|
On June 06 2013 03:57 Evangelist wrote:
You can tell when someone is trolling when they call MVP, the most decorated Starcraft 2 player, "Code B".
Mvp at his best makes Innovation look like a scrub. No one ever wants to play Mvp. Not even Flash. On his best day he is completely unbeatable.
MVP at his best was able to play 11 GSL's in one year against former Kespa B-teamers. Innovation gets to play at most 4 WCS's per year against Kespa A-teamers.
Of course MVP is going to be the most decorated. He had more chances to win against far inferior opponents. Totally different eras.
|
On June 06 2013 04:55 vesicular wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 03:57 Evangelist wrote:
You can tell when someone is trolling when they call MVP, the most decorated Starcraft 2 player, "Code B".
Mvp at his best makes Innovation look like a scrub. No one ever wants to play Mvp. Not even Flash. On his best day he is completely unbeatable. MVP at his best was able to play 11 GSL's in one year against former Kespa B-teamers. Innovation gets to play at most 4 WCS's per year against Kespa A-teamers. Of course MVP is going to be the most decorated. He had more chances to win against far inferior opponents. Totally different eras.
i'm not even an mvp fan but comments like these are hard to take serious for me.
and now something the author of the PR might find shocking: I agree with your list ;-)
|
Solid list. I agree with Hero deserving a spot, he's never been as good as he is now..
|
|
|
On June 06 2013 04:54 Jealous wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 04:47 gozima wrote:
I like the idea of a power rank but as time passes, this list is basically going to be a proleague rank, simply because of the sheer number of games proleague players have to play.
Just look at Rain, if you take away all his proleague games, there's just too little to go on to determine if he deserves a spot on the list. I'm not saying Rain doesn't deserve to be on the list, he obviously does, but this ranking system will favor proleague players over everyone else. People don't seem to understand that ProLeague has been the flagship tournament of Korean progaming for a decade. It is the tournament the Koreans care about the most, over MSL and OSL in the past, and I'm guessing that is still the case now.
And yet it misses half of the Korean gamers making it count for so much quite unfair.
|
|
|
How many times does it take for Soulkey to beat Innovation so that people see that he is just better? Power ranks are nothing but subjective. If beating someone in a best of 7 matchup is not enough to prove that that player is better, I am not sure what is to be honest...
|
On June 06 2013 05:18 Emzeeshady wrote:
Proleague is a poor measurement of anything really except how well that team prepared for a match. Bo1s prove very little imo. I have beaten 6 or 7 GMs in BO1s but I am no where fucking close to GM level and my winrate vs them in BO3s and above proves this.
This is faulty logic.
|
On June 06 2013 05:23 Petrina wrote:
How many times does it take for Soulkey to beat Innovation so that people see that he is just better? Power ranks are nothing but subjective. If beating someone in a best of 7 matchup is not enough to prove that that player is better, I am not sure what is to be honest...
When you win a BO7 4-3 you basically just beat them in a best of 1. How can people put so much stock into one incredibly close result? Tails will beat heads in a coinflip BO7 half the time, so if it happened tails is better at coinflipping right?
How many times does it take for Soulkey to beat Innovation to prove he is better in a direct match up? A lot more than he has is the answer and given how close it is between them overall recently in maps Innovations other results, which are clearly superior, give him the nod as the better player.
A 4-3 result in a BO7 tells us almost nothing about the players abilities relative to each other, it is not difficult to understand why, I wonder why so many struggle with this? If it was a BO5 Innovation just destroyed him 3-0. If it was a BO9 Innovation may have won 5-4, is he then clearly superior?
By your logic two players could play a BO101 in a day and the title of best player between them would flip flop every 15 minutes or so. That is not a sensible way to think about "best". A more sensible way is who is a favourite NEXT TIME, given what we know now? Not who won an incredibly close, variance filled, BO7.
|
On June 06 2013 05:28 _SpiRaL_ wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 05:23 Petrina wrote:
How many times does it take for Soulkey to beat Innovation so that people see that he is just better? Power ranks are nothing but subjective. If beating someone in a best of 7 matchup is not enough to prove that that player is better, I am not sure what is to be honest... When you win a BO7 4-3 you basically just beat them in a best of 1. How can people put so much stock into one incredibly close result? Tails will beat heads in a coinflip BO7 half the time, so if it happened tails is better at coinflipping right? How many times does it take for Soulkey to beat Innovation to prove he is better in a direct match up? A lot more than he has is the answer and given how close it is between them overall recently in maps Innovations other results, which are clearly superior, give him the nod as the better player. A 4-3 result in a BO7 tells us almost nothing about the players abilities relative to each other, it is not difficult to understand why, I wonder why so many struggle with this? If it was a BO5 Innovation just destroyed him 3-0. If it was a BO9 Innovation may have won 5-4, is he then clearly superior? By your logic two players could play a BO101 in a day and the title of best player between them would flip flop every 15 minutes or so. That is not a sensible way to think about "best". A more sensible way is who is a favourite NEXT TIME, given what we know now? Not who won an incredibly close, variance filled, BO7.
What ?! Bo7 is NOT Bo1 when the result is 4-3. Have you heard of probability and statistics? The margin of error from 1-0 and 4-3 is significantly different such that the error for trusting if a player A is better than B is way smaller for 7 games instead of 1. And I do not know what would have happened in Bo9 or Bo5 but we had a match with enough games to say that Soulkey is/was better by measurable standards than Innovation. Everything else is just speculation.
|
I think what could be added to clarify is what power rank means.
Say a player is super dominant in May and April, but then hardly goes to any tournaments and only has a couple results in June and July. During the July Power Rank, they would not be ranked very highly due to the low number of games they have had in the last two months (or whatever the arbitrary time cutoff is). They might be as good as they were before, they might even be better, but power rank is based off of the results, and as they have not had recent results, they cannot pass a certain rank.
|
On June 06 2013 04:54 Jealous wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 04:47 gozima wrote:
I like the idea of a power rank but as time passes, this list is basically going to be a proleague rank, simply because of the sheer number of games proleague players have to play.
Just look at Rain, if you take away all his proleague games, there's just too little to go on to determine if he deserves a spot on the list. I'm not saying Rain doesn't deserve to be on the list, he obviously does, but this ranking system will favor proleague players over everyone else. People don't seem to understand that ProLeague has been the flagship tournament of Korean progaming for a decade. It is the tournament the Koreans care about the most, over MSL and OSL in the past, and I'm guessing that is still the case now.
I'm not trying to take anything away from proleague, it's arguably the most skilled league. I'm just stating that this type of "what have you done for my lately" ranking system is going to favor proleague players above everyone else.
|
|
|
On June 06 2013 05:33 Petrina wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 05:28 _SpiRaL_ wrote:On June 06 2013 05:23 Petrina wrote:
How many times does it take for Soulkey to beat Innovation so that people see that he is just better? Power ranks are nothing but subjective. If beating someone in a best of 7 matchup is not enough to prove that that player is better, I am not sure what is to be honest... When you win a BO7 4-3 you basically just beat them in a best of 1. How can people put so much stock into one incredibly close result? Tails will beat heads in a coinflip BO7 half the time, so if it happened tails is better at coinflipping right? How many times does it take for Soulkey to beat Innovation to prove he is better in a direct match up? A lot more than he has is the answer and given how close it is between them overall recently in maps Innovations other results, which are clearly superior, give him the nod as the better player. A 4-3 result in a BO7 tells us almost nothing about the players abilities relative to each other, it is not difficult to understand why, I wonder why so many struggle with this? If it was a BO5 Innovation just destroyed him 3-0. If it was a BO9 Innovation may have won 5-4, is he then clearly superior? By your logic two players could play a BO101 in a day and the title of best player between them would flip flop every 15 minutes or so. That is not a sensible way to think about "best". A more sensible way is who is a favourite NEXT TIME, given what we know now? Not who won an incredibly close, variance filled, BO7. What ?! Bo7 is NOT Bo1 when the result is 4-3. Have you heard of probability and statistics? The margin of error from 1-0 and 4-3 is significantly different such that the error for trusting if a player A is better than B is way smaller for 7 games instead of 1. And I do not know what would have happened in Bo9 or Bo5 but we had a match with enough games to say that Soulkey is/was better by measurable standards than Innovation. Everything else is just speculation.
You are incorrect here, when you play 7 games instead of 1 the uncertainty goes down. As it does always when you increase sample size. However when the difference is 1 game, as in a 4-3 result for either player, the uncertainty is still so high as to who is better, it IS basically a BO1. We didn't come CLOSE to a series with enough games and enough of a difference (you forget this part, it is kinda important, ever hear of probability and statistics?) to say Soulkey was better by measurable standards. Like not even vaguely fucking close.
Put it this way, if they played a best of 1 000 001 and Soulkey wins 500 001 - 500 000, he's clearly better now since the "margin of error" is smaller?
|
On June 06 2013 05:35 Emzeeshady wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 05:25 _SpiRaL_ wrote:On June 06 2013 05:18 Emzeeshady wrote:
Proleague is a poor measurement of anything really except how well that team prepared for a match. Bo1s prove very little imo. I have beaten 6 or 7 GMs in BO1s but I am no where fucking close to GM level and my winrate vs them in BO3s and above proves this. This is faulty logic. The argument or the analogy?
BO1s are not meaningless just because there is a lot of variance in the result of an individual one of them. When you play a lot of BO1s they are reliable, its all to do with sample size vs variance. So if people play a thousand BO1s and we compare records, they are very meaningful. Proleague has a decent number of games by now, certainly enough for the results to be meaningful.
|
|
|
On June 06 2013 05:28 _SpiRaL_ wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 05:23 Petrina wrote:
How many times does it take for Soulkey to beat Innovation so that people see that he is just better? Power ranks are nothing but subjective. If beating someone in a best of 7 matchup is not enough to prove that that player is better, I am not sure what is to be honest... A 4-3 result in a BO7 tells us almost nothing about the players abilities relative to each other.
No, it tells us that the players are very close to each other in skill.
And in my opinion if two players are considered for the top spot then you give the title to the person that is the ace of the best proleague team and that has the positive head to head and that won the finals. If only out of tradition.
|
top 4 spots are a no brainer, 5 to 10 is debatable. if the power rank was more skillbased as opposed to result-oriented i wouldnt have hero or symbol in the top 10. fantasy should have gotten a consideration and jangbi should have been no10 instead of hero, that being said heros been putting up some solid results lately. all in all its a pretty solid list
|
On June 06 2013 05:14 Assirra wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 04:54 Jealous wrote:On June 06 2013 04:47 gozima wrote:
I like the idea of a power rank but as time passes, this list is basically going to be a proleague rank, simply because of the sheer number of games proleague players have to play.
Just look at Rain, if you take away all his proleague games, there's just too little to go on to determine if he deserves a spot on the list. I'm not saying Rain doesn't deserve to be on the list, he obviously does, but this ranking system will favor proleague players over everyone else. People don't seem to understand that ProLeague has been the flagship tournament of Korean progaming for a decade. It is the tournament the Koreans care about the most, over MSL and OSL in the past, and I'm guessing that is still the case now. And yet it misses half of the Korean gamers making it count for so much quite unfair.
It's not exactly proleagues fault though. They can't help being the premier league in korea.
|
On June 06 2013 05:45 Emzeeshady wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 05:39 _SpiRaL_ wrote:On June 06 2013 05:33 Petrina wrote:On June 06 2013 05:28 _SpiRaL_ wrote:On June 06 2013 05:23 Petrina wrote:
How many times does it take for Soulkey to beat Innovation so that people see that he is just better? Power ranks are nothing but subjective. If beating someone in a best of 7 matchup is not enough to prove that that player is better, I am not sure what is to be honest... When you win a BO7 4-3 you basically just beat them in a best of 1. How can people put so much stock into one incredibly close result? Tails will beat heads in a coinflip BO7 half the time, so if it happened tails is better at coinflipping right? How many times does it take for Soulkey to beat Innovation to prove he is better in a direct match up? A lot more than he has is the answer and given how close it is between them overall recently in maps Innovations other results, which are clearly superior, give him the nod as the better player. A 4-3 result in a BO7 tells us almost nothing about the players abilities relative to each other, it is not difficult to understand why, I wonder why so many struggle with this? If it was a BO5 Innovation just destroyed him 3-0. If it was a BO9 Innovation may have won 5-4, is he then clearly superior? By your logic two players could play a BO101 in a day and the title of best player between them would flip flop every 15 minutes or so. That is not a sensible way to think about "best". A more sensible way is who is a favourite NEXT TIME, given what we know now? Not who won an incredibly close, variance filled, BO7. What ?! Bo7 is NOT Bo1 when the result is 4-3. Have you heard of probability and statistics? The margin of error from 1-0 and 4-3 is significantly different such that the error for trusting if a player A is better than B is way smaller for 7 games instead of 1. And I do not know what would have happened in Bo9 or Bo5 but we had a match with enough games to say that Soulkey is/was better by measurable standards than Innovation. Everything else is just speculation. You are incorrect here, when you play 7 games instead of 1 the uncertainty goes down. As it does always when you increase sample size. However when the difference is 1 game, as in a 4-3 result for either player, the uncertainty is still so high as to who is better, it IS basically a BO1. We didn't come CLOSE to a series with enough games and enough of a difference (you forget this part, it is kinda important, ever hear of probability and statistics?) to say Soulkey was better by measurable standards. Like not even vaguely fucking close. Put it this way, if they played a best of 1 000 001 and Soulkey wins 500 001 - 500 000, he's clearly better now since the "margin of error" is smaller? Sounds to me like you are grasping the concept of a series. A bo1 allows you to pretty much snipe a player with an unexpected strategy or surprise. This will not work two games in a row therefore there is a better chance the better player will win in a BO5 for instance.
Yes obviously, this is not addressing my argument though? I agree with this its not relevant though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
