EPTOn July 31 2012 08:18 Euronyme wrote:
I'm saying that's how it works in every big sport I've watched or taken part of. The winner of the biggest tournament is considered the best and the champions until the next time it's concluded. Even when it's with 1 year intervals.
I don't understand why starcraft skill should be assessed subjectively. I agree to disagree though.
Show nested quote +
On July 31 2012 08:07 zefreak wrote:
Look we get that you don't understand how variance works or what a sample size is, but you are acting like a pompous ass and making a fool of yourself. You are the one that stupidly thinks that your placement in a single tournament is what ranks your skill, regardless of bracket luck or anything like that.
Skill exists in poker as well, that doesn't mean that the winner of the main even is the best player in the world. You need a legitimate sample size to even begin to objectively figure that out, which you don't have. Subjective assessment has to play a large part in it, because a bo3 in starcraft might as well be 100 hands in poker, which is literally meaningless.
People underestimate variance in starcraft (while some overestimate it). Winning 4 bo3's doesn't make you top 8 in the world, especially when you bomb out of every other tournament you enter (dreamhack, wcs, tsl4)
On July 31 2012 08:02 Euronyme wrote:
OK so you choose people arbitrarily based on what you subjectively like. That's nice.
Maybe we should have a tournament, but instead of players playing games, we could just have a guy in the audience step up and tell who he thinks should win, and declare that guy the winner of the game game. That'd ensure that the "right guy" gets the win every time >_>
On July 31 2012 07:56 Necro)Phagist( wrote:
I never said Tournament results are completely useless. saying he mad top 8 means he is top 8 is like NFL commentators saying "Romo has the best stats in the league up until November = he is best quarterback in the league."
You cannot just look solely at the results of one tournament*.
Protoss players I think are better then Naniwa -MC, Seed, Genius, HerO, Alicia,
Terran players - MVP, Byun, MKP
Zerg players- DRG, Nestea, Symbol.
Thats just thinking off the top of my head, I'm sure I could list more if I actually wanted to.
On July 31 2012 07:52 Euronyme wrote:
Football was an example. This holds true for every sport I've heard of. He's top 8 twice in a row.
Please do tell me where you rank him and how you placed him there and what metric you use, as tournament results are completely irrelevant to you.
On July 31 2012 07:48 Necro)Phagist( wrote:
Starcraft is not football. and GSL isn't the only league(Though I agree it holds the most weight). In starcraft you can't just look at one or two tournies and proclaim someone is the best. That's fucked up. Not to mention his runs haven't even been THAT great. Apart from playing a couple of Protoss(Lol PvP) he managed to dodge most big names and lost to the ones he ran into...
Again I think Naniwa is a good player. But he is not top 8 in the world. No chance in hell.
On July 31 2012 07:43 Euronyme wrote:
Top 8 = top 8. If you win the world championship in football, you're considered the best until the next championship. I don't see how starcraft is different.
Take a look at Wayne Rooney when it comes to terrible PR. Imo conduct shouldn't matter as much as results and skill when it comes to sports. That's just what I think though. I'm sure there are tonnes of people who would prefer the American wrestling approach rather than a legitimate sport.
On July 31 2012 07:35 Necro)Phagist( wrote:
Two decent runs in Code S doesn't make you a top 8 player.... Inca made it to the finals for fuck sake.
And it's not that he is just bad at interviews... its his personality as a whole. He has a terrible reputation in Korea.
On July 31 2012 07:32 Euronyme wrote:
So you have another metric but wins in the global starcraft league? You have a "good-o-meter" at home with your own top list? He's ro8 GSL so he's top 8.
It's such a pity SC2 is such a young sport that being bad at the game but good at doing interviews make teams more likely to pick you up than a player that's sick good at the game but bad at interviews.
On July 31 2012 07:26 Necro)Phagist( wrote:
[quote]
by Standards I didn't mean playing results. I meant personality wise. Kespa teams are not going to want a whiny BM team hopper with a bad reputation. 0% chance a Kespa team touches him. Also he is not 8th best in the world -.- yes he has proven he is a solid player by staying in Code S, but he is not top 8 in the world....
[quote]
by Standards I didn't mean playing results. I meant personality wise. Kespa teams are not going to want a whiny BM team hopper with a bad reputation. 0% chance a Kespa team touches him. Also he is not 8th best in the world -.- yes he has proven he is a solid player by staying in Code S, but he is not top 8 in the world....
So you have another metric but wins in the global starcraft league? You have a "good-o-meter" at home with your own top list? He's ro8 GSL so he's top 8.
It's such a pity SC2 is such a young sport that being bad at the game but good at doing interviews make teams more likely to pick you up than a player that's sick good at the game but bad at interviews.
Two decent runs in Code S doesn't make you a top 8 player.... Inca made it to the finals for fuck sake.
And it's not that he is just bad at interviews... its his personality as a whole. He has a terrible reputation in Korea.
Top 8 = top 8. If you win the world championship in football, you're considered the best until the next championship. I don't see how starcraft is different.
Take a look at Wayne Rooney when it comes to terrible PR. Imo conduct shouldn't matter as much as results and skill when it comes to sports. That's just what I think though. I'm sure there are tonnes of people who would prefer the American wrestling approach rather than a legitimate sport.
Starcraft is not football. and GSL isn't the only league(Though I agree it holds the most weight). In starcraft you can't just look at one or two tournies and proclaim someone is the best. That's fucked up. Not to mention his runs haven't even been THAT great. Apart from playing a couple of Protoss(Lol PvP) he managed to dodge most big names and lost to the ones he ran into...
Again I think Naniwa is a good player. But he is not top 8 in the world. No chance in hell.
Football was an example. This holds true for every sport I've heard of. He's top 8 twice in a row.
Please do tell me where you rank him and how you placed him there and what metric you use, as tournament results are completely irrelevant to you.
I never said Tournament results are completely useless. saying he mad top 8 means he is top 8 is like NFL commentators saying "Romo has the best stats in the league up until November = he is best quarterback in the league."
You cannot just look solely at the results of one tournament*.
Protoss players I think are better then Naniwa -MC, Seed, Genius, HerO, Alicia,
Terran players - MVP, Byun, MKP
Zerg players- DRG, Nestea, Symbol.
Thats just thinking off the top of my head, I'm sure I could list more if I actually wanted to.
OK so you choose people arbitrarily based on what you subjectively like. That's nice.
Maybe we should have a tournament, but instead of players playing games, we could just have a guy in the audience step up and tell who he thinks should win, and declare that guy the winner of the game game. That'd ensure that the "right guy" gets the win every time >_>
Look we get that you don't understand how variance works or what a sample size is, but you are acting like a pompous ass and making a fool of yourself. You are the one that stupidly thinks that your placement in a single tournament is what ranks your skill, regardless of bracket luck or anything like that.
Skill exists in poker as well, that doesn't mean that the winner of the main even is the best player in the world. You need a legitimate sample size to even begin to objectively figure that out, which you don't have. Subjective assessment has to play a large part in it, because a bo3 in starcraft might as well be 100 hands in poker, which is literally meaningless.
People underestimate variance in starcraft (while some overestimate it). Winning 4 bo3's doesn't make you top 8 in the world, especially when you bomb out of every other tournament you enter (dreamhack, wcs, tsl4)
I'm saying that's how it works in every big sport I've watched or taken part of. The winner of the biggest tournament is considered the best and the champions until the next time it's concluded. Even when it's with 1 year intervals.
I don't understand why starcraft skill should be assessed subjectively. I agree to disagree though.
Ask alot of american football fans if they consider the NY Giants (this past SuperBowl winner) the best team in football and they'll tell you no they arent. They are the champs yes but not the best. It can be 2 different things
