SlayerS_CoCa achieved the most number of wins in the 2012 Hot6iX GSTL Season 2.
On July 28th, at 7:10pm, on a special stage in Busan Haeundae for the 2012 Hot6iX GSTL Season 2 finals, FXO defeated SlayerS 5:0.
The finals spotlight was stolen by GuMiho's one man show as he achieved an all kill, but the player with most wins was given to the 2nd place finishing team, SlayerS' very own CoCa.
CoCa started off slow with a 1 win 1 loss in round 1, but grabbed another 1 win 1 loss against MVP and assured everyone that he was going to resurrect himself. Afterwards, CoCa all killed Prime and added five victories to his score, added one more victory against Fnatic, then went on to grab three more kills against TSL in the semi finals and went on to sit at the top of the throne for a total of 11 wins and 3 losses. (now 4 because of GuMiho)
During the finals, CoCa was sent out as the third player when SlayerS was down 0:2 but could not grab a victory against GuMiho and was unable to add anymore victories to his plate. However, teammate Puzzle was also unable to add anymore wins to his record and GuMiho's all kill was not enough to dethrone him so CoCa maintained his position.
Therefore, CoCa was able to grab his golden card and finish off the GSTL with a 11-4 record, but SlayerS' 2nd place finish was the damper to the light.
On July 29 2012 10:37 Thorzain wrote: CoCa so siiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiick
I think Symbol and Life are more impressive with records of 10-2 and 9-2, respectively. Symbol is the king of them all with the highest winning percentage.
On July 29 2012 08:39 SomeONEx wrote: I say that 7-1 > 11-4, Sniper should be #1.
By that logic someone 3-0 > 7-1 should be #1
I disagree with this assessment, for instance it shows Symbol as 10-2 which is better than 11-4 : D but I agree 3-0 shouldnt > 7-1 but 11-4 shouldn't > 7-1 imo
On July 29 2012 08:39 SomeONEx wrote: I say that 7-1 > 11-4, Sniper should be #1.
By that logic someone 3-0 > 7-1 should be #1
I disagree with this assessment, for instance it shows Symbol as 10-2 which is better than 11-4 : D but I agree 3-0 shouldnt > 7-1 but 11-4 shouldn't > 7-1 imo
How would you rank it then...? If not by record or wins. You can't have 7-1>3-0 and 10-2>11-4, it just contradicts itself
On July 29 2012 08:39 SomeONEx wrote: I say that 7-1 > 11-4, Sniper should be #1.
By that logic someone 3-0 > 7-1 should be #1
In a perfect system beforehand you say the minimum amount of games required to qualify and then go by best record. These are their rules though so Coca won.
10-2 should be seen as +8 wins and 11-4 as +7. Total amount of wins is a useless statistic in a league where not everyone plays the same amount.
(For whoever said 7-1 should be better than 11-4 I don't think you can defend that with logic and uphold a normal ranking. By most reasoning you would end up with 2-0 beating both those scores.)
Congrats, Coca, you deserve the spotlight. It gets tougher the more games you play for your team. SlayerS really should pay some special reward to Coca for this, who recently mentioned he has financial difficulties.
On July 29 2012 08:39 SomeONEx wrote: I say that 7-1 > 11-4, Sniper should be #1.
By that logic someone 3-0 > 7-1 should be #1
You can rank them as by the spread (wins - losses). 11-4 = 7 but 10-2 = 8. So Symbol has the better spread. But CoCa has more wins. It's just a question of which ranking to use. Personally, I too ranking by spread because under the current system, 11-10 is better than 10-0, I believe. In my opinion, that should not be the case.
On July 29 2012 08:39 SomeONEx wrote: I say that 7-1 > 11-4, Sniper should be #1.
By that logic someone 3-0 > 7-1 should be #1
You can rank them as by the spread (wins - losses). 11-4 = 7 but 10-2 = 8. So Symbol has the better spread. But CoCa has more wins. It's just a question of which ranking to use. Personally, I too ranking by spread because under the current system, 11-10 is better than 10-0, I believe. In my opinion, that should not be the case.
The "lose and you're out" format guarantees there won't be players at the top end of the win spectrum with equal amounts of losses. I don't have a problem with the player who gets the most wins for his team receiving the top prize.
On July 29 2012 09:27 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: What a misusage of statistics.
10-2 should be seen as +8 wins and 11-4 as +7. Total amount of wins is a useless statistic in a league where not everyone plays the same amount.
(For whoever said 7-1 should be better than 11-4 I don't think you can defend that with logic and uphold a normal ranking. By most reasoning you would end up with 2-0 beating both those scores.)
Agreed.
Really, it's pretty clear Symbol had the best season based on the statistics. I would place CoCa second because with the same +/-, you want the player who has played more games (even though it means lower win %). Yes that means the "Extra" games are played at 50/50 but it's tougher to do well with a higher number of games played.
On July 29 2012 09:27 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: What a misusage of statistics.
10-2 should be seen as +8 wins and 11-4 as +7. Total amount of wins is a useless statistic in a league where not everyone plays the same amount.
(For whoever said 7-1 should be better than 11-4 I don't think you can defend that with logic and uphold a normal ranking. By most reasoning you would end up with 2-0 beating both those scores.)
I'd disagree. It's not a misusage of statistics, it's just statistics used for a different purpose than you would have used it for. They wanted to know who won the most games, which is clearly CoCa. The questions wasn't who was the MVP or who had the best record, in which case net wins or even win percentage might be a more relevant. The fact of the matter is that CoCa contributed the most wins to his team of any player, and that's why he gets the interview. You get the same award in all sports: Most goals scored, most medals won, etc. None of these awards take the number of games played into consideration, they simply look at who did the most.
So yeah, I think this is perfectly valid. Whether it says anything about who was the best player of the season is a different question.
On July 29 2012 09:27 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: What a misusage of statistics.
10-2 should be seen as +8 wins and 11-4 as +7. Total amount of wins is a useless statistic in a league where not everyone plays the same amount.
(For whoever said 7-1 should be better than 11-4 I don't think you can defend that with logic and uphold a normal ranking. By most reasoning you would end up with 2-0 beating both those scores.)
I'd disagree. It's not a misusage of statistics, it's just statistics used for a different purpose than you would have used it for. They wanted to know who won the most games, which is clearly CoCa. The questions wasn't who was the MVP or who had the best record, in which case net wins or even win percentage might be a more relevant. The fact of the matter is that CoCa contributed the most wins to his team of any player, and that's why he gets the interview. You get the same award in all sports: Most goals scored, most medals won, etc. None of these awards take the number of games played into consideration, they simply look at who did the most.
So yeah, I think this is perfectly valid. Whether it says anything about who was the best player of the season is a different question.
If you put it that way then the title is pretty misleading - I wouldn't say CoCa is #1 in the GSTL at all...
Likewise, in the NBA, mid-season, people typically rank teams based on either W/L % or highest differential, not based on who has the most wins at any one point in time.
Cool, didnt know they had such an award, but it is quite, if not to say utterly, meaningless with so few games during the season. I think you need groupstages similar to those of SPL for such awards to have true meaning, since the difference in games played is much less dependent on overall team success. Considering the system GSL has chosen I think it is fair to assume that Life could have scored 3 wins given 4 more CWs (Zenex had 3 CWs compared to 7 of SlayerS).
1. Coca had a total of 7 CWs to score 11 wins. 2. Symbol had a total of 5 CWs to score 10 wins. 3. Life had a total of 3 CWs to score 9 wins. 4. Gumiho had a total of 5 CWs to score 9 wins. 5. Puzzle had a total of 7 CWs to score 9 wins.
The large difference in amounts of played CWs makes it really hard to make a fair choice. Symbol made the greatest difference with +8. Sniper scored the best win/loss ratio (excluding players with less than 5 wins) of 87.5%. Life scored the most wins/CW averaging a stunning 3 wins per CW.
Which of these is most legitimate is up to GSL, personally I'd prefer a win/loss difference giving the award to Symbol or perhaps a weighed decision by a panel of people (eg. all GSL-team coaches and similar).
At least with this season where not every team played the same amount of games due to seeds, I don't really see any way to create a statistic in a way that SeeKeR is trying to represent. I think Nazgul's is better in general, but it still suffers from the same problem. Plus such a statistic sort goes against the grain of what a team league is supposed to be about; the team, not the individual.
Tangent, I'm surprised nobody is crying SPOILERS! yet (thank god).
On July 29 2012 09:27 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: What a misusage of statistics.
10-2 should be seen as +8 wins and 11-4 as +7. Total amount of wins is a useless statistic in a league where not everyone plays the same amount.
(For whoever said 7-1 should be better than 11-4 I don't think you can defend that with logic and uphold a normal ranking. By most reasoning you would end up with 2-0 beating both those scores.)
I'd disagree. It's not a misusage of statistics, it's just statistics used for a different purpose than you would have used it for. They wanted to know who won the most games, which is clearly CoCa. The questions wasn't who was the MVP or who had the best record, in which case net wins or even win percentage might be a more relevant. The fact of the matter is that CoCa contributed the most wins to his team of any player, and that's why he gets the interview. You get the same award in all sports: Most goals scored, most medals won, etc. None of these awards take the number of games played into consideration, they simply look at who did the most.
So yeah, I think this is perfectly valid. Whether it says anything about who was the best player of the season is a different question.
If you put it that way then the title is pretty misleading - I wouldn't say CoCa is #1 in the GSTL at all...
Likewise, in the NBA, mid-season, people typically rank teams based on either W/L % or highest differential, not based on who has the most wins at any one point in time.
I'm not sure, CoCa is #1 in the GSTL in terms of wins which is a perfectly valid metric. It might not be your preferred metric, but it's not biased or unfair. In tennis, Sharapova is #1 in the world according to points even though Serena Williams is arguably a better player, she just doesn't compete in as many tournaments.
In the NBA, mid-season rankings are based on the assumption that all teams will eventually play the same number of games. As such, ranking teams by their winning percentage is a good indication of who will end up with the most wins. The comparison is obviously not valid for this situation, and even so, I think the NBA is an exception. The British Premier League is always ranked according to current points, and the same goes for pretty much every other league I've ever seen.
If you really want to go into the subjective judgement of who was the best of the season, it should be noted that of all the players on the list, CoCa played the most games by far. That's perhaps indicative of how he was used. For one, it seems like Slayers relied more on Coca than MVP did on Sniper (7-1), for example. A player who goes 7-1 might be used more regularly as a closer or a sniper than a person who is 11-4 (who is very open to being sniped). I'm not arguing that CoCa was the best player this season, I'm just pointing out that there are reasons why most wins could be used as a metric for best player.
But as I said in my first post, the posted article is about who won the most games, not about who the best player is. And the answer to that question is CoCa.
Guys, this is team league, and includes elimination phase(s), instead of being full round-robin. This award is for being the most valuable player for his team, not for being the best player individually. That means, you are more valuable if you help your team play at higher stages, and also your wins there are more valuable. It's also a KotH format, which means you play either until you lose, or until your team wins. That makes your number of lost games less relevant than your number of won games. But let's just look at their record in all stages:
final C -1 S (not played)
semi-final C 3 S 1-1
round2 C 7-2 S -1
round1 C 1-1 S 9-0
I think it's very clear who was more valuable for his team overall.
It's also worth noting that Coca did not perform nearly as well as Symbol in individual leagues outside of GSTL - that means Coca dedicated a lot of personal effort for his team and for GSTL, even if he might not be at the monster level Symbol is right now.
On July 29 2012 09:27 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: What a misusage of statistics.
10-2 should be seen as +8 wins and 11-4 as +7. Total amount of wins is a useless statistic in a league where not everyone plays the same amount.
(For whoever said 7-1 should be better than 11-4 I don't think you can defend that with logic and uphold a normal ranking. By most reasoning you would end up with 2-0 beating both those scores.)
I'd disagree. It's not a misusage of statistics, it's just statistics used for a different purpose than you would have used it for. They wanted to know who won the most games, which is clearly CoCa. The questions wasn't who was the MVP or who had the best record, in which case net wins or even win percentage might be a more relevant. The fact of the matter is that CoCa contributed the most wins to his team of any player, and that's why he gets the interview. You get the same award in all sports: Most goals scored, most medals won, etc. None of these awards take the number of games played into consideration, they simply look at who did the most.
So yeah, I think this is perfectly valid. Whether it says anything about who was the best player of the season is a different question.
If you put it that way then the title is pretty misleading - I wouldn't say CoCa is #1 in the GSTL at all...
Likewise, in the NBA, mid-season, people typically rank teams based on either W/L % or highest differential, not based on who has the most wins at any one point in time.
Because NBA mid season ranks is important? By end of season, every team plays the same number of games. These rankings are fine. It is like most wins by a pitcher, most wins by goalie...
On July 29 2012 10:22 figq wrote: Guys, this is team league, and includes elimination phase(s), instead of being full round-robin. This award is for being the most valuable player for his team, not for being the best player individually. That means, you are more valuable if you help your team play at higher stages, and also your wins there are more valuable. It's also a KotH format, which means you play either until you lose, or until your team wins. That makes your number of lost games less relevant than your number of won games. But let's just look at their record in all stages:
final C -1 S (not played)
semi-final C 3 S 1-1
round2 C 7-2 S -1
round1 C 1-1 S 9-0
I think it's very clear who was more valuable for his team overall.
It's also worth noting that Coca did not perform nearly as well as Symbol in individual leagues outside of GSTL - that means Coca dedicated a lot of personal effort for his team and for GSTL, even if he might not be at the monster level Symbol is right now.
the problem with this metric is that the Gold Card should be awarded to an FXO player, not a losing team's player i think that's how it's been done every other season
No, no, the metric is very clear - total number of wins. I'm just illustrating a particular case why this metric actually does work to show who's been more valuable within these rules.
Basically, the number of losses is almost irrelevant, you are supposed to lose every time you get out for your team, eventually, unless you close the whole match. A player with more losses just has played for his team a lot more.
I did not create that list of players you see in the OP. That was also done by TIG. I am not trying to prove anything by using those statistics. My job is to copy and paste
Wait, what? Is this the MVP Gold Card? Wasn't that reserved only for a player on the championship team? Or is this article simply stating that Coca got the most wins and was simply an acknowledgement?
Basically is Coca getting an award, or just a tip of the hat?
On July 29 2012 08:39 SomeONEx wrote: I say that 7-1 > 11-4, Sniper should be #1.
By that logic someone 3-0 > 7-1 should be #1
I disagree with this assessment, for instance it shows Symbol as 10-2 which is better than 11-4 : D but I agree 3-0 shouldnt > 7-1 but 11-4 shouldn't > 7-1 imo
On July 29 2012 08:48 NoGasfOu wrote: I think Symbol and Life are more impressive with records of 10-2 and 9-2, respectively. Symbol is the king of them all with the highest winning percentage.
The problem with using map difference in GSTL is that the season is short so its hard to really assess how impressive one persons 3-1 is to someones 4-2 or whatever. For FIFA the golden boot is most goals, not best goal ratio, same idea.
On July 29 2012 21:58 Bagration wrote: Wait, what? Is this the MVP Gold Card? Wasn't that reserved only for a player on the championship team? Or is this article simply stating that Coca got the most wins and was simply an acknowledgement?
Basically is Coca getting an award, or just a tip of the hat?
I'll be honest. The article just said golden card. I'm not sure if they meant that CoCa got the MVP golden card or if they meant something else
I think it's hard to say that the first Finals All-Kill is not the most impressive plus four additional kills. But it goes to the person with the most wins, so CoCa deserved it. I doubt that GuMiho and FXO are all that disappointed haha.
On July 29 2012 09:27 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: What a misusage of statistics.
10-2 should be seen as +8 wins and 11-4 as +7. Total amount of wins is a useless statistic in a league where not everyone plays the same amount.
(For whoever said 7-1 should be better than 11-4 I don't think you can defend that with logic and uphold a normal ranking. By most reasoning you would end up with 2-0 beating both those scores.)
Korea has always used number of wins as their metric of deciding who is the 'best' player (using differential to break the any ties if necessary). This has also pissed me off because I recall one season when Flash was not the PL MVP because he had 2 or so less wins than someone (Bisu/Jaedong, I forget) but had only played 1/3 of the games.
On July 29 2012 22:36 kubiks wrote: I think the metric to take is quite simple. You take the best performing player terran, and he's the gold card. problem solved .
Oh it's gumiho what a coincidence !
Considering all the trouble terran have since the patch, it's nice to see a terran managing to prove his race isn't weak.
On July 29 2012 09:27 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: What a misusage of statistics.
10-2 should be seen as +8 wins and 11-4 as +7. Total amount of wins is a useless statistic in a league where not everyone plays the same amount.
(For whoever said 7-1 should be better than 11-4 I don't think you can defend that with logic and uphold a normal ranking. By most reasoning you would end up with 2-0 beating both those scores.)
I agree that the victory spread would be a better system, but overall there is simply not enough of an incentive to develop a proper ranking system for a very rapidly changing game which is very entertainment-oriented. That means that don't really have an issue with tourneys setting their own arbitrary criteria for honour prizes.
EPT
SlayerS_CoCa![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/DwP0C.jpg)
CoCa 11 - 4 73.3%
GuMiho 9 - 3 75.0%
Puzzle 9 - 3 75.0%
(( so fucking sad. also, CoCa hasnt even returned to Code A yet 
. 
