise to. Oov's last title was in 2005 and he hasn't been anywhere near a final since then, in either league. That's why I gave the nod to Nada.
And Oov lost to July twice in the iTV final, which was as difficult a league as any, with a similar prizepool. As well, oov has lost four times in MSL/OSL semifinals, whereas Nada has only lost twice in MSL semifinals, and has never lost an OSL semifinal.
right, so you could argue that oov's 5-0 record in finals is even more amazing then, as the pressure is even higher than the semifinals and thus oov raises his play level to meet it
nada losing in the finals of starleagues and not in the semifinals would seem to suggest that he doesn't raise his play level in the finals
On August 15 2007 09:08 Hot_Bid wrote: right, so you could argue that oov's 5-0 record in finals is even more amazing then, as the pressure is even higher than the semifinals and thus oov raises his play level to meet it
nada losing in the finals of starleagues and not in the semifinals would seem to suggest that he doesn't raise his play level in the finals
The focus is more how he plays, Nada plays mechanically flawless once he hits the semifinal 95% of the time. Oov doesn't show that, he was just that much better for a while. Nada's never had that advantage save for maybe during his MSL tear way back when
On August 15 2007 10:26 CustomXSpunjah wrote: but in the tournament world mechanically flawless play is sacrificed for wins i'd much rather go 5-0 than play textbook terran
Your definition of 'mechanically flawless' isn't correct.
"Mechanically flawless" means he doesn't make physical mistakes, not that he plays textbook. On top of that, why would ANYONE rather be 5-0 than 6-3 in finals?
I agree with SonuvBob on the Boxer issue. His two final losses in modern times doesn't take away from how well he performs under pressure. Winning the semifinals and taking the finals to game five is stretching beyond the limits of what his actuall skill was compared to his opponents. Also think about the way he wins his games. When the stakes are high, most players want the games to follow the familiar pattern of their thousands of practice games. Sometimes they are so reluctant to adapt that it looks quite silly. Boxer is the opposite. He will force himself and the opponent into unknown territory where only their basic brood war instincts and flashes of brilliance can win the game. These games Boxer dominates while he loses the straight up ones, at least that's how I remember it. He is unique in this way.
HB since you mention proleague ace games, wouldn't it be appropriate to include proleague games where it's not ace but you have to win to keep your team alive?
hotbid, i never said anything about "i'd rather be so-and-so", i said i'd prefer someone like midas over someone like sync in terms of all-time rankings
i mean, being a clutch player counts for a lot, and it should, but overly weighting clutch performances necessarily gives too much credit to inconsistent one-hit-wonders.
the term clutch has to be reserved exclusively for those at the highest caliber already. those who suck too much during the regular season to even lose in the playoffs should be duly penalized compared to those who are able to make it to the playoffs in the first place. sure, yellow might have more finals losses than say, kingdom, but no one in their right mind would ever rank yellow behind of kingdom even though kingdom was won an OSL final and yellow hasn't
and given that it's at the highest caliber, that excludes all but a handful of players from consideration. and it's my opinion that at the highest level of SC, you could play fifty best of 5's between any two people and you'd probably end up with a score of 27-23 or something like that. there's pretty solid parity at the top levels of starcraft, and on any given day anyone can beat anyone. let's not read too much into isolated games, and say that because ggplay won the series over iris that ggplay is definitively and unmistakably the better player, and that he would win that series again if they replayed it.
certainly i don't deny that there are some sc players that have proven themselves to be clutch. and some others that have proven themselves not to be clutch. but i'd rather not go overboard with pronouncing random players clutch because they won a proleague ACE game or something, nor overrating those that are occasionally clutch over those that are consistently the better player
and like, every player that can succeed on television can perform under pressure to some extent already. i'd imagine even more of a sign of a choker than a midas-type player is the person that consistently advances out of ODT to get 0-3'd every single time in group stages (though of course there's an element of luck involved in that).
so if we believe that clutch performance is some kind of innate ability, we should look at how a player performs his first time in ODT, and how long it takes for him to qualify for OSL, and how long it takes from there for him to advance out of his group, and then how long it takes for him to win the thing. because otherwise experience (and having played on the biggest stage before) is another factor that works its way in, contaminating the stats
On August 15 2007 11:50 GrandInquisitor wrote: hotbid, i never said anything about "i'd rather be so-and-so", i said i'd prefer someone like midas over someone like sync in terms of all-time rankings
i mean, being a clutch player counts for a lot, and it should, but overly weighting clutch performances necessarily gives too much credit to inconsistent one-hit-wonders.
the term clutch has to be reserved exclusively for those at the highest caliber already. those who suck too much during the regular season to even lose in the playoffs should be duly penalized compared to those who are able to make it to the playoffs in the first place. sure, yellow might have more finals losses than say, kingdom, but no one in their right mind would ever rank yellow behind of kingdom even though kingdom was won an OSL final and yellow hasn't
and given that it's at the highest caliber, that excludes all but a handful of players from consideration. and it's my opinion that at the highest level of SC, you could play fifty best of 5's between any two people and you'd probably end up with a score of 27-23 or something like that. there's pretty solid parity at the top levels of starcraft, and on any given day anyone can beat anyone. let's not read too much into isolated games, and say that because ggplay won the series over iris that ggplay is definitively and unmistakably the better player, and that he would win that series again if they replayed it.
we already went over the starleague 1st vs starleague 2nd argument ad nauseum so i won't repeat it here. there are simply people that demand to be champion and people that are happy with good stats. no matter how you rank yellow and kingdom or how happy you'd be to be midas rather than sync, ask progamers and alpha personalities whether they'd rather be the unquestioned #1 for a few months or be #2 their whole lives. maybe you'd be ok with that, i definitely wouldn't, and i lose a little bit of respect for anyone who would settle for "midas" in whatever competitive passion they have, whether it be on a stage as grand as the OSL or a stage as mundane as a lan with their classmates.
"clutch" doesn't mean winning a starleague on a lucky streak. it means consistently elevating your gameplay when the pressure is on. this could be someone who normally never makes the starleague but when put in a pressure situation maybe takes out a good player in proleague. its not reserved for only the best of the best.
here is where we disagree the most Gi.
you see GGPlay and Iris play a bo5, and the results don't matter to you as much as they would if they played a bo100.
But sports and history and real life don't work that way. there's NEVER a bo100, in any sport. there will always be upsets and always be people that seize the moment. there will inevitably be the 51-50 score in a bo101, and that last game at 50-50 will mean nothing to you but everything to me.
who cares if GGPlay isn't "definitively" or "unmistakably" the better player? who cares that if they played again, Iris would possibly win? GGPlay is now the champion and Iris is the footnote. History is written this way.
somehow you seem to think that if a player wins 3-2 on the grandest stage its somehow less valuable than some 100 game series they play on bnet.
you see a 100 game series as statistically what determines the better player, but i see the final moment of the final game of the bo5 in the OSL finals as the ONLY way to determine the better player. because only in that moment does pressure really exist, and only in that moment do we see who really is superior. not in bo100s, not in statistics, ONLY in those few minutes.
(side note: a bo100 automatically takes away the "practice" ability of a player. bo100s are not perfect, they boil down to raw skill and completely eliminate the hardwork/practice element of brood war players, and yes this is a huge element of professional broodwar. i doubt boxer would win very many bo100s, if any. his career was literally made on exactly the opposite of what the bo100 represents)
anyway, Brood War is a conscious string of little decisions and actions. it's not just one game, one build. it's influenced by a billion little separate things, from sending a worker to mine a patch to burrowing a lurker a split second early. every game is a series of a million little actions performed by each player. and every single one of those actions are affected by pressure and the heaviness of the moment, especially in an OSL final.
you see iris losing in that game 5 as "oh unlucky, if they replayed he might win"
i see iris losing in that game 5 as EVERYTHING. you said it yourself, the players are so close and there's so much parity, but what separates them?
the critical game5 moments are that separation. whoever wins there, whoever performs those million actions better in that pressure game, thats what separates players. you see "luck" and "parity" and i see the ultimate test of a player's worth.
that game 5 between iris and ggplay tells me more about the character and skill of those two players than any number of bo100s will. it's the ONLY place where you can truly see which player is better.
any real sports player or champion will tell you that.
On August 15 2007 11:57 GrandInquisitor wrote: and like, every player that can succeed on television can perform under pressure to some extent already. i'd imagine even more of a sign of a choker than a midas-type player is the person that consistently advances out of ODT to get 0-3'd every single time in group stages (though of course there's an element of luck involved in that).
so if we believe that clutch performance is some kind of innate ability, we should look at how a player performs his first time in ODT, and how long it takes for him to qualify for OSL, and how long it takes from there for him to advance out of his group, and then how long it takes for him to win the thing. because otherwise experience (and having played on the biggest stage before) is another factor that works its way in, contaminating the stats
nobody said clutch performance is an innate ability. its a skill that oftentimes is developed through luck and circumstance.
michael jordan even said that he'd probably never have won any NBA championships if he didn't hit that first game winning shot in college at North Carolina.
similarly, as i said before, i maintain that yellow would have a golden mouse right now if he won that game 5 in the coca-cola OSL against boxer. both those players were young and malleable, without full definition in their personalities or confidence yet.
it's a process of development. the more clutch things you do the more clutch you become. look at bisu for an example of a player whose confidence, once growing, is reaching unstoppable levels.
look at midas, an example of a player whose confidence, once shrinking, can virtually never come back.
yes some people can never be clutch and some are born with the potential to be, but they need a string of events that allow them to believe and be confident in those situations.
On August 15 2007 11:31 thedeadhaji wrote: HB since you mention proleague ace games, wouldn't it be appropriate to include proleague games where it's not ace but you have to win to keep your team alive?
not really sure, i suppose it would be more pressure than a normal one.
but the ace match is really the pinnacle of "pressure situation," way above anything that can be reproduced.
On August 14 2007 14:03 iosef wrote: nada also lost to savior.
IMO, Bisu is the ultimate clutch player, even moreso than nada who's a clutch player as well as a consistent winner. ie he'll win 2 consecutive starleague finals against the strongest players of the moment in the respective mu's, but that doesn't stop him from losing to inter.calm and chrh (fuckin chrh again for emphasis) in proleague :-/. bisu has never lost or been behind in a bo5.
Nice write up, i know how you feel, when i was awaiting the bisu vs stork final, i was like "Stork is a better player clearly" But Bisu just has that champion air about him, i can look at all these players and look at winnning eprcentages look at dominating statistics vs less domianting statistics (Stork had better PvP and was on fire) and i just look at bisu and all my confidence that stork would win went away, i mean he was facing [i]bisu a champion, a clutch player, when the stakes are at the highest he comes through, looking at statistics, stork should of won, but the feeling you get when you look at bisu, look at his gameplay, you just don't see him losing.
still though, i think you made the best comparison, amazing article and amazing read.[/u]
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.
Your math is wrong.
Simple proof :
If Nada has a 60% winning ratio against his opponent, and 79.2% in a bo3 Then his opponent has a 40% winning ratio against Nada, and should have 20.8% in a bo3
But apply your formula to the opponent (easy, just switch the 0.4 and the 0.6) : 0.4*0.4*0.6*(3 choose 2) + 0.4*0.4 = ...... 44.8% >_> that's obviously wrong.
---
How to win a bo3 ? win-win, 0.6*0.6=36% win-lose-win, 0.6*0.4*0.6=14.4% lose-win-win, 0.4*0.6*0.6=14.4% Total 64.8% for bo3's (68.2% for bo5's).
---
With a 60% winning ratio, Nada should have won around 65% of his bo3/bo5 series.
His overall score of 80%+ is INSANE.
... BUT MIDAS IS SO AWESOME. FLY AGAIN SKT !
Yeah, I think you're right, I was pretty tired when I wrote that :p (I included win-win-lose when obviously that can't happen). At any rate it still proves nothing though because we don't know the skill of Nada or his opponents at the time he won those matches (and Nada's skill is notorious for fluctuating a lot so we can't just use the 62% overall wins).
On August 15 2007 05:18 Matoo- wrote: GGplay must be quite clutch.
50% 2007 winning ratio, which sucks 52% career winning ratio, which also sucks
But despite that he won an OSL.
This is another example. Maybe he is "clutch", or maybe he just got lucky, or maybe he's just better now (but still scoring mediocre on average due to playing stronger opponents).
Obviously Nada is special when you look at his career. And Midas seems to be special too, in a negative way. But saying that one hit wonders like Casy has some special quality that separates him from players like Goodfriend and Hwasin, that's relying too much on hindsight. The fact that I would have the career of Casy is irrelevant. Yes, I would rather be lucky and mediocre (relatively) than more skilled but less successful. But it's still a good deal of luck. If we say that skill and accomplishments are the same thing, skill may as well be erased from the dictionary.
Ok seriously, Midas is shy and stuff but that's no reason to bash him. He is good and didn't he have a stellar TvP at one streak? Something like 15-1 or some shit.
Boxer is somewhat of a clutch player as well, but then again the competition always wasn't all that back in the day when he dominated. We know the climate in progaming has become much harder the last few years and the skill-level is incredibly high amongst most pro-gamers. Therefor I think Nada is the most successful progamer ever and maybe the biggest "clutch" because as FakeSteve so elaborately put it NaDa has always been able to keep up with the competition and new stars on the scene and even won his third (!) OSL pretty recently.
On August 15 2007 05:18 Matoo- wrote: GGplay must be quite clutch.
50% 2007 winning ratio, which sucks 52% career winning ratio, which also sucks
But despite that he won an OSL.
This is another example. Maybe he is "clutch", or maybe he just got lucky, or maybe he's just better now (but still scoring mediocre on average due to playing stronger opponents).
GGPlay had a great run and some inspired play during the final against Iris, but he's not "clutch" at all. The guy is a zerg Casy
Gravity has a point but I think his calculation is simply wrong. If a player has an average winning ratio of 60%, his average winning ratio of a BO-x series would still be 60%. Thus Nada winning ratio in BO-x series is even higher than his average winning ratio, or in another word playing under pressure is usually his advantage much more than his opponent.
On August 15 2007 05:18 Matoo- wrote: GGplay must be quite clutch.
50% 2007 winning ratio, which sucks 52% career winning ratio, which also sucks
But despite that he won an OSL.
This is another example. Maybe he is "clutch", or maybe he just got lucky, or maybe he's just better now (but still scoring mediocre on average due to playing stronger opponents).
GGPlay had a great run and some inspired play during the final against Iris, but he's not "clutch" at all. The guy is a zerg Casy
wtf you seriously think GGPlay is like a zerg casy? :O
at least ggplay doesnt only excel in one matchup haha.
and he did an amazing come back vs iris, thats pretty clutchy innit
On August 16 2007 11:25 mrdx wrote: Gravity has a point but I think his calculation is simply wrong. If a player has an average winning ratio of 60%, his average winning ratio of a BO-x series would still be 60%. Thus Nada winning ratio in BO-x series is even higher than his average winning ratio, or in another word playing under pressure is usually his advantage much more than his opponent.
not exactly. in a bo3 it's around 65%, around 68% in bo5 and 71% in a bo7. for reference a hypothetical player with an 80% win ratio has a 97% win ratio in bo7, so it the effect is quite significant. for example with sea[shield]'s win ratio of 65% (it's even higher with his recent games) his expected win ratio for bo5 matches is 76.5%, approaching but not surpassing nada's actual results
however the point is that at the level where players actually play bo5's, ie starleague semis and finals, the level of competition is so high that on any given day anyone can get the victory over anyone else. this is why it's so important for a player to develop the special quality that makes a group-stage player or quarterfinalist into a champion.
and re: bisu, watch his game 5 against hwasin and subsequent demolishing of gorush. the guy has been damn near unstoppable when it really counted. who really doubts that, had it been bisu and not flash who progressed in the OSL, ggplay would have been sent home early?
On August 15 2007 05:18 Matoo- wrote: GGplay must be quite clutch.
50% 2007 winning ratio, which sucks 52% career winning ratio, which also sucks
But despite that he won an OSL.
This is another example. Maybe he is "clutch", or maybe he just got lucky, or maybe he's just better now (but still scoring mediocre on average due to playing stronger opponents).
GGPlay had a great run and some inspired play during the final against Iris, but he's not "clutch" at all. The guy is a zerg Casy
wtf you seriously think GGPlay is like a zerg casy? :O
at least ggplay doesnt only excel in one matchup haha.
and he did an amazing come back vs iris, thats pretty clutchy innit
ggplay in daum is not as extreme a case as casy was, but I give them about the same chances to win a second starleague. ggplay's zvp is not up to par, although it's likely he could have beaten stork who is similarly not as fearsome pvz. i mean at least casy has progressed past the ro16 many times.
On August 15 2007 05:18 Matoo- wrote: GGplay must be quite clutch.
50% 2007 winning ratio, which sucks 52% career winning ratio, which also sucks
But despite that he won an OSL.
This is another example. Maybe he is "clutch", or maybe he just got lucky, or maybe he's just better now (but still scoring mediocre on average due to playing stronger opponents).
GGPlay had a great run and some inspired play during the final against Iris, but he's not "clutch" at all. The guy is a zerg Casy
wtf you seriously think GGPlay is like a zerg casy? :O
at least ggplay doesnt only excel in one matchup haha.
and he did an amazing come back vs iris, thats pretty clutchy innit
in level, yeah. He's a good player, good enough to win a championship with a somewhat lucky draw.
On August 16 2007 11:25 mrdx wrote: Gravity has a point but I think his calculation is simply wrong. If a player has an average winning ratio of 60%, his average winning ratio of a BO-x series would still be 60%. Thus Nada winning ratio in BO-x series is even higher than his average winning ratio, or in another word playing under pressure is usually his advantage much more than his opponent.
not exactly. in a bo3 it's around 65%, around 68% in bo5 and 71% in a bo7. for reference a hypothetical player with an 80% win ratio has a 97% win ratio in bo7, so it the effect is quite significant. for example with sea[shield]'s win ratio of 65% (it's even higher with his recent games) his expected win ratio for bo5 matches is 76.5%, approaching but not surpassing nada's actual results.
Could you show your calculation in details? Thanks
sorry to fakesteve for derailing the thread here but this math is interesting to see how probabilities come into play when you consider best of whatever series. + Show Spoiler +
for bo3, you have to add 2 cases: win in 2 games or win in 3. for win in 2, it's .6^2 (the probability of win-win). for win in 3, it's .4 * .6^2 (the probability of lose-win-win) * 2 choose 1 (the no. of ways this can happen.) typing this equation into google, ".6^2 + .4 * .6^2 * 2 choose 1" returns 64.8%. you use 2 choose 1 because in all cases the last game is a win, and the loss can be in either game 1 or 2. bo5 is similar except you have to add three cases: the probability of win-win-win + probability of lose-win-win-win * 3 choose 1 (one of the first 3 games was a loss) + probability of lose-lose-win-win-win * 4 choose 2 (2 of the first 4 games were losses).
gravity's mistake was that instead of doing 2 choose 1 e.g. for win-win-lose, he did 3 choose 2, which is incorrect as you can never have the last game as a loss.
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.
Gravity, if you want to use probability to see how clutch Nada is then this is how to calculate. Supposed Nada wins every single game (event W) with probability of 0.6 (or 60%), chance that he wins a best of three match is: WW + WLW + LWW = 0.6*0.6 + 0.6*0.4*0.6 + 0.4*0.6*0.6 = 0.648 (64.8%) Chance that he loses is: LL + LWL + WLL = 0.4*0.4 + 0.4*0.6*0.4 + 0.6*0.4*0.4 = 0.352 (35.2%) This two chances must sum to 1 to be true.
Thus, in order to achieve a ratio 46W:11L (win rate = 46/57 = 80.7%) in Bo3 or Bo5, Nada must actually be much better in series games than in single ones. This proves FakeSteve's view that Nada is a clutch progamer.
Nice article! Nada, Oov, Boxer, Midas, Canata, Sea, Iris, Hwasin, Casy. If you're into terran you sure have lots of characters to chear for.
Midas is like a monster trapped in a huggy bear comstume. I love the "oh-oh" moment. The camera switch to midas face, kinda odd look and you know something HAS to go wrong now. You sit there infront of your tv and you start shaking your head. You can't understand it, cause you've seen how good this boy is. It's not sad, it's just confusing.
When nada loses you feel there's a different kind of problem. If he's "free" he can play either simply dominant or incredible breathtaking. He is able to combine boxers micro with nearly oovs macro and make a huge multitask bloodbath out of it. So fast even the spectator can hardly follow. But when he loses it's as if he's carrying a fuckload of problems on his shoulders. Too much unnecesary stuff, too much pressure. Sometimes you get the impression he believes if he can't make it he would lose everything he ever had. You can see it on his face. I'm usualy yelling CHILL MAN CHILL!
Steve, this is a beautiful article. I've been busy as hell lately and not keeping up with SC like I usually like to, and I just noticed this article now after catching up on games and watching midas blow it in a joke series against free from WCG. It's like someone took all my frustration with the emo terran and articulated it perfectly.
Excellent article, with perfect timing. Your insight into players and their success is top notch. Nice work dude.
I actually spent a lot of time on it, there were a bunch of other things i wrote that didnt make it into the finalize article because they were irrelevant or too wordy or what have you
i actually enjoyed writing this one more than the Sea article
EPT
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/staff/Hot_Bid/TLFE/Nada_by_Fakesteve_big.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/1549/showimageasprealfileffpmd9.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/9061/showimageasprealfileffpuk3.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img463.imageshack.us/img463/7895/6merunendlsgkfmtmil9.gif)
