|
On August 12 2011 03:42 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2011 00:42 brachester wrote:On August 12 2011 00:32 Doodsmack wrote:On August 11 2011 16:19 MildSeven wrote:On August 11 2011 14:12 Doodsmack wrote:On August 11 2011 12:21 MildSeven wrote:On August 11 2011 06:22 Doodsmack wrote:On August 10 2011 16:49 MildSeven wrote:On August 09 2011 22:16 akalarry wrote:
i don't even know why startale picked up fd or tester. they've been irrelevant since as long as i can remember, and their attitude towards the game (the reason they left ogs) would make them less than desired. maybe startale thought they could ride on the marketing of fd's season 1 win 12 months ago? no fucking clue I agree, they have been irrelevant, and i have never once been impressed by either of their play. FD dropped to Code A which makes perfect sense, i was really surprised he even won against maru to stay in code A. Tester lingers on to Code S always through well-thought-out two base plays, but this guy will never ever be a champion, can't see a glimpse of that potential in him. Yeah what team would want players who are in Code A and Code S? Those guys are irrelevant! Startale should replace them with random unknowns. I'll tell you what kind of team would want players with POTENTIAL than two soon-to-be irrelevant code A and S players - Slayers would. Right because players with potential have a better chance of getting into code A and CODE S (!!!) than two players who are already there have of staying. Oh wait... potential has nothing to do with whether or not you're already in, i guess you still can't comprehend the definition of potential. According to your silly logic, every player in Code S and Code A deserves to be where they are in terms of skills and potential, according to your logic, results and skills are perfectly parrallel. Is that what you're saying? I'm just being realistic and saying that if a team has an opportunity to get players who are already in Code A and Code S they will obviously jump on it. These teams also know that players with "potential" unfortunately still face long odds of making Code A, let alone Code S. Players who are already in Code A and Code S are far from irrelevant, to claim otherwise is just not a well thought-out statement. And to claim that I don't know the definition of potential...lol I love the way people make their arguments on the internet. Ok look, staying in Coda A and Code S is way easier than getting in code A from code B. Let's say DRG and FD are both free, neither of them having a team. One is in code B having a huge potential of being a future GSL champion, one is already in code S but performing poorly and doesn't have a slightest chance of winning the whole thing, which one are you gonna choose??? The one with the more potential? yes? DRG? these RANDOM UNKNOWNS has way more values than those staying in code S due to their prior results but having a downhill perfomence. The example of DRG is irrelevant since he is in fact on a team so ST can't pick him up. Even if he was a free agent, though, your assumption that he is more valuable than a code S player is highly questionable. No smart coach is going to assume that a code s player is destined to fall to code b and a code a player is destined to become a gsl champion, no matter who they are. It's not a smart way to play the odds in sc2. But again, DRG is an extreme and irrelevant example. It's fine if you have a negative opinion of FD and tester's behavior outside the game, but it's simply incorrect to call them irrelevant as players. To do so is to become a hater.
You still can't grasp such a simple concept of "potential", a factor obviously we can't fully grasp unless we're in the Korean scene. Taking FD and Tester was due to marketing factor as well as close relations with Startale coach to begin with, FD and Tester both being somewhat old gamers. Players with potential are those that everyone within the scene talks about being able to achieve great things. According to your argument, Nestea's observation that certain players don't deserve to be in Code S is irrelevant. According to you, when MMA was ripping GSTL, but wasn't doing well in individual league means he was irrelevant (of which we know is not true by far, he later completely dominates in individual performance). According to you, player like Bomber should have been kicked off the team out of Startale months ago when everyone was talking about him as potential champion, but still failing to qualify for Code A was irrelevant, and was less worthy of an investment than someone say like Lyn whom people felt was at anytime ready to fall out of Code S and eventually B. Someone like theBestFou whom for a while lingered onto Code S and Code A was seen as falling out of the leagues at anytime by critics, but according to you, is worth high investment and "relevant"
You linger on to this concept of "someone who is in Code A or S already is relevant, is worthy investment". Your logic is so flawed in every field, that's synonymous with saying "let's invest in a failing company that's still staying afloat, let's not infest in small firms with potential to be as big as google or facebook".
"No smart coach is going to assume that a code S player is destined to fall to code b and a Code A player is destined to become a GSL champion"... once again, clearly you don't follow the sentiments of the people in the scene, with many expecting great things from specific players like Bomber, and I am sure coaches are well aware who and who is at high risk of falling out of Code A. I don't even understand your statement, no one's "assuming" things, it's called calculated assessments, not "assumptions".
|
On August 12 2011 00:32 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2011 16:19 MildSeven wrote:On August 11 2011 14:12 Doodsmack wrote:On August 11 2011 12:21 MildSeven wrote:On August 11 2011 06:22 Doodsmack wrote:On August 10 2011 16:49 MildSeven wrote:On August 09 2011 22:16 akalarry wrote:
i don't even know why startale picked up fd or tester. they've been irrelevant since as long as i can remember, and their attitude towards the game (the reason they left ogs) would make them less than desired. maybe startale thought they could ride on the marketing of fd's season 1 win 12 months ago? no fucking clue I agree, they have been irrelevant, and i have never once been impressed by either of their play. FD dropped to Code A which makes perfect sense, i was really surprised he even won against maru to stay in code A. Tester lingers on to Code S always through well-thought-out two base plays, but this guy will never ever be a champion, can't see a glimpse of that potential in him. Yeah what team would want players who are in Code A and Code S? Those guys are irrelevant! Startale should replace them with random unknowns. I'll tell you what kind of team would want players with POTENTIAL than two soon-to-be irrelevant code A and S players - Slayers would. Right because players with potential have a better chance of getting into code A and CODE S (!!!) than two players who are already there have of staying. Oh wait... potential has nothing to do with whether or not you're already in, i guess you still can't comprehend the definition of potential. According to your silly logic, every player in Code S and Code A deserves to be where they are in terms of skills and potential, according to your logic, results and skills are perfectly parrallel. Is that what you're saying? I'm just being realistic and saying that if a team has an opportunity to get players who are already in Code A and Code S they will obviously jump on it. These teams also know that players with "potential" unfortunately still face long odds of making Code A, let alone Code S. Players who are already in Code A and Code S are far from irrelevant, to claim otherwise is just not a well thought-out statement. And to claim that I don't know the definition of potential...lol I love the way people make their arguments on the internet.
You could not be more wrong. Ever hear of a team called SlayerS? Think they didn't have the chance to sign ANYONE they wanted in Korea and still signed "potential"?
Certain teams like SK just try and buy championships, real teams create champions.
|
On August 12 2011 04:50 iCCup.Diamond wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2011 00:32 Doodsmack wrote:On August 11 2011 16:19 MildSeven wrote:On August 11 2011 14:12 Doodsmack wrote:On August 11 2011 12:21 MildSeven wrote:On August 11 2011 06:22 Doodsmack wrote:On August 10 2011 16:49 MildSeven wrote:On August 09 2011 22:16 akalarry wrote:
i don't even know why startale picked up fd or tester. they've been irrelevant since as long as i can remember, and their attitude towards the game (the reason they left ogs) would make them less than desired. maybe startale thought they could ride on the marketing of fd's season 1 win 12 months ago? no fucking clue I agree, they have been irrelevant, and i have never once been impressed by either of their play. FD dropped to Code A which makes perfect sense, i was really surprised he even won against maru to stay in code A. Tester lingers on to Code S always through well-thought-out two base plays, but this guy will never ever be a champion, can't see a glimpse of that potential in him. Yeah what team would want players who are in Code A and Code S? Those guys are irrelevant! Startale should replace them with random unknowns. I'll tell you what kind of team would want players with POTENTIAL than two soon-to-be irrelevant code A and S players - Slayers would. Right because players with potential have a better chance of getting into code A and CODE S (!!!) than two players who are already there have of staying. Oh wait... potential has nothing to do with whether or not you're already in, i guess you still can't comprehend the definition of potential. According to your silly logic, every player in Code S and Code A deserves to be where they are in terms of skills and potential, according to your logic, results and skills are perfectly parrallel. Is that what you're saying? I'm just being realistic and saying that if a team has an opportunity to get players who are already in Code A and Code S they will obviously jump on it. These teams also know that players with "potential" unfortunately still face long odds of making Code A, let alone Code S. Players who are already in Code A and Code S are far from irrelevant, to claim otherwise is just not a well thought-out statement. And to claim that I don't know the definition of potential...lol I love the way people make their arguments on the internet. You could not be more wrong. Ever hear of a team called SlayerS? Think they didn't have the chance to sign ANYONE they wanted in Korea and still signed "potential"? Certain teams like SK just try and buy championships, real teams create champions.
Exactly, we know now if Doodsmack ran a team for GSL, it would be a tub of shit, he'd just take any crap from Code A or S simply because they are from Code A or S, he measures players' qualities not by their performance, skills, mentality, he just looks at result.
|
On August 12 2011 04:41 MildSeven wrote:
You still can't grasp such a simple concept of "potential"...
I guess you can continue to repeat this exaggeration, just realize that it doesn't help you to sound reasonable and it borders on dishonesty. Since you apparently still haven't gleaned it from my argument, let me spell it out for you: from the perspective of a rational coach, subjective assessments of potential, while certainly important for new recruits, should in the case of established players be superceded by proven results (having achieved code A or code S). The marketing value of proven players is obvious, and if I'm not mistaken code A/code S status is also relevant to GSTL seeding.
On August 12 2011 04:41 MildSeven wrote:
According to your argument, Nestea's observation that certain players don't deserve to be in Code S is irrelevant. According to you, when MMA was ripping GSTL, but wasn't doing well in individual league means he was irrelevant (of which we know is not true by far, he later completely dominates in individual performance). According to you, player like Bomber should have been kicked off the team out of Startale months ago...
All of these statements are caricatures of my argument, so I'm not even going to respond.
On August 12 2011 04:41 MildSeven wrote:
You linger on to this concept of "someone who is in Code A or S already is relevant, is worthy investment". Your logic is so flawed in every field, that's synonymous with saying "let's invest in a failing company that's still staying afloat, let's not infest in small firms with potential to be as big as google or facebook".
Bad analogy. In order for this analogy to be applicable, the "failing company" would have to have better chances of succeeding than the small firms, since it's undeniable that players who are already in code S/code A have better chances than players in code B.
On August 12 2011 04:41 MildSeven wrote:
"No smart coach is going to assume that a code S player is destined to fall to code b and a Code A player is destined to become a GSL champion"... once again, clearly you don't follow the sentiments of the people in the scene, with many expecting great things from specific players like Bomber, and I am sure coaches are well aware who and who is at high risk of falling out of Code A. I don't even understand your statement, no one's "assuming" things, it's called calculated assessments, not "assumptions".
Once again I come back to my point that, in terms of the value a player has to a professional team (marketing and otherwise), proven results supercede subjective notions of potential.
|
On August 12 2011 03:52 brachester wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2011 03:42 Doodsmack wrote:On August 12 2011 00:42 brachester wrote:On August 12 2011 00:32 Doodsmack wrote:On August 11 2011 16:19 MildSeven wrote:On August 11 2011 14:12 Doodsmack wrote:On August 11 2011 12:21 MildSeven wrote:On August 11 2011 06:22 Doodsmack wrote:On August 10 2011 16:49 MildSeven wrote:On August 09 2011 22:16 akalarry wrote:
i don't even know why startale picked up fd or tester. they've been irrelevant since as long as i can remember, and their attitude towards the game (the reason they left ogs) would make them less than desired. maybe startale thought they could ride on the marketing of fd's season 1 win 12 months ago? no fucking clue I agree, they have been irrelevant, and i have never once been impressed by either of their play. FD dropped to Code A which makes perfect sense, i was really surprised he even won against maru to stay in code A. Tester lingers on to Code S always through well-thought-out two base plays, but this guy will never ever be a champion, can't see a glimpse of that potential in him. Yeah what team would want players who are in Code A and Code S? Those guys are irrelevant! Startale should replace them with random unknowns. I'll tell you what kind of team would want players with POTENTIAL than two soon-to-be irrelevant code A and S players - Slayers would. Right because players with potential have a better chance of getting into code A and CODE S (!!!) than two players who are already there have of staying. Oh wait... potential has nothing to do with whether or not you're already in, i guess you still can't comprehend the definition of potential. According to your silly logic, every player in Code S and Code A deserves to be where they are in terms of skills and potential, according to your logic, results and skills are perfectly parrallel. Is that what you're saying? I'm just being realistic and saying that if a team has an opportunity to get players who are already in Code A and Code S they will obviously jump on it. These teams also know that players with "potential" unfortunately still face long odds of making Code A, let alone Code S. Players who are already in Code A and Code S are far from irrelevant, to claim otherwise is just not a well thought-out statement. And to claim that I don't know the definition of potential...lol I love the way people make their arguments on the internet. Ok look, staying in Coda A and Code S is way easier than getting in code A from code B. Let's say DRG and FD are both free, neither of them having a team. One is in code B having a huge potential of being a future GSL champion, one is already in code S but performing poorly and doesn't have a slightest chance of winning the whole thing, which one are you gonna choose??? The one with the more potential? yes? DRG? these RANDOM UNKNOWNS has way more values than those staying in code S due to their prior results but having a downhill perfomence. The example of DRG is irrelevant since he is in fact on a team so ST can't pick him up. Even if he was a free agent, though, your assumption that he is more valuable than a code S player is highly questionable. No smart coach is going to assume that a code s player is destined to fall to code b and a code a player is destined to become a gsl champion, no matter who they are. It's not a smart way to play the odds in sc2. But again, DRG is an extreme and irrelevant example. It's fine if you have a negative opinion of FD and tester's behavior outside the game, but it's simply incorrect to call them irrelevant as players. To do so is to become a hater. why is it irrelevant, he's a perfect example of an upcoming players who can play on par with gsl champions = potential? please do give reasons why it is irrelevent. Talk about smart coach, let's say you have a player in code S (e.g. FD) who is actually very shit but is still in GSL due to the system that it is very hard to drop down, do you really want him to stay in your team techniquely?? since it is hard to drop down at the same time, hard to win, he's always a bottom code S player that will never get anywhere. While for a potential player (e.g.DRG), who has showed caliber of top koreans, just not lucky enough to get to code A, since code B is really 50/50 tbh. If he somehow manage in to code A (which will happen eventually which it did), he can player really good, because now he has a mark that he can rely on, like he just need to win the R32 to stay in code A. He can even win the whole code A (assume that he has the skills like DRG). Its just like in normal sports, old players usually got ditched at the end of their carriers no matter how good they still are, to be replaced by the younger players (e.g. current brazil team). My question to you is why is it not smart to destine on a player that have much more chances to be more successful than an old player that have proved all he has got but still not enough? Why is my example irrelevent? Please give evidence, don't just claim it is not smart by doing that.
It's irrelevant because my argument concerns, as I said before, random unknowns, not players who are already on a team. DRG is already on a team, therefore his example is irrelevant to my argument. Remember, all I'm saying here is that it's incorrect to claim that FD and Tester are irrelevant. If you really think they're irrelevant, then you must think that random unknown recruits would hold more value to Startale than they do. Since DRG isn't a potential recruit, he doesn't apply here.
|
On August 12 2011 04:50 iCCup.Diamond wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2011 00:32 Doodsmack wrote:On August 11 2011 16:19 MildSeven wrote:On August 11 2011 14:12 Doodsmack wrote:On August 11 2011 12:21 MildSeven wrote:On August 11 2011 06:22 Doodsmack wrote:On August 10 2011 16:49 MildSeven wrote:On August 09 2011 22:16 akalarry wrote:
i don't even know why startale picked up fd or tester. they've been irrelevant since as long as i can remember, and their attitude towards the game (the reason they left ogs) would make them less than desired. maybe startale thought they could ride on the marketing of fd's season 1 win 12 months ago? no fucking clue I agree, they have been irrelevant, and i have never once been impressed by either of their play. FD dropped to Code A which makes perfect sense, i was really surprised he even won against maru to stay in code A. Tester lingers on to Code S always through well-thought-out two base plays, but this guy will never ever be a champion, can't see a glimpse of that potential in him. Yeah what team would want players who are in Code A and Code S? Those guys are irrelevant! Startale should replace them with random unknowns. I'll tell you what kind of team would want players with POTENTIAL than two soon-to-be irrelevant code A and S players - Slayers would. Right because players with potential have a better chance of getting into code A and CODE S (!!!) than two players who are already there have of staying. Oh wait... potential has nothing to do with whether or not you're already in, i guess you still can't comprehend the definition of potential. According to your silly logic, every player in Code S and Code A deserves to be where they are in terms of skills and potential, according to your logic, results and skills are perfectly parrallel. Is that what you're saying? I'm just being realistic and saying that if a team has an opportunity to get players who are already in Code A and Code S they will obviously jump on it. These teams also know that players with "potential" unfortunately still face long odds of making Code A, let alone Code S. Players who are already in Code A and Code S are far from irrelevant, to claim otherwise is just not a well thought-out statement. And to claim that I don't know the definition of potential...lol I love the way people make their arguments on the internet. You could not be more wrong. Ever hear of a team called SlayerS? Think they didn't have the chance to sign ANYONE they wanted in Korea and still signed "potential"? Certain teams like SK just try and buy championships, real teams create champions.
Pure speculation. What makes you think players already in code A and code S didn't have potential to Slayers. And what makes you think any player already on a team would have gladly switched to Slayers? Because of Boxer?
|
On August 12 2011 05:36 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2011 04:50 iCCup.Diamond wrote:On August 12 2011 00:32 Doodsmack wrote:On August 11 2011 16:19 MildSeven wrote:On August 11 2011 14:12 Doodsmack wrote:On August 11 2011 12:21 MildSeven wrote:On August 11 2011 06:22 Doodsmack wrote:On August 10 2011 16:49 MildSeven wrote:On August 09 2011 22:16 akalarry wrote:
i don't even know why startale picked up fd or tester. they've been irrelevant since as long as i can remember, and their attitude towards the game (the reason they left ogs) would make them less than desired. maybe startale thought they could ride on the marketing of fd's season 1 win 12 months ago? no fucking clue I agree, they have been irrelevant, and i have never once been impressed by either of their play. FD dropped to Code A which makes perfect sense, i was really surprised he even won against maru to stay in code A. Tester lingers on to Code S always through well-thought-out two base plays, but this guy will never ever be a champion, can't see a glimpse of that potential in him. Yeah what team would want players who are in Code A and Code S? Those guys are irrelevant! Startale should replace them with random unknowns. I'll tell you what kind of team would want players with POTENTIAL than two soon-to-be irrelevant code A and S players - Slayers would. Right because players with potential have a better chance of getting into code A and CODE S (!!!) than two players who are already there have of staying. Oh wait... potential has nothing to do with whether or not you're already in, i guess you still can't comprehend the definition of potential. According to your silly logic, every player in Code S and Code A deserves to be where they are in terms of skills and potential, according to your logic, results and skills are perfectly parrallel. Is that what you're saying? I'm just being realistic and saying that if a team has an opportunity to get players who are already in Code A and Code S they will obviously jump on it. These teams also know that players with "potential" unfortunately still face long odds of making Code A, let alone Code S. Players who are already in Code A and Code S are far from irrelevant, to claim otherwise is just not a well thought-out statement. And to claim that I don't know the definition of potential...lol I love the way people make their arguments on the internet. You could not be more wrong. Ever hear of a team called SlayerS? Think they didn't have the chance to sign ANYONE they wanted in Korea and still signed "potential"? Certain teams like SK just try and buy championships, real teams create champions. Pure speculation. What makes you think players already in code A and code S didn't have potential to Slayers. And what makes you think any player already on a team would have gladly switched to Slayers? Because of Boxer?
Because I have yet to see them sign a Code A/S player (iirc).
Also yes, Boxer.
|
On August 12 2011 05:30 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2011 04:41 MildSeven wrote:
You still can't grasp such a simple concept of "potential"... I guess you can continue to repeat this exaggeration, just realize that it doesn't help you to sound reasonable and it borders on dishonesty. Since you apparently still haven't gleaned it from my argument, let me spell it out for you: from the perspective of a rational coach, subjective assessments of potential, while certainly important for new recruits, should in the case of established players be superceded by proven results (having achieved code A or code S). The marketing value of proven players is obvious, and if I'm not mistaken code A/code S status is also relevant to GSTL seeding. Show nested quote +On August 12 2011 04:41 MildSeven wrote:
According to your argument, Nestea's observation that certain players don't deserve to be in Code S is irrelevant. According to you, when MMA was ripping GSTL, but wasn't doing well in individual league means he was irrelevant (of which we know is not true by far, he later completely dominates in individual performance). According to you, player like Bomber should have been kicked off the team out of Startale months ago...
All of these statements are caricatures of my argument, so I'm not even going to respond. Show nested quote +On August 12 2011 04:41 MildSeven wrote:
You linger on to this concept of "someone who is in Code A or S already is relevant, is worthy investment". Your logic is so flawed in every field, that's synonymous with saying "let's invest in a failing company that's still staying afloat, let's not infest in small firms with potential to be as big as google or facebook".
Bad analogy. In order for this analogy to be applicable, the "failing company" would have to have better chances of succeeding than the small firms, since it's undeniable that players who are already in code S/code A have better chances than players in code B. Show nested quote +On August 12 2011 04:41 MildSeven wrote:
"No smart coach is going to assume that a code S player is destined to fall to code b and a Code A player is destined to become a GSL champion"... once again, clearly you don't follow the sentiments of the people in the scene, with many expecting great things from specific players like Bomber, and I am sure coaches are well aware who and who is at high risk of falling out of Code A. I don't even understand your statement, no one's "assuming" things, it's called calculated assessments, not "assumptions".
Once again I come back to my point that, in terms of the value a player has to a professional team (marketing and otherwise), proven results supercede subjective notions of potential.
Referring to the concept of "potential" as subjective is quite inaccurate. The failing company is not in the position of "doing better" than the smaller company, the investment is higher (higher pay to FD/Tester), higher maintenance whereas nurturing future players with prospect is cheaper and garners greater return, of course there is always a risk.
Once again, according to you, the assessment of a player's worth is based on rather or not they are in Code A or B already, you call all my analogies irrelevant because you have no argument against them. Your defense is : "All of these statements are caricatures of my argument", which basically means "i am rewording the same argument over and over again, i am right, i don't care what other people says".
At this point, arguing with you is pointless because you're just making the same point over and over again in different ways, deflecting counter-arguments, testimonies of professional players as well as good analogies with a simple "no, i am right" all for the sake of your tiny ego and pride.
If recruitment is based only on result, discounting all the other factors such as higher investment cost, as well as ignoring potential and real performance is just silly. You call "potential" subjective whereas it really isn't, people conclude that players like Bomber have "potential" not because they pull it out of their ass as you are trying to say, they don't subjectively go, "oh geesh, I THINK HE'S GOOD", the scene makes this judgement based on experiences from other top players. No top players places FD and Tester at the moment in that kind of category, their growing irrelevancy is quite clear. Not to mention we are now exposed to the truth that FD and Tester has poor work ethics, high maintenance. FD's performance continues to decline is in itself a proof of their growing irrelevancy.
I can guarantee you, any further replies you make will have no new counter-arguments, as i expect, just a repetition of one simple point "Result = everything, no such thing as potential". According to that one shitty argument of yours, it's pointless to even debate with you.
|
It's fine if you have a negative opinion of FD and tester's behavior outside the game, but it's simply incorrect to call them irrelevant as players. To do so is to become a hater.
Completely ignoring this entire situation, fruitdealer and tester have been performing lackluster in the last couple of months (especially fruitdealer) and it would take a LOT of dedication for them to even stay where they are right now. As has already been stated, they both simply lack that dedication, showing up 10 days in a month, whereas everyone on Korean teams trains 25+ days a month.
Tell me again, what's the point of PAYING a player that is on a downhill slope and will likely drop out of the GSL all together, does not help your other teammates practice by not showing up, which also demoralizes your entire team, and still demands the highest salary of all your players? Then look me straight in the eyes and tell me you'd take that player over a strong player with willpower and potential that requests not even a third of that players salary, just because that player is in Code A already?
Remember, out of nearly everyone in SlayerS exactly zero of them where in Code A/S a couple of months ago. You'd have to be one of the worst coaches ever to take a someone that's extremely lazy and underperforming over someone with potential and willpower because the former will never get any further and will not help your team as a whole get any further.
|
On August 12 2011 06:04 MildSeven wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2011 05:30 Doodsmack wrote:On August 12 2011 04:41 MildSeven wrote:
You still can't grasp such a simple concept of "potential"... I guess you can continue to repeat this exaggeration, just realize that it doesn't help you to sound reasonable and it borders on dishonesty. Since you apparently still haven't gleaned it from my argument, let me spell it out for you: from the perspective of a rational coach, subjective assessments of potential, while certainly important for new recruits, should in the case of established players be superceded by proven results (having achieved code A or code S). The marketing value of proven players is obvious, and if I'm not mistaken code A/code S status is also relevant to GSTL seeding. On August 12 2011 04:41 MildSeven wrote:
According to your argument, Nestea's observation that certain players don't deserve to be in Code S is irrelevant. According to you, when MMA was ripping GSTL, but wasn't doing well in individual league means he was irrelevant (of which we know is not true by far, he later completely dominates in individual performance). According to you, player like Bomber should have been kicked off the team out of Startale months ago...
All of these statements are caricatures of my argument, so I'm not even going to respond. On August 12 2011 04:41 MildSeven wrote:
You linger on to this concept of "someone who is in Code A or S already is relevant, is worthy investment". Your logic is so flawed in every field, that's synonymous with saying "let's invest in a failing company that's still staying afloat, let's not infest in small firms with potential to be as big as google or facebook".
Bad analogy. In order for this analogy to be applicable, the "failing company" would have to have better chances of succeeding than the small firms, since it's undeniable that players who are already in code S/code A have better chances than players in code B. On August 12 2011 04:41 MildSeven wrote:
"No smart coach is going to assume that a code S player is destined to fall to code b and a Code A player is destined to become a GSL champion"... once again, clearly you don't follow the sentiments of the people in the scene, with many expecting great things from specific players like Bomber, and I am sure coaches are well aware who and who is at high risk of falling out of Code A. I don't even understand your statement, no one's "assuming" things, it's called calculated assessments, not "assumptions".
Once again I come back to my point that, in terms of the value a player has to a professional team (marketing and otherwise), proven results supercede subjective notions of potential. Referring to the concept of "potential" as subjective is quite inaccurate. The failing company is not in the position of "doing better" than the smaller company, the investment is higher (higher pay to FD/Tester), higher maintenance whereas nurturing future players with prospect is cheaper and garners greater return, of course there is always a risk. Once again, according to you, the assessment of a player's worth is based on rather or not they are in Code A or B already, you call all my analogies irrelevant because you have no argument against them. Your defense is : "All of these statements are caricatures of my argument", which basically means "i am rewording the same argument over and over again, i am right, i don't care what other people says". At this point, arguing with you is pointless because you're just making the same point over and over again in different ways, deflecting counter-arguments, testimonies of professional players as well as good analogies with a simple "no, i am right" all for the sake of your tiny ego and pride. If recruitment is based only on result, discounting all the other factors such as higher investment cost, as well as ignoring potential and real performance is just silly. You call "potential" subjective whereas it really isn't, people conclude that players like Bomber have "potential" not because they pull it out of their ass as you are trying to say, they don't subjectively go, "oh geesh, I THINK HE'S GOOD", the scene makes this judgement based on experiences from other top players. No top players places FD and Tester at the moment in that kind of category, their growing irrelevancy is quite clear. Not to mention we are now exposed to the truth that FD and Tester has poor work ethics, high maintenance. FD's performance continues to decline is in itself a proof of their growing irrelevancy. I can guarantee you, any further replies you make will have no new counter-arguments, as i expect, just a repetition of one simple point "Result = everything, no such thing as potential". According to that one shitty argument of yours, it's pointless to even debate with you.
More exaggerations from you. "If recruitment is based only on result...people conclude that players like Bomber have "potential" not because they pull it out of their ass as you are trying to say...Result = everything, no such thing as potential." Ever heard of the phrase "straw man"? Bottom line is that your claim that FD and Tester are "irrelevant" is an exaggeration (seems to be a trend with you) and as such, incorrect. You say I just repeated myself, but in fact I brought up the points of marketing value and GSTL seeding, spelled out my assessment of potential vs proven results (which you clearly hadn't gotten since you claimed I didn't understand the definition of the word potential), among other things.
Maybe you should write a letter to Startale's sponsors and tell them to demand that the ST manager kick FD and Tester out (players whose matches are televised), and recruit some unknown up-and-comers to replace them. You give them the example of DRG as an up-and-comer, and explain how he lost in the Code A Ro16. See what they say.
|
On August 12 2011 10:06 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2011 06:04 MildSeven wrote:On August 12 2011 05:30 Doodsmack wrote:On August 12 2011 04:41 MildSeven wrote:
You still can't grasp such a simple concept of "potential"... I guess you can continue to repeat this exaggeration, just realize that it doesn't help you to sound reasonable and it borders on dishonesty. Since you apparently still haven't gleaned it from my argument, let me spell it out for you: from the perspective of a rational coach, subjective assessments of potential, while certainly important for new recruits, should in the case of established players be superceded by proven results (having achieved code A or code S). The marketing value of proven players is obvious, and if I'm not mistaken code A/code S status is also relevant to GSTL seeding. On August 12 2011 04:41 MildSeven wrote:
According to your argument, Nestea's observation that certain players don't deserve to be in Code S is irrelevant. According to you, when MMA was ripping GSTL, but wasn't doing well in individual league means he was irrelevant (of which we know is not true by far, he later completely dominates in individual performance). According to you, player like Bomber should have been kicked off the team out of Startale months ago...
All of these statements are caricatures of my argument, so I'm not even going to respond. On August 12 2011 04:41 MildSeven wrote:
You linger on to this concept of "someone who is in Code A or S already is relevant, is worthy investment". Your logic is so flawed in every field, that's synonymous with saying "let's invest in a failing company that's still staying afloat, let's not infest in small firms with potential to be as big as google or facebook".
Bad analogy. In order for this analogy to be applicable, the "failing company" would have to have better chances of succeeding than the small firms, since it's undeniable that players who are already in code S/code A have better chances than players in code B. On August 12 2011 04:41 MildSeven wrote:
"No smart coach is going to assume that a code S player is destined to fall to code b and a Code A player is destined to become a GSL champion"... once again, clearly you don't follow the sentiments of the people in the scene, with many expecting great things from specific players like Bomber, and I am sure coaches are well aware who and who is at high risk of falling out of Code A. I don't even understand your statement, no one's "assuming" things, it's called calculated assessments, not "assumptions".
Once again I come back to my point that, in terms of the value a player has to a professional team (marketing and otherwise), proven results supercede subjective notions of potential. Referring to the concept of "potential" as subjective is quite inaccurate. The failing company is not in the position of "doing better" than the smaller company, the investment is higher (higher pay to FD/Tester), higher maintenance whereas nurturing future players with prospect is cheaper and garners greater return, of course there is always a risk. Once again, according to you, the assessment of a player's worth is based on rather or not they are in Code A or B already, you call all my analogies irrelevant because you have no argument against them. Your defense is : "All of these statements are caricatures of my argument", which basically means "i am rewording the same argument over and over again, i am right, i don't care what other people says". At this point, arguing with you is pointless because you're just making the same point over and over again in different ways, deflecting counter-arguments, testimonies of professional players as well as good analogies with a simple "no, i am right" all for the sake of your tiny ego and pride. If recruitment is based only on result, discounting all the other factors such as higher investment cost, as well as ignoring potential and real performance is just silly. You call "potential" subjective whereas it really isn't, people conclude that players like Bomber have "potential" not because they pull it out of their ass as you are trying to say, they don't subjectively go, "oh geesh, I THINK HE'S GOOD", the scene makes this judgement based on experiences from other top players. No top players places FD and Tester at the moment in that kind of category, their growing irrelevancy is quite clear. Not to mention we are now exposed to the truth that FD and Tester has poor work ethics, high maintenance. FD's performance continues to decline is in itself a proof of their growing irrelevancy. I can guarantee you, any further replies you make will have no new counter-arguments, as i expect, just a repetition of one simple point "Result = everything, no such thing as potential". According to that one shitty argument of yours, it's pointless to even debate with you. More exaggerations from you. "If recruitment is based only on result...people conclude that players like Bomber have "potential" not because they pull it out of their ass as you are trying to say...Result = everything, no such thing as potential." Ever heard of the phrase "straw man"? Bottom line is that your claim that FD and Tester are "irrelevant" is an exaggeration (seems to be a trend with you) and as such, incorrect. You say I just repeated myself, but in fact I brought up the points of marketing value and GSTL seeding, spelled out my assessment of potential vs proven results (which you clearly hadn't gotten since you claimed I didn't understand the definition of the word potential), among other things. Maybe you should write a letter to Startale's sponsors and tell them to demand that the ST manager kick FD and Tester out (players whose matches are televised), and recruit some unknown up-and-comers to replace them. You give them the example of DRG as an up-and-comer, and explain how he lost in the Code A Ro16. See what they say.
Another attempt at twisting people's words, i guess you do this all the time. And perhaps you should write a letter to Slayers, and criticize them for taking up and coming players, give them your theory of "apparent results", maybe they'll start begging anyone from Code A and Code S who is willing, to join Slayers. I don't know how many times it takes to reiterate your ape-minded point "duhhh... he in code A, he must be better, i must ignore trend, i just look at current state, trends means nothing, they are subjective.. duhhhh". Also, I love how you consistently subtly ignore the fact that Tester and FD are now a bad brand considering their exposed lies and poor working habit, now, all you can point out is "they are in code a and s, they are relevant, they are valuable"
|
I guess FD and Tester joined the right team. Two morally questionable players joining a team of cocky players who can't back their talk with their walk (ie. ace) and only relies on Bomber. When their coach talked crap about NSheosho and then subsequently getting owned by them just illustrates how cocky they are and they are definitely punching way above their weight relying on 1 player.
|
On August 10 2011 03:20 Rekrul wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2011 02:50 FXOpen wrote:
sc2con is just a new start up form of kespa.
Even though they have little/no substance, they are already known to blackmail teams into fearing them....
I personally have little/no respect for the organisation until they clean up their act. Including the ST coach, and junho (I think thats how you spell it).
They act like supremicists trying to control everything in the old ways of korea. Which evidently, no longer seems to work in a global market.
But that doesn't phase me, thats a cultural thing. Its the blackmail tactics, disregard for team contracts and insults to players that I think should worry people.
Its due for a serious overhaul, and a long hard look in the mirror. Care to share some specifics?
Look Dan, I get it. You don't like Lee's character. It makes sense considering he's the complete opposite of you and me. We're both "loud-mouths" who aren't afraid of speaking our minds for those who aren't aware.
Open and Boss don't owe an explanation to anybody.
However, there is one thing I would like to snag in the butt: the bench conspiracy. I think FXOBoss said it best:
On July 15 2011 15:41 FXOpen wrote:... GOM Studio experience. I love GOM, I really do, well.. I love most of GOM. (Hi John). And they certainly have done the best for us, and helped us be as comfortable as possible. I have huge thanks to them and I owe them in some way. Without them this all wouldnt happen. But now its time to get critical. Firstly, THE FLAMEGUNS... What the hell are you doing making people walk between fire? I almost got burned numerous times, and I think a bunch of other people almost got burned also. I doubt insurance covers that  I think it was TT1 who had an ear miss with one of them during Korea vs the world?) Its only a matter of time before someone gets hurt from them. Secondly, The team Bench. The team bench is a bit dangerous. When we sit down, we can almost move the whole thing with one butt movement. If it collapses, i can see someone getting impaled with timber. Its dangerous.
Have you sat on the benches GOMTV provides? Have you noticed how the players barely move while they're on them? I've heard from several sources that those benches are rickety as fuck and the players are timid on them. Having more players on it won't help the problem.
To further my point, remember when IdrA had to sit in the crowd when he was on CJ Entus? Yeah, you earn your spot on the bench. It is no different. Same shit when you were AMD too man. It's status and Lee wants his players to earn the right to sit on it.
Until next time,
|
On August 12 2011 10:51 MildSeven wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2011 10:06 Doodsmack wrote:On August 12 2011 06:04 MildSeven wrote:On August 12 2011 05:30 Doodsmack wrote:On August 12 2011 04:41 MildSeven wrote:
You still can't grasp such a simple concept of "potential"... I guess you can continue to repeat this exaggeration, just realize that it doesn't help you to sound reasonable and it borders on dishonesty. Since you apparently still haven't gleaned it from my argument, let me spell it out for you: from the perspective of a rational coach, subjective assessments of potential, while certainly important for new recruits, should in the case of established players be superceded by proven results (having achieved code A or code S). The marketing value of proven players is obvious, and if I'm not mistaken code A/code S status is also relevant to GSTL seeding. On August 12 2011 04:41 MildSeven wrote:
According to your argument, Nestea's observation that certain players don't deserve to be in Code S is irrelevant. According to you, when MMA was ripping GSTL, but wasn't doing well in individual league means he was irrelevant (of which we know is not true by far, he later completely dominates in individual performance). According to you, player like Bomber should have been kicked off the team out of Startale months ago...
All of these statements are caricatures of my argument, so I'm not even going to respond. On August 12 2011 04:41 MildSeven wrote:
You linger on to this concept of "someone who is in Code A or S already is relevant, is worthy investment". Your logic is so flawed in every field, that's synonymous with saying "let's invest in a failing company that's still staying afloat, let's not infest in small firms with potential to be as big as google or facebook".
Bad analogy. In order for this analogy to be applicable, the "failing company" would have to have better chances of succeeding than the small firms, since it's undeniable that players who are already in code S/code A have better chances than players in code B. On August 12 2011 04:41 MildSeven wrote:
"No smart coach is going to assume that a code S player is destined to fall to code b and a Code A player is destined to become a GSL champion"... once again, clearly you don't follow the sentiments of the people in the scene, with many expecting great things from specific players like Bomber, and I am sure coaches are well aware who and who is at high risk of falling out of Code A. I don't even understand your statement, no one's "assuming" things, it's called calculated assessments, not "assumptions".
Once again I come back to my point that, in terms of the value a player has to a professional team (marketing and otherwise), proven results supercede subjective notions of potential. Referring to the concept of "potential" as subjective is quite inaccurate. The failing company is not in the position of "doing better" than the smaller company, the investment is higher (higher pay to FD/Tester), higher maintenance whereas nurturing future players with prospect is cheaper and garners greater return, of course there is always a risk. Once again, according to you, the assessment of a player's worth is based on rather or not they are in Code A or B already, you call all my analogies irrelevant because you have no argument against them. Your defense is : "All of these statements are caricatures of my argument", which basically means "i am rewording the same argument over and over again, i am right, i don't care what other people says". At this point, arguing with you is pointless because you're just making the same point over and over again in different ways, deflecting counter-arguments, testimonies of professional players as well as good analogies with a simple "no, i am right" all for the sake of your tiny ego and pride. If recruitment is based only on result, discounting all the other factors such as higher investment cost, as well as ignoring potential and real performance is just silly. You call "potential" subjective whereas it really isn't, people conclude that players like Bomber have "potential" not because they pull it out of their ass as you are trying to say, they don't subjectively go, "oh geesh, I THINK HE'S GOOD", the scene makes this judgement based on experiences from other top players. No top players places FD and Tester at the moment in that kind of category, their growing irrelevancy is quite clear. Not to mention we are now exposed to the truth that FD and Tester has poor work ethics, high maintenance. FD's performance continues to decline is in itself a proof of their growing irrelevancy. I can guarantee you, any further replies you make will have no new counter-arguments, as i expect, just a repetition of one simple point "Result = everything, no such thing as potential". According to that one shitty argument of yours, it's pointless to even debate with you. More exaggerations from you. "If recruitment is based only on result...people conclude that players like Bomber have "potential" not because they pull it out of their ass as you are trying to say...Result = everything, no such thing as potential." Ever heard of the phrase "straw man"? Bottom line is that your claim that FD and Tester are "irrelevant" is an exaggeration (seems to be a trend with you) and as such, incorrect. You say I just repeated myself, but in fact I brought up the points of marketing value and GSTL seeding, spelled out my assessment of potential vs proven results (which you clearly hadn't gotten since you claimed I didn't understand the definition of the word potential), among other things. Maybe you should write a letter to Startale's sponsors and tell them to demand that the ST manager kick FD and Tester out (players whose matches are televised), and recruit some unknown up-and-comers to replace them. You give them the example of DRG as an up-and-comer, and explain how he lost in the Code A Ro16. See what they say. Another attempt at twisting people's words, i guess you do this all the time. And perhaps you should write a letter to Slayers, and criticize them for taking up and coming players, give them your theory of "apparent results", maybe they'll start begging anyone from Code A and Code S who is willing, to join Slayers. I don't know how many times it takes to reiterate your ape-minded point "duhhh... he in code A, he must be better, i must ignore trend, i just look at current state, trends means nothing, they are subjective.. duhhhh". Also, I love how you consistently subtly ignore the fact that Tester and FD are now a bad brand considering their exposed lies and poor working habit, now, all you can point out is "they are in code a and s, they are relevant, they are valuable"
lol, your retorts are less than smart buddy. Normally I wouldn't say that, but it's just true. Let me know when you're willing to address my specific and substantive points (including marketing value/GSTL seeding, the inherent difficulty of gaining Code A status, etc) instead of claiming that I'm just repeating generalities. Otherwise I'm not going to bring myself down to your level. It would be too frustrating.
EDIT: Lol I see you were temp banned for a personal attack in another thread. Somehow that's not surprising.
|
On August 12 2011 04:41 MildSeven wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2011 03:42 Doodsmack wrote:On August 12 2011 00:42 brachester wrote:On August 12 2011 00:32 Doodsmack wrote:On August 11 2011 16:19 MildSeven wrote:On August 11 2011 14:12 Doodsmack wrote:On August 11 2011 12:21 MildSeven wrote:On August 11 2011 06:22 Doodsmack wrote:On August 10 2011 16:49 MildSeven wrote:On August 09 2011 22:16 akalarry wrote:
i don't even know why startale picked up fd or tester. they've been irrelevant since as long as i can remember, and their attitude towards the game (the reason they left ogs) would make them less than desired. maybe startale thought they could ride on the marketing of fd's season 1 win 12 months ago? no fucking clue I agree, they have been irrelevant, and i have never once been impressed by either of their play. FD dropped to Code A which makes perfect sense, i was really surprised he even won against maru to stay in code A. Tester lingers on to Code S always through well-thought-out two base plays, but this guy will never ever be a champion, can't see a glimpse of that potential in him. Yeah what team would want players who are in Code A and Code S? Those guys are irrelevant! Startale should replace them with random unknowns. I'll tell you what kind of team would want players with POTENTIAL than two soon-to-be irrelevant code A and S players - Slayers would. Right because players with potential have a better chance of getting into code A and CODE S (!!!) than two players who are already there have of staying. Oh wait... potential has nothing to do with whether or not you're already in, i guess you still can't comprehend the definition of potential. According to your silly logic, every player in Code S and Code A deserves to be where they are in terms of skills and potential, according to your logic, results and skills are perfectly parrallel. Is that what you're saying? I'm just being realistic and saying that if a team has an opportunity to get players who are already in Code A and Code S they will obviously jump on it. These teams also know that players with "potential" unfortunately still face long odds of making Code A, let alone Code S. Players who are already in Code A and Code S are far from irrelevant, to claim otherwise is just not a well thought-out statement. And to claim that I don't know the definition of potential...lol I love the way people make their arguments on the internet. Ok look, staying in Coda A and Code S is way easier than getting in code A from code B. Let's say DRG and FD are both free, neither of them having a team. One is in code B having a huge potential of being a future GSL champion, one is already in code S but performing poorly and doesn't have a slightest chance of winning the whole thing, which one are you gonna choose??? The one with the more potential? yes? DRG? these RANDOM UNKNOWNS has way more values than those staying in code S due to their prior results but having a downhill perfomence. The example of DRG is irrelevant since he is in fact on a team so ST can't pick him up. Even if he was a free agent, though, your assumption that he is more valuable than a code S player is highly questionable. No smart coach is going to assume that a code s player is destined to fall to code b and a code a player is destined to become a gsl champion, no matter who they are. It's not a smart way to play the odds in sc2. But again, DRG is an extreme and irrelevant example. It's fine if you have a negative opinion of FD and tester's behavior outside the game, but it's simply incorrect to call them irrelevant as players. To do so is to become a hater. You still can't grasp such a simple concept of "potential", a factor obviously we can't fully grasp unless we're in the Korean scene. Taking FD and Tester was due to marketing factor as well as close relations with Startale coach to begin with, FD and Tester both being somewhat old gamers. Players with potential are those that everyone within the scene talks about being able to achieve great things. According to your argument, Nestea's observation that certain players don't deserve to be in Code S is irrelevant. According to you, when MMA was ripping GSTL, but wasn't doing well in individual league means he was irrelevant (of which we know is not true by far, he later completely dominates in individual performance). According to you, player like Bomber should have been kicked off the team out of Startale months ago when everyone was talking about him as potential champion, but still failing to qualify for Code A was irrelevant, and was less worthy of an investment than someone say like Lyn whom people felt was at anytime ready to fall out of Code S and eventually B. Someone like theBestFou whom for a while lingered onto Code S and Code A was seen as falling out of the leagues at anytime by critics, but according to you, is worth high investment and "relevant" You linger on to this concept of "someone who is in Code A or S already is relevant, is worthy investment". Your logic is so flawed in every field, that's synonymous with saying "let's invest in a failing company that's still staying afloat, let's not infest in small firms with potential to be as big as google or facebook". "No smart coach is going to assume that a code S player is destined to fall to code b and a Code A player is destined to become a GSL champion"... once again, clearly you don't follow the sentiments of the people in the scene, with many expecting great things from specific players like Bomber, and I am sure coaches are well aware who and who is at high risk of falling out of Code A. I don't even understand your statement, no one's "assuming" things, it's called calculated assessments, not "assumptions". Potential doesn't mean guarantees of fulfillment. You trying to make it guaranteed googles/facebooks in "disguise" is you going too far, too soon. Until someone fulfills/fails it, it can only be an assumption of fulfillment/failure.
A big company that stays afloat is not a failure. A small company with potential is not a success. Your logic is flawed and forced to make your point valid.
FD and Tester already fulfilled this promise, and it is fully understandable that they are being invested in. Investing in someone with potential involves risks of non-fulfillment. Tester just had his best season in SC2 after being snatched up by ST.
TheBest is someone who does have potential according behind the scene, but continues to fail to show it on TV. Seed and Yonghwa are players with great potential, but still fails to qualify to Code A.
Whether teams wants to invest in players having already fulfilled as promised, or in someone with great potential who hasn't, is individual. Snatching teamless players that already are in Code S, gives points to play in GSTL.
|
Had a feeling Coach Lee was being taken advantage of after his bad publicity with EG. I mean, we all know that the accusations from FD and Tester came up after the negative posts revolving EG and TSL and FD and Tester both left WELL before that, so there would have been no reason to wait so long to bring up the situation except to take advantage of that confusion and Coach Lee's public image. But it becomes difficult to 100% discern who's lying and who's not because EVERYONE drops a post about the other party being a little overly aggressive in their dealings while the other went through all the proper routes and was a victim of someone jumping the gun.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
