|
Everyone is entitled to an opinion. No one is wrong for something subjective as this.
Keep that in mind.
Also, because you think a certain way, doesnt mean the claim holds true and everyone else is wrong.
There's a lot of bias, a lot of finger pointing in this thread.
Not really necessary
Cool Power rank though.
The 10 more notable names are recognized.
|
On June 05 2013 11:44 takingbackoj wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2013 11:41 GolemMadness wrote:On June 05 2013 11:40 takingbackoj wrote:On June 05 2013 11:37 GolemMadness wrote:On June 05 2013 11:32 takingbackoj wrote:On June 05 2013 11:29 GolemMadness wrote:On June 05 2013 11:03 takingbackoj wrote:On June 05 2013 10:28 Emzeeshady wrote:On June 05 2013 10:27 takingbackoj wrote:
Soulkey beat Innovation heads up. Facts say Soulkey is better. What kind of terrible flawed logic is this? Yeah it's kind of puzzling how that was decided. I could see if Soulkey beat Innovation and then didn't go on to win WCS KR, then I might be able to see an argument. But since that was the finals, I am not sure how you can say the guy that beat Innovation and won the tourney is not better than Innovation. Strange. I also agree with those puzzled about Hero being #10. I like the guy but he's not top 10. Seems like he got the Liquid bump. Any who, as an NFL fan I love Power Rankings as much as I loathe Power Rankings. They never seem to make sense to anyone other than the person who makes them but its fun to insult the rankers logic. Winning a series doesn't automatically make you the better player, regardless of how important that series is. That is flawed logic. Flawed logic? It's the only sound logic there is. Everything else is based on opinion. Playing someone heads up is the best way to determine whos better. No, it isn't. What if they played another series afterwards and Innovation won? Now are they suddenly equal? A ton of different factors go into who wins a series. Skill, nerves, luck, race match up, help with preparation, etc. Saying that one player is just automatically better because he won a single deciding game is just ridiculous. No they wouldn't be equal. Innovation would be better because he didn't lose to him. Thats how sports work. If the Heat win the finals it would be a rough road to hoe to claim the Spurs were better. So what you're saying is that when Soulkey wins a series, he's the better player, but then if they play another series afterwards and Innovation wins, suddenly he's the better player? Do you not realise that this logic makes zero sense? Am I in an alternate world or something. That sounds incredibly logical to me. If x beats y then x is better. If y beats x then y is better. Am I missing something here?
Yea you are missing something here.
Let's say that there are two players playing against each other, a zerg and a terran (we'll call them Zerg and Terran). Zerg wins, and barely. According to you, that makes him better. But what if Zerg is really bad at zvp and zvz, and Terran is really good in all his other matchups?
What if styles are just weird in this matchup, and Zerg can beat Terran, but has a really poor record otherwise? Say that Zerg, outside of this matchup, has a 40% win ratio, and Terran has a 75% win ratio? The better player is obviously Terran here, even if he did just lose to Zerg.
A heads up game doesn't decide who the better player is. Introduce Protoss. He beats Zerg. But Terran beats him! Now who's the best player out of the three? Obviously Protoss! He beat Zerg, who was the better player beforehand. Which means that Terran is now the best player, because he beat Protoss! And off we go into Wonderland.
It can't work that way.
|
On June 05 2013 12:06 Popkiller wrote:
Innovation's road to the GSL finals was harder, his Proleague stats are better, he's better.
Soulkey was just better that one night and edged out a win in a best of seven that made neither player look like a champion.
Also consider that SK's semi-final match was another seven game series full of bad play...
Honestly it all comes down to this weekend, though. If Soulkey wins again I'll give more credit.
Sorry, you were right till that point. Soulkey when 3 games down in a final has shown he has nerves of titanium. That is what made him the champion where innovation was clearly tilting.
|
On June 05 2013 09:16 Scville wrote:
Why Hero > Kangho and MVP?
Kangho almost won vs SoS and he 3-0'ed Bomber
I know, Hero is from teamliquid but come on lol, no way he is the 10th best player in the world.
''Life's only results this month were losing to NAKSEO in the GSTL and 2 - 0ing MarineKing in GSL. (But at this point, is 2 - 0ing MarineKing in ZvT really an accomplishment?)''
Of course, Life didn't play anything else.
Kangho had a very easy path to the ro8 and his games were honestly not that great... did you actually watch the sOs vs kangho games? They were disgusting.
Maybe I'm being a bit harsh but I wouldn't even have put sOs on the power rankings here, probably slipping mvp in instead. sOs may have beaten higher caliber players but his play is just... I mean, dt into chargelot archon allins pvz? Hiding voids in your nat and hoping zerg doesnt scout so you can just waltz into his base and kill his lair? This feels like shitty ladder play, not what I expect in code s.
Worse still might be that kangho actually lost to one of those archon all-ins. Yeah, I think there's good reason he's not on here.
|
On June 05 2013 12:06 Popkiller wrote:
Innovation's road to the GSL finals was harder, his Proleague stats are better, he's better.
Soulkey was just better that one night and edged out a win in a best of seven that made neither player look like a champion.
Also consider that SK's semi-final match was another seven game series full of bad play...
Honestly it all comes down to this weekend, though. If Soulkey wins again I'll give more credit.
Bingo. Let me ask this though if immvp was the best not that long ago what evidence do we have that he is now inferior in skill to this current list? He just won EU wcs so that is some evidence he is still top player
|
It's so much fun reading power rank comments. I could reply to 50 posts but it's way better to observe the madness.
|
On June 05 2013 12:09 Splynn wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2013 11:44 takingbackoj wrote:On June 05 2013 11:41 GolemMadness wrote:On June 05 2013 11:40 takingbackoj wrote:On June 05 2013 11:37 GolemMadness wrote:On June 05 2013 11:32 takingbackoj wrote:On June 05 2013 11:29 GolemMadness wrote:On June 05 2013 11:03 takingbackoj wrote:On June 05 2013 10:28 Emzeeshady wrote:On June 05 2013 10:27 takingbackoj wrote:
Soulkey beat Innovation heads up. Facts say Soulkey is better. What kind of terrible flawed logic is this? Yeah it's kind of puzzling how that was decided. I could see if Soulkey beat Innovation and then didn't go on to win WCS KR, then I might be able to see an argument. But since that was the finals, I am not sure how you can say the guy that beat Innovation and won the tourney is not better than Innovation. Strange. I also agree with those puzzled about Hero being #10. I like the guy but he's not top 10. Seems like he got the Liquid bump. Any who, as an NFL fan I love Power Rankings as much as I loathe Power Rankings. They never seem to make sense to anyone other than the person who makes them but its fun to insult the rankers logic. Winning a series doesn't automatically make you the better player, regardless of how important that series is. That is flawed logic. Flawed logic? It's the only sound logic there is. Everything else is based on opinion. Playing someone heads up is the best way to determine whos better. No, it isn't. What if they played another series afterwards and Innovation won? Now are they suddenly equal? A ton of different factors go into who wins a series. Skill, nerves, luck, race match up, help with preparation, etc. Saying that one player is just automatically better because he won a single deciding game is just ridiculous. No they wouldn't be equal. Innovation would be better because he didn't lose to him. Thats how sports work. If the Heat win the finals it would be a rough road to hoe to claim the Spurs were better. So what you're saying is that when Soulkey wins a series, he's the better player, but then if they play another series afterwards and Innovation wins, suddenly he's the better player? Do you not realise that this logic makes zero sense? Am I in an alternate world or something. That sounds incredibly logical to me. If x beats y then x is better. If y beats x then y is better. Am I missing something here? Yea you are missing something here. Let's say that there are two players playing against each other, a zerg and a terran (we'll call them Zerg and Terran). Zerg wins, and barely. According to you, that makes him better. But what if Zerg is really bad at zvp and zvz, and Terran is really good in all his other matchups? What if styles are just weird in this matchup, and Zerg can beat Terran, but has a really poor record otherwise? Say that Zerg, outside of this matchup, has a 40% win ratio, and Terran has a 75% win ratio? The better player is obviously Terran here, even if he did just lose to Zerg. A heads up game doesn't decide who the better player is. Introduce Protoss. He beats Zerg. But Terran beats him! Now who's the best player out of the three? Obviously Protoss! He beat Zerg, who was the better player beforehand. Which means that Terran is now the best player, because he beat Protoss! And off we go into Wonderland. It can't work that way.
The better example would be.
Let's say Soulkey and Innovation played in the SPL.
And then the following day in the GSL.
So let's say Soulkey beat Innovation in the Ace Match. According to takingbackoj's logic, Soulkey is the better player.
Then the following day, Innovation beat Soulkey in the GSL. In a span of a day, now according to takingbackoj's logic, Innovation is the better player. See how flawed it is?
When you take into consideration who's the "Better" player, you have to take into consideration variance, sample size and how they fair against the rest of the competition.
As for the NBA comparison...hmm the better example would be..
Charlotte Bobcats vs Miami Heat in a home/home series.
Miami demolishes Charlotte @ Miami. So Miami is the better team.
The next night, Charlotte beats Mami. So now Charlotte is all of a sudden the better of the two?
|
On June 05 2013 12:07 yrt123 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2013 11:56 takingbackoj wrote:On June 05 2013 11:54 Shellshock1122 wrote:On June 05 2013 11:52 takingbackoj wrote:On June 05 2013 11:50 GolemMadness wrote:On June 05 2013 11:44 takingbackoj wrote:On June 05 2013 11:41 GolemMadness wrote:On June 05 2013 11:40 takingbackoj wrote:On June 05 2013 11:37 GolemMadness wrote:On June 05 2013 11:32 takingbackoj wrote:
[quote]
Flawed logic? It's the only sound logic there is. Everything else is based on opinion. Playing someone heads up is the best way to determine whos better. No, it isn't. What if they played another series afterwards and Innovation won? Now are they suddenly equal? A ton of different factors go into who wins a series. Skill, nerves, luck, race match up, help with preparation, etc. Saying that one player is just automatically better because he won a single deciding game is just ridiculous. No they wouldn't be equal. Innovation would be better because he didn't lose to him. Thats how sports work. If the Heat win the finals it would be a rough road to hoe to claim the Spurs were better. So what you're saying is that when Soulkey wins a series, he's the better player, but then if they play another series afterwards and Innovation wins, suddenly he's the better player? Do you not realise that this logic makes zero sense? Am I in an alternate world or something. That sounds incredibly logical to me. If x beats y then x is better. If y beats x then y is better. Am I missing something here? Ok, take this situation. x player is 100-0 in Proleague. y player is 0-100 in Proleague against the same players. They play a series, and y wins 4-3. Is y the better player now? Valid argument and I see your point. I guess I read the rankings under the assumption that the individual league took precedence over the team league. But I don't think Soulkey's Proleague performance is so much worse than Innovations to trump his individual win against him for the WCS KR title. Looking at round 5 which was basically the month of may Soulkey: 5-4 Innovation: 11-3 Depends on who you subjectively weight each league Good point. Without knowing that I can't really say whether the ranking makes sense or not. You can look just look at Code S too. Soulkey: 19-12 against Maru, Flying, Yoda, Parting, sOs, Innovation Innovation: 19-7 against Rain, Hyun, Flash, Life, RorO, Symbol, Soulkey If you only know this and do not know who won the tournament tell me who looks better on paper. Winning GSL is definitely a huge accomplishment. Soulkey may be more skilled than Innovation but he doesn't show it nearly as much as Innovation showed in his matches.
Another good point. If I looked at that I would go with Innovation. But I believe in weighing heads up more than record during tournament. I guess it all comes down to preference.
|
On June 05 2013 12:14 LighT. wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2013 12:09 Splynn wrote:On June 05 2013 11:44 takingbackoj wrote:On June 05 2013 11:41 GolemMadness wrote:On June 05 2013 11:40 takingbackoj wrote:On June 05 2013 11:37 GolemMadness wrote:On June 05 2013 11:32 takingbackoj wrote:On June 05 2013 11:29 GolemMadness wrote:On June 05 2013 11:03 takingbackoj wrote:On June 05 2013 10:28 Emzeeshady wrote:
[quote]
What kind of terrible flawed logic is this? Yeah it's kind of puzzling how that was decided. I could see if Soulkey beat Innovation and then didn't go on to win WCS KR, then I might be able to see an argument. But since that was the finals, I am not sure how you can say the guy that beat Innovation and won the tourney is not better than Innovation. Strange. I also agree with those puzzled about Hero being #10. I like the guy but he's not top 10. Seems like he got the Liquid bump. Any who, as an NFL fan I love Power Rankings as much as I loathe Power Rankings. They never seem to make sense to anyone other than the person who makes them but its fun to insult the rankers logic. Winning a series doesn't automatically make you the better player, regardless of how important that series is. That is flawed logic. Flawed logic? It's the only sound logic there is. Everything else is based on opinion. Playing someone heads up is the best way to determine whos better. No, it isn't. What if they played another series afterwards and Innovation won? Now are they suddenly equal? A ton of different factors go into who wins a series. Skill, nerves, luck, race match up, help with preparation, etc. Saying that one player is just automatically better because he won a single deciding game is just ridiculous. No they wouldn't be equal. Innovation would be better because he didn't lose to him. Thats how sports work. If the Heat win the finals it would be a rough road to hoe to claim the Spurs were better. So what you're saying is that when Soulkey wins a series, he's the better player, but then if they play another series afterwards and Innovation wins, suddenly he's the better player? Do you not realise that this logic makes zero sense? Am I in an alternate world or something. That sounds incredibly logical to me. If x beats y then x is better. If y beats x then y is better. Am I missing something here? Yea you are missing something here. Let's say that there are two players playing against each other, a zerg and a terran (we'll call them Zerg and Terran). Zerg wins, and barely. According to you, that makes him better. But what if Zerg is really bad at zvp and zvz, and Terran is really good in all his other matchups? What if styles are just weird in this matchup, and Zerg can beat Terran, but has a really poor record otherwise? Say that Zerg, outside of this matchup, has a 40% win ratio, and Terran has a 75% win ratio? The better player is obviously Terran here, even if he did just lose to Zerg. A heads up game doesn't decide who the better player is. Introduce Protoss. He beats Zerg. But Terran beats him! Now who's the best player out of the three? Obviously Protoss! He beat Zerg, who was the better player beforehand. Which means that Terran is now the best player, because he beat Protoss! And off we go into Wonderland. It can't work that way. The better example would be. Let's say Soulkey and Innovation played in the SPL. And then the following day in the GSL. So let's say Soulkey beat Innovation in the Ace Match. According to takingbackoj's logic, Soulkey is the better player. Then the following day, Innovation beat Soulkey in the GSL. In a span of a day, now according to takingbackoj's logic, Innovation is the better player. See how flawed it is? When you take into consideration who's the "Better" player, you have to take into consideration variance, sample size and how they fair against the rest of the competition. As for the NBA comparison...hmm the better example would be.. Charlotte Bobcats vs Miami Heat in a home/home series. Miami demolishes Charlotte @ Miami. So Miami is the better team. The next night, Charlotte beats Mami. So now Charlotte is all of a sudden the better of the two?
Flawed analogy. The winner of the championship game of any competition (NBA, NFL, etc.) is generally considered the best team of that season. The 'best' competition in SC2 currently is GSL and Soulkey just won it.
|
I don't see how people have such a troubles with the whole 'WHICH PLAYER IS BETTER" concept.
The power ranks are fun. Great read, an interesting perspective.
However why is it that you can't just clump players together and just call them S Class Players, then the mediocre bunch, call them A Class and so on. GSL was formulated upon this concept.
Between the players the likes of Rain, Flash, SK, Innovation, Life, Parting Roro, no one really stands out more than the other.
Life, Rain and Roro has past accomplishments
Parting, Flash SK and INnovation has recent accomplishments.
But its difficult to state one player has separate from the pack. Unlike MVP where he demolished everyone in WoL for months or in BW where Bisu/JD/Flash had their own reign of terror. You don't see that in HoTS quite yet.
|
Soulkey: because macro zergs and boring and can't be #1.
|
What a terrible list. How someone performs in a best of 3 is more important than being the best player in sc2 history and winning a major championship apparently. Rain at this point is a top protoss..but strongly questionabel to give him such an edge over the others... i just dont know I cant see how you can justify leaving MVP off this list in any scenario. At least you got the Top 3 correct.
|
On June 05 2013 12:10 kolz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2013 09:16 Scville wrote:
Why Hero > Kangho and MVP?
Kangho almost won vs SoS and he 3-0'ed Bomber
I know, Hero is from teamliquid but come on lol, no way he is the 10th best player in the world.
''Life's only results this month were losing to NAKSEO in the GSTL and 2 - 0ing MarineKing in GSL. (But at this point, is 2 - 0ing MarineKing in ZvT really an accomplishment?)''
Of course, Life didn't play anything else. Kangho had a very easy path to the ro8 and his games were honestly not that great... did you actually watch the sOs vs kangho games? They were disgusting. Maybe I'm being a bit harsh but I wouldn't even have put sOs on the power rankings here, probably slipping mvp in instead. sOs may have beaten higher caliber players but his play is just... I mean, dt into chargelot archon allins pvz? Hiding voids in your nat and hoping zerg doesnt scout so you can just waltz into his base and kill his lair? This feels like shitty ladder play, not what I expect in code s. Worse still might be that kangho actually lost to one of those archon all-ins. Yeah, I think there's good reason he's not on here.
???
sOs was kicking quite a lot of ass in proleague over round 4 and 5 from what I recall. His ro32 and ro16 was also pretty solid with some cool mindgames. He was definitely overrated by Artosis and a lot of people, but he deserves his spot nonetheless.
He also won that Asian Indoor tournament on the side against a lot of good players.
The DT/charlot/archon attack I'd imagine was to meta the 2-base +1/+1 ling into ultra ZvP we've been seeing a lot of as of late. Losira caught on though. The void game was totally retarded and shouldn't have worked I'll admit.
Losira has a respectable run, not great but still a level above what HerO and MVP dished out. He did also dominate Bomber with a 3-0. Still, I'd place HerO above Losira only because he also has his proleague performace. Losira definitely beats out MVP though in my book.
|
On June 05 2013 12:16 takingbackoj wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2013 12:07 yrt123 wrote:On June 05 2013 11:56 takingbackoj wrote:On June 05 2013 11:54 Shellshock1122 wrote:On June 05 2013 11:52 takingbackoj wrote:On June 05 2013 11:50 GolemMadness wrote:On June 05 2013 11:44 takingbackoj wrote:On June 05 2013 11:41 GolemMadness wrote:On June 05 2013 11:40 takingbackoj wrote:On June 05 2013 11:37 GolemMadness wrote:
[quote]
No, it isn't. What if they played another series afterwards and Innovation won? Now are they suddenly equal? A ton of different factors go into who wins a series. Skill, nerves, luck, race match up, help with preparation, etc. Saying that one player is just automatically better because he won a single deciding game is just ridiculous. No they wouldn't be equal. Innovation would be better because he didn't lose to him. Thats how sports work. If the Heat win the finals it would be a rough road to hoe to claim the Spurs were better. So what you're saying is that when Soulkey wins a series, he's the better player, but then if they play another series afterwards and Innovation wins, suddenly he's the better player? Do you not realise that this logic makes zero sense? Am I in an alternate world or something. That sounds incredibly logical to me. If x beats y then x is better. If y beats x then y is better. Am I missing something here? Ok, take this situation. x player is 100-0 in Proleague. y player is 0-100 in Proleague against the same players. They play a series, and y wins 4-3. Is y the better player now? Valid argument and I see your point. I guess I read the rankings under the assumption that the individual league took precedence over the team league. But I don't think Soulkey's Proleague performance is so much worse than Innovations to trump his individual win against him for the WCS KR title. Looking at round 5 which was basically the month of may Soulkey: 5-4 Innovation: 11-3 Depends on who you subjectively weight each league Good point. Without knowing that I can't really say whether the ranking makes sense or not. You can look just look at Code S too. Soulkey: 19-12 against Maru, Flying, Yoda, Parting, sOs, Innovation Innovation: 19-7 against Rain, Hyun, Flash, Life, RorO, Symbol, Soulkey If you only know this and do not know who won the tournament tell me who looks better on paper. Winning GSL is definitely a huge accomplishment. Soulkey may be more skilled than Innovation but he doesn't show it nearly as much as Innovation showed in his matches. Another good point. If I looked at that I would go with Innovation. But I believe in weighing heads up more than record during tournament. I guess it all comes down to preference.
Ok. Agree to disagree
|
Bisutopia19379 Posts
|
United States97276 Posts
IrOn? please... WC3 Legend Grubby owned him
|
On June 05 2013 12:22 Irre wrote:
What a terrible list. How someone performs in a best of 3 is more important than being the best player in sc2 history and winning a major championship apparently. Rain at this point is a top protoss..but strongly questionabel to give him such an edge over the others... i just dont know I cant see how you can justify leaving MVP off this list in any scenario. At least you got the Top 3 correct.
By that logic, we should remove Flash since most of his performance came from best of 1 games...
|
ALLEYCAT BLUES51132 Posts
|
On June 05 2013 12:14 LighT. wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2013 12:09 Splynn wrote:On June 05 2013 11:44 takingbackoj wrote:On June 05 2013 11:41 GolemMadness wrote:On June 05 2013 11:40 takingbackoj wrote:On June 05 2013 11:37 GolemMadness wrote:On June 05 2013 11:32 takingbackoj wrote:On June 05 2013 11:29 GolemMadness wrote:On June 05 2013 11:03 takingbackoj wrote:On June 05 2013 10:28 Emzeeshady wrote:
[quote]
What kind of terrible flawed logic is this? Yeah it's kind of puzzling how that was decided. I could see if Soulkey beat Innovation and then didn't go on to win WCS KR, then I might be able to see an argument. But since that was the finals, I am not sure how you can say the guy that beat Innovation and won the tourney is not better than Innovation. Strange. I also agree with those puzzled about Hero being #10. I like the guy but he's not top 10. Seems like he got the Liquid bump. Any who, as an NFL fan I love Power Rankings as much as I loathe Power Rankings. They never seem to make sense to anyone other than the person who makes them but its fun to insult the rankers logic. Winning a series doesn't automatically make you the better player, regardless of how important that series is. That is flawed logic. Flawed logic? It's the only sound logic there is. Everything else is based on opinion. Playing someone heads up is the best way to determine whos better. No, it isn't. What if they played another series afterwards and Innovation won? Now are they suddenly equal? A ton of different factors go into who wins a series. Skill, nerves, luck, race match up, help with preparation, etc. Saying that one player is just automatically better because he won a single deciding game is just ridiculous. No they wouldn't be equal. Innovation would be better because he didn't lose to him. Thats how sports work. If the Heat win the finals it would be a rough road to hoe to claim the Spurs were better. So what you're saying is that when Soulkey wins a series, he's the better player, but then if they play another series afterwards and Innovation wins, suddenly he's the better player? Do you not realise that this logic makes zero sense? Am I in an alternate world or something. That sounds incredibly logical to me. If x beats y then x is better. If y beats x then y is better. Am I missing something here? Yea you are missing something here. Let's say that there are two players playing against each other, a zerg and a terran (we'll call them Zerg and Terran). Zerg wins, and barely. According to you, that makes him better. But what if Zerg is really bad at zvp and zvz, and Terran is really good in all his other matchups? What if styles are just weird in this matchup, and Zerg can beat Terran, but has a really poor record otherwise? Say that Zerg, outside of this matchup, has a 40% win ratio, and Terran has a 75% win ratio? The better player is obviously Terran here, even if he did just lose to Zerg. A heads up game doesn't decide who the better player is. Introduce Protoss. He beats Zerg. But Terran beats him! Now who's the best player out of the three? Obviously Protoss! He beat Zerg, who was the better player beforehand. Which means that Terran is now the best player, because he beat Protoss! And off we go into Wonderland. It can't work that way. The better example would be. Let's say Soulkey and Innovation played in the SPL. And then the following day in the GSL. So let's say Soulkey beat Innovation in the Ace Match. According to takingbackoj's logic, Soulkey is the better player. Then the following day, Innovation beat Soulkey in the GSL. In a span of a day, now according to takingbackoj's logic, Innovation is the better player. See how flawed it is? When you take into consideration who's the "Better" player, you have to take into consideration variance, sample size and how they fair against the rest of the competition. As for the NBA comparison...hmm the better example would be.. Charlotte Bobcats vs Miami Heat in a home/home series. Miami demolishes Charlotte @ Miami. So Miami is the better team. The next night, Charlotte beats Mami. So now Charlotte is all of a sudden the better of the two?
Well this is my basic thought process here. When ranking players or teams or whatever, you go with the evidence presented. If someone beats someone else in a competition, I will weigh that heavier than what those two opponents did elsewhere particularly if its a best of 7 series and particularly if the winner also won the finals or its equivalent.
Im not just looking at that one series though. Im looking at the fact that Soulkey beat other top opponents on the way. Im looking at how Soulkey commonly competes and often times beats other top tier players as well. In my opinion, there is no better litmus test than heads up. That is the closest thing their is to deciding whos better. Is it full proof? No but is it better than assessing their other matches and pretty much guessing which one has beat better players.
To put it more plainly, if someone tells me David beat Jeff at SC2 but lost to Eric, im going to assume Eric is better than David regardless of Jeffs talent. When asking yourself who is better in any competition aren't you really asking who would win between the two? Soulkey won in a best of 7. That might not tell the whole story but that is pretty damning evidence to support Soulkey being better and for me to believe otherwise, I would have to see equally damning evidence to dispute it.
|
On June 05 2013 12:19 BoxingKangaroo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2013 12:14 LighT. wrote:On June 05 2013 12:09 Splynn wrote:On June 05 2013 11:44 takingbackoj wrote:On June 05 2013 11:41 GolemMadness wrote:On June 05 2013 11:40 takingbackoj wrote:On June 05 2013 11:37 GolemMadness wrote:On June 05 2013 11:32 takingbackoj wrote:On June 05 2013 11:29 GolemMadness wrote:On June 05 2013 11:03 takingbackoj wrote:
[quote]
Yeah it's kind of puzzling how that was decided. I could see if Soulkey beat Innovation and then didn't go on to win WCS KR, then I might be able to see an argument. But since that was the finals, I am not sure how you can say the guy that beat Innovation and won the tourney is not better than Innovation. Strange.
I also agree with those puzzled about Hero being #10. I like the guy but he's not top 10. Seems like he got the Liquid bump.
Any who, as an NFL fan I love Power Rankings as much as I loathe Power Rankings. They never seem to make sense to anyone other than the person who makes them but its fun to insult the rankers logic. Winning a series doesn't automatically make you the better player, regardless of how important that series is. That is flawed logic. Flawed logic? It's the only sound logic there is. Everything else is based on opinion. Playing someone heads up is the best way to determine whos better. No, it isn't. What if they played another series afterwards and Innovation won? Now are they suddenly equal? A ton of different factors go into who wins a series. Skill, nerves, luck, race match up, help with preparation, etc. Saying that one player is just automatically better because he won a single deciding game is just ridiculous. No they wouldn't be equal. Innovation would be better because he didn't lose to him. Thats how sports work. If the Heat win the finals it would be a rough road to hoe to claim the Spurs were better. So what you're saying is that when Soulkey wins a series, he's the better player, but then if they play another series afterwards and Innovation wins, suddenly he's the better player? Do you not realise that this logic makes zero sense? Am I in an alternate world or something. That sounds incredibly logical to me. If x beats y then x is better. If y beats x then y is better. Am I missing something here? Yea you are missing something here. Let's say that there are two players playing against each other, a zerg and a terran (we'll call them Zerg and Terran). Zerg wins, and barely. According to you, that makes him better. But what if Zerg is really bad at zvp and zvz, and Terran is really good in all his other matchups? What if styles are just weird in this matchup, and Zerg can beat Terran, but has a really poor record otherwise? Say that Zerg, outside of this matchup, has a 40% win ratio, and Terran has a 75% win ratio? The better player is obviously Terran here, even if he did just lose to Zerg. A heads up game doesn't decide who the better player is. Introduce Protoss. He beats Zerg. But Terran beats him! Now who's the best player out of the three? Obviously Protoss! He beat Zerg, who was the better player beforehand. Which means that Terran is now the best player, because he beat Protoss! And off we go into Wonderland. It can't work that way. The better example would be. Let's say Soulkey and Innovation played in the SPL. And then the following day in the GSL. So let's say Soulkey beat Innovation in the Ace Match. According to takingbackoj's logic, Soulkey is the better player. Then the following day, Innovation beat Soulkey in the GSL. In a span of a day, now according to takingbackoj's logic, Innovation is the better player. See how flawed it is? When you take into consideration who's the "Better" player, you have to take into consideration variance, sample size and how they fair against the rest of the competition. As for the NBA comparison...hmm the better example would be.. Charlotte Bobcats vs Miami Heat in a home/home series. Miami demolishes Charlotte @ Miami. So Miami is the better team. The next night, Charlotte beats Mami. So now Charlotte is all of a sudden the better of the two? Flawed analogy. The winner of the championship game of any competition (NBA, NFL, etc.) is generally considered the best team of that season. The 'best' competition in SC2 currently is GSL and Soulkey just won it.
That's because in the NBA, NFL, NHL, etc, that's all you have to base it on. You get that one series, then the rosters change and things are different the next year. Not at ALL the same as Starcraft, where you're playing in multiple leagues at the same time and there are a lot more results to base things off of.
|
|
|
|
|
|
oGsMC
Great
Midas
EPT
