EPTAlso, Yarnc is so much more impressive than Hwasin
Power Rank 02/02/2007 - Page 3
| Forum Index > Polls & Liquibet |
GrandInquisitor
New York City13113 Posts
Also, Yarnc is so much more impressive than Hwasin | ||
|
tfeign
United States2980 Posts
Midas is ranked at #2 even though he has been eliminated by Savior in ro16. Your reasoning would be he played well, even taking a game off of Savior. He would have had good odds of making it through had it been anyone else but Savior. What's so ridiculous here is that in the first Power Ranking, Nal_rA was basically in the same situation. He would have had good odds of making it through and even win the whole MSL tournament had it been anyone else but Savior he had to face in a bo5. And even in his series vs Savior he took a game off of him in what many called the game of the year. rA's win vs Savior was even more brilliant than Midas's. But you never even mentioned about this at all. When a player you hate lose, you do not seem to take into account the quality of his opponent, but do when it's with a player you like. Lets talk about YellOw[ArnC]. His win vs oov (a slumping oov also) was enough for him to be at #7. He belongs at this spot solely because of one matchup only: his ZvT. His other two matchups are subpar, but it's okay to you. Yet, back 2 months ago, Silver was in the same situation, the only difference was instead of ZvT, he excelled in ZvP. He dominated not just one, but four top Ps at the time: Pusan, Nal_rA, Kingdom, Daezang. Silver's other two matchups are also subpar like Yellow is (though his ZvZ isn't anything bad). But he never made the list at all. When a player you hate excels in one matchup, you claim: Try doing something other than cherry-picking your way into an MSL final by winning at your only competent matchup. but when it's a player you like who excels in one matchup, you praise him passionately with a #7 on the list. Much won over Gorush, and everybody knows Gorush's ZvP has been slumping heavily for a while now. But your only comments are: His games against GoRush were both stylish and dominant But what happens when a player you hate beats a slumping player? Ra’s had some really good luck lately, though, with a list of cream-puff opponents in the MSL (Bifrost sucks and Xellos is slumping—again). When a player you like beats another player that's slumping, you never seem to consider it. Yet, when a player you hate beats another player that's slumping, you definitely do. Also, I don't agree that Xellos is slumping, and I think that your statement that Xellos is slumping is just a statement made from bias due to your dislike of rA in order to discredit him as much as possible to justify the lowest spot on your top 5 list. You really seem to consider a lot of things to justify stuff for players your like, while you never do with someone you hate. For example, when Light lost 80% of his TvTs and is eliminated, you said that he was eliminated because of bad luck having to play his worst matchup. If Light had better luck he would have gotten better matchups and probably advanced further. However, when a player you don't like, such as Silver, who actually did had better luck by getting the right matchups that you had hoped Light had, you ended up claiming that his results are only due to luck by getting the right matchups, so it's not deserving of a spot on the list. And GGPlay, I must say I can't fathom how much bias was behind placing him on the #10 spot when there are many others who are much more deserving. I'm not going to repeat anything that has been said before in this thread regarding why GGPlay is not deserving of this spot, so I'll say this: when a player you like did not advance through a league, you try to justify it with reasons such as bad luck, bad maps, tiny mistakes, even combinations of them all. But when a player you hate lose, regardless if there was a reason as glaringly obvious such as having to face Savior in a bo5, you never seem to consider it. When GGPlay lose to FirebatHero, you justify it by saying: He was literally one attack away from going 2-0 against FirebatHero. Once the maps improve and the Proleague returns, GGPlay should be back in force. But if it was Nal_rA who lost to FirebatHero in the same fashion, I'm more than fairly confident that you would have booted him off the list entirely with the reasoning that he couldn't even win vs a "cream-puff opponent." - or something similar to that. | ||
|
Orome
Switzerland11984 Posts
It's not an objective ranking, it's Etter's opinion, which is interesting because Etter is one of the most knowledgeable people here when it comes to progaming. Midas is ranked at two (and noone except you disagrees with it), because it's clear when you watch his games that he's the only one who can truly compete with Savior, the only one nearly on his level. Similar explanations could be made for most or all of your other points, no, they're not mathematically correct explanations, but they're good, and they're interesting. | ||
|
GrandInquisitor
New York City13113 Posts
The problem is is that the pro scene is so full of chance, and it's difficult to define who is precisely where in the Power Rankings. So unless you have clear-cut rules on how you make your decision, then the whole list is nothing more than a reflection of your 'gut feeling', which is susceptible to the fact that you simply have players you like more than others. Everyone does. So you ought to set down some rules: * Are you taking into consideration how 'close' a game is? * Are you making allowances for players that are achieving their results only based on one matchup? * Are you factoring in imbalanced maps into consideration or do you accept that everyone plays imba maps? * Do you take "woulda-coulda-shoulda" into account? (Recall how you bumped down rA partly because he "shoulda" been eliminated had Boxer not gone into Air Force) * Would you ease up on an SKT1 player if they do poorly in one league but good in another, considering they can only practice for a single tournament? | ||
|
tfeign
United States2980 Posts
On February 04 2007 00:06 Orome wrote: Although you make good points, you miss the fact that Etter bases his list more on the way people play their games than on the actual results themselves. This ranking is something you'll never be able to agree with, for you believe statistics are of much more importance than anything else. It's not an objective ranking, it's Etter's opinion, which is interesting because Etter is one of the most knowledgeable people here when it comes to progaming. Midas is ranked at two (and noone except you disagrees with it), because it's clear when you watch his games that he's the only one who can truly compete with Savior, the only one nearly on his level. Similar explanations could be made for most or all of your other points, no, they're not mathematically correct explanations, but they're good, and they're interesting. Never said we should only count actual results and not consider other aspects into determining who belongs in the list. My point is that Jetter considers these aspects only to selected players. There are reasonings given to justify weaknesses for players he likes. Now some of those reasonings may be accurate, that's true, but these same reasonings, apparently, are not applied to players he dislike who fall under the same situation. I have not agreed nor have I disagreed to Midas's #2 spot, I just cited it as example to examine the abundance amount of bias in his ranking that has been shown ever since the first list was created. | ||
|
Orome
Switzerland11984 Posts
 | ||
Last Romantic
United States20661 Posts
On February 04 2007 00:36 Orome wrote: Then you're right. It's horribly biased towards the players Etter thinks are good. That's what makes it an interesting ranking. Well no, with the bias, it's just Etter's own personal soapbox that he stands on every month or so. I still don't understand why it's just one person's opinion. Pick another person who is knowledgeable about the pro scene, and have them debate it with rival power rankings [like ebert/roeper or something] and that would be more interesting. I don't see what makes Etter more qualified to talk about progaming than other people on this forum O_Oi I'm sure there are more knowledgeable people. I appreciate the effort he puts into it, and it's less biased than it used to be. .shrug. I suppose the men in red wanted to have this, so it's here for better or for worse. | ||
Plexa
Aotearoa39261 Posts
I'm in semi-total agreement with tfeign Every single one his points are valid, and well.. those issues are inevitable with one person solely in charge of the power ranks... i mean, id probably do the same if i were in charge (obviously id try to keep it to a minimum, like etter does (i think), but the moment anytime screwed up he'd be low on my list, if not off it) However, the problem with more than one person doing power ranks, is that eventually we'll simply end up with a re-hash of the KeSPA ratings etter's bias is one thing which adds debate, and discussion to each ranking. The first ever power rank was highly controversial, but that was good... it created a strong interest in these rankings. However, subsequent rankings have been more... "tame" or less controversial, which obviously means etter is excluding alot of bias from his rankings. I dont know what im trying to say here except, the more people we have doing this; the closer we get to KeSPA | ||
|
Orome
Switzerland11984 Posts
On February 04 2007 01:35 Last Romantic wrote: I still don't understand why it's just one person's opinion. Pick another person who is knowledgeable about the pro scene, and have them debate it with rival power rankings [like ebert/roeper or something] and that would be more interesting. Having several people do one is a bad idea because it gets tame and isn't opinionated anymore, making it uninteresting. Having two people do it would be an interesting, but it isn't in any way better than this. I don't see what makes Etter more qualified to talk about progaming than other people on this forum O_Oi I'm sure there are more knowledgeable people. No. There definitely are people comparable to Etter in knowledge, but none that would be more qualified for this. Everyone on this forum seems to think they are top experts on Brood War, but they're not. Etter sticks out as someone who really is. On February 04 2007 01:43 Plexa wrote: I dont know what im trying to say here except, the more people we have doing this; the closer we get to KeSPA Kespa is an absolutely horrible ranking to evauluate how hot players are, and a power rank with say all the staff participating would look nothing like it. | ||
|
DJEtterStyle
United States2766 Posts
As to how I'm able to overlook losses for highly skilled players, consider your own experiences with Brood War. Personally, I have lost to some horrible newbies because of dumb luck. It happens. I've won a lot of games for the same reason. Like ilnp said a long time ago, Rekrul is much better than him, but if the two were to play a bunch of games, it wouldn't take too long for ilnp to win one. Hell, it doesn't take me that long to win one. Fayth even managed to take a practice game off of Xellos. That's just the nature of BW. Games will play out differently based upon a lot of factors outside of player skill, so to put one's faith completely in the statistics is as ignorant as going entirely off of one's evaluation of player skill. You have to try to stike a happy medium between the two, and I feel like I do a pretty good job of that. Like I said in the news post, eventually I have to acquiesce to the statistics, but my job is not to overreact just because a player lost a few games in a month. If Savior loses his upcoming series against Much because Much uses some one-shot builds, should I honestly drop him from the #1 slot? Of course not. Beyond all that, I only have a limited space in which to outline why a player is in his current position, meaning that my little paragraph of rationale is going to be superficial in nature; I have to omit facts, but that doesn't mean that I didn't consider them when formulating the list. So to address tfeign, I have to say this: you raise a whole lot of issues, and maybe half of them have some degree of validity, but really, you seem to be criticizing the method much more than the finished product. Do you actually disagree with the majority of this month's Power Rankings? If you were in charge, who would make your list, and why? It's pretty easy to call the bicycle I built a piece of crap when yours is locked in your garage. ^^ | ||
|
PhilGood2DaY
Germany7424 Posts
There can never be a ''right'' or ''wrong'' powerlist that is made by one person. A poll or whatever would make it even more unaccurate. Everyone has his favourites and the gamer he hates.. I think its useless to argue about the ranking, because it's made by one person and it cant be objective.. I just dont understand why Nal_rA is put above NaDa. Tell me where NaDa and Nal_rA are right now in the tournaments, plz. And tell me how there last 10 games went and then i want to know why NaDa is 9 and Nal_rA 5. Evryone likes these.. and dislike those.. you probably see.. i like NaDa's play.. But you did like anytimes. And its funny you even stated it, because there was this weird discussion where many people and i think you , too ( DJES) said anytime would have deserved it, he played better blala.. blala.. Who just couldnt accept the fact anytime did a big mistake in game 5 and the games before one of the two always won in an quite amazing way... whatever.. this is old stuff.. just to round up my post.. its a bit problematic if one person makes these rankings.. but if there were more it wouldnt help that much. Pretty cool would actually be : 10 very capable people who follow the pro gaming circuit very very closely could make there personal top 10 and ouf of these 10 top 10's u make a single top 10, which would make the ranking a bit more objective.. and if the people really know something about today's pro gamers.. it would be much better , imho = ) | ||
Nyovne
Netherlands19135 Posts
Lastly, Iris and Zergman are going at it in the OSL. I think Zergman wil take the bo3 series, but whoever wins better be on your list next month etter. Mani, my thoughts exactly  . | ||
|
EvilTeletubby
Baltimore, USA22253 Posts
On February 04 2007 03:05 DJEtterStyle wrote: So to address tfeign, I have to say this: you raise a whole lot of issues, and maybe half of them have some degree of validity, but really, you seem to be criticizing the method much more than the finished product. Do you actually disagree with the majority of this month's Power Rankings? If you were in charge, who would make your list, and why? It's pretty easy to call the bicycle I built a piece of crap when yours is locked in your garage. ^^ That's what I'd want to see. He's claiming bias on something that is, well, partially opinionated to begin with. Any single person here could make a list of their top 10 players, and chances are, very few, if any, of those lists will be identical. However, I believe Etter comes the closest to making a list that many of us can agree upon for the most part. Sure, we'd all like to tweak it a tad bit, swapping this player for that, but at the end of the day, I find Etter's list to be pretty accurate, especially when you read his reasoning behind most the choices. To that end, yes, tfeign, I would like to see you come up with your own list with your own rationale, and lets see how well it's received. Come on people, we have this damn debate every power ranking. And that's what makes it so interesting. ^_^ PS. - Anyone else find it ironic that tfeign is complaining of bias? Do I REALLY need to bring up Chojja? And no, that's not a low blow btw, that's me questioning your credibility based on past experience. The power ranks are supposed to be subjective to a degree - if you go by anything else, you end up making misguided claims based purely on numbers rather than other factors... which leads to you thinking Chojja is going to stomp Casy, when everyone else already knew it was the other way around. Don't get me wrong tfeign, I'm huge fan of statistics, but the problem is, you seem to have no idea how to read into them... you're supposed to use them to help infer a conclusion, not base it solely on 'em. | ||
|
GrandInquisitor
New York City13113 Posts
The difference is that you are allowing your favorite players some slack; you are biased against players you are not a fan of and favor players you like. This isn't a matter of interpreting results differently or inferring different things from the results, it is selectively interpreting certain results to like certain players. As to how I'm able to overlook losses for highly skilled players, consider your own experiences with Brood War. Personally, I have lost to some horrible newbies because of dumb luck. It happens. I've won a lot of games for the same reason. Like ilnp said a long time ago, Rekrul is much better than him, but if the two were to play a bunch of games, it wouldn't take too long for ilnp to win one. Hell, it doesn't take me that long to win one. Fayth even managed to take a practice game off of Xellos. That's just the nature of BW. Games will play out differently based upon a lot of factors outside of player skill, so to put one's faith completely in the statistics is as ignorant as going entirely off of one's evaluation of player skill. You have to try to stike a happy medium between the two, and I feel like I do a pretty good job of that. Like I said in the news post, eventually I have to acquiesce to the statistics, but my job is not to overreact just because a player lost a few games in a month. If Savior loses his upcoming series against Much because Much uses some one-shot builds, should I honestly drop him from the #1 slot? Of course not. Problem is, almost every loss can be interpreted to be a product of dumb luck. Whenever I lose a BW game, I too think to myself "man i probably could have had that." almost every game. The only time when I can't is when they are so much better than me that there is really no chance for me to have won - but such huge skill differentials don't exist in Korea. So when every game can be considered like that, it's misleading and unfair to consider it only for certain players in certain games, and not every player in every game. Moreover, what appears to be a one-sided blowout could really be the product of a very small mistake early on; what appears to be a very close ZvZ game could very well have long ago been decided by an extra drone and really have been a clear victory not in doubt at all. So for example: He was literally one attack away from going 2-0 against FirebatHero. That's not a product of bad luck. That's just GGPlay not being skilled enough to put it away. I’m still not willing to give up on GGPlay. He had the second highest winning percentage of 2006 (behind only Savior) And Boxer had the highest winning percentage of 2001; but if Power Rankings are how good a person is now, then I think that there is no rational way anyone could say GGPlay is the 10th best player in the world right now. Zergman – Your ZvZ has been strong for a while, and you’re finally showing the potential for ZvT competence—but I need to see more. He 2-0ed the number 6 player in the world and 3rd best Terran, according to you. How can he be "just showing potential" for ZvT competence? I agree with almost all of your list. I just don't think there's any reasonable basis for some of your decisions, and I think you can make your job a lot easier if you clearly define "extenuating circumstances". Obviously to some extent you have to make a subjective decision, but at the very least you can outline whether or not you will consider map imbalance, closeness of games, strength of opponent, and dumb luck. And I'm curious how long are you going to leave Midas at number 2? He deserves the spot right now, but even though he won't actually play any worse between now and OSL finals, and no one else still might be able to beat him, it is clearly insane to put him at number 2 ahead of the eventual OSL semi-finalists/finalists. Because at the point at which you aren't saying "This is a list of players I happen to like" and at least ascribe some objectiveness into it, based on statistics, you have to either choose to never consider maps/luck/how close a game was for any player or always consider it for every player. | ||
ManaBlue
Canada10458 Posts
The feature is for us to discuss players and show OUR opinions too. Not bitch about it and cry because the guy with the soap box doesn't agree with you. Stop being whiney bitches and share your opinions, laugh, dog the other people here in a light hearted way about their picks. Don't take it so damn seriously for goodness sake. | ||
KizZBG
u gotta skate8152 Posts
| ||
|
boghat
United States2109 Posts
| ||
|
SuperJongMan
Jamaica11586 Posts
Nada, Wild Card, barely lived, had a rought TvT with Donger before he barely qualified on Arkanoid. His games vs Upmagic were close, and many agreed he was as likely to lose as he was to win. His groups weren't too hard, Oov, Much, Donger, Him, but he barely qualified then beat down Up for first round. Ra has made the millionth semi in a row for him, beat Canata, Bisu, Xellos, and Bifrost. The man is undefeated, UNDEFEATED, cept vs Savior so far in MSL. I mean... duh? And He's poised to beat Bisu and take on Savior for ANOTHER PvZ final hopelessly... but honestly, if it wasn't for Ra, would we as Toss users ever have hope? Maybe Savior will lose to Much or Ra T.T Also, to defend Etter, I wanna point to "little things" in a person's game and togetherness and other things that effect thoughts into ranking them. How often do you see Savior smile when he wins. Never? Did you see Savior when he beat Midas? He was smiling, VERY VERY content, and even put his face in his hands and was smiling. When July and Casy played, Casy wrote a new page for terran tricks, playing the pimpest play in forever. People dismiss it but what was July gonna do? Run his lings in to scout and die before seeing a scv? Move the ovie in after it sees SCVs mining? I mean... that play.. SICK. Yarc's Muta's are Savior's Mutas. Sure it's his opinions, but consider the players on the list and why they are there. Based on their games and results, you can justify a lot of them. Even Hwasin has made MSL semis. Ra made it without losing cept to Savior. Midas is #2 because he is the world's best Terran who met the world's best Zerg and lost. Honestly... I dunno if Casy can beat Savior. I'd hope so, I believe so, but no matter how hot Casy's chances, I put him as even at best or a dog against Savior and Midas. If you watched Midas' games in group stages, and Savior's, and Casy's... no one has put on a show as dominating as these 3 besides maybe Much lately... I mean.. honestly, it's just true. You can talk about bias and such, but make your own list and I bet you if it's taken with any seriousness it will look very similar to Etter's list. Maybe Chojja and Boxer will be #3 or something for others, but besides maybe Nada being higher, Light being replaced, GGplay being ousted by someone, I mean.. maybe an OSL 8 rounder shoulda been put into the top 10... but really.. is Zergman that hot? | ||
|
Beamo
France1279 Posts
No arguing that one. He just doesn't lose. #2 Midas Even if I do agree he's the 2nd strongest player right now, he blew it against Savior. I would rank him 3rd not 2nd. Casy deserves this spot right now even if he hasn't played ant TvP #3 Casy Ranked 2, jsut for his pimp move vs July ! (but 2nd or 3rd switched with Midas is only details) #4 Much He doesn't deserve this spot. Sure his last 2 games were nice but since the last Power Ranking he only lost games except for these 2. He lost in PL, He lost almost all his games in MSL and he lost vs Oov in OSL groups. I would see him 6th. #5 Ra Ok with me #6 Hwasin Seeing him crushed 2-0 in his best Mu by Zergman can't make him #6. And it's not his win vs Light (can't say he won, he just didn't play as bad) that will make up to it. He did pass his groups in OSL and is still qualified in MSL but he's just one place short on my list -> 11th #7 Yellow[Arnc] 7th or 8th looks good #8 Light No no no no ! Ok he only got to play his worst MU (+1 TvP), but he lost it all ! Until I see him win a few games, he's not on mt list ! #9 Nada Hard start in OSL but came back afterwards only thanks to his TvT. Qualified for next MSL. Ok for 9th #10 GGplay No ! Yes he had nice stats in PL, but his last games wern't up to it. He lost vs FBH, is no where near MSL qualification and there are no PL to help him out on this one -> He's out ! My list : 1 Savior 2 Casy 3 Midas 4 Up 5 Ra 6 Much 7 July 8 Yellow[Arnc] 9 Nada 10 Bisu Up : "ok" he lost vs Nada 2-1 and you might not have liked his last strat, but those are the only games he lost... He's probably soon in MSL and showed great strats so far. It may not help him in a few months once everyone will be used to it but for now it works, he wins ! Number 4 for him ! July : He saved his team's ass in both finals (vs Xellos and Oov). Qualified for next MSL beating Anytime and only lost 2-1 to Casy !! He deserves a spot in here ! Bisu: Still strong in MSL, only defeated 1 game vs Ra. | ||
|
Myxomatosis
United States2392 Posts
On February 04 2007 15:12 Beamo wrote: My list : 1 Savior 2 Casy 3 Midas 4 Up 5 Ra 6 Much 7 July 8 Yellow[Arnc] 9 Nada 10 Bisu Up at 4??? Whaaaaaaaaat? Losing to an out of shape (relatively) Nada, and not present in either leagues shouldn't even GIVE you a place on the list, let alone the off chance of you being in the MSL. Edit: My List: 1. Savior 2. Midas 3. Casy 4. rA 5. Much 6. Bisu 7. Yarnc 8. Hwasin 9. Nada 10. Zergman eh. bottom 5 was very hard. | ||
| ||
