|
On November 15 2013 03:02 Zealously wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2013 02:37 ANLProbe wrote:On November 15 2013 02:33 Zealously wrote:On November 15 2013 02:30 ANLProbe wrote:
Polt is so overrated, he may have won 2 WCS NAs but even the recent DH Bucharest was way more stacked but because it isn't called WCS and it hasn't got an as high prize pool people will say that that was the weaker tournament. And anyways, Polt doesn't get good results against the Korean Koreans. Koreans like Jaedong or does he not count either? Jaedong flops in every final even though he looked the strongest in Blizzcon and he was playing terrible in the WCS NA S2 final. Between both WCS season finals, Polt only beat Grubby, he's overrated when talking about the best players in the world. I can make a case for every player at Blizzcon being the best in the world if we cherrypick like that
I would love to hear your argument for Naniwa Duckdeok MC and MVP.
The players in the mix for best in the world are Dear sOs Soulkey JD Maru Bomber Taeja JD Innovation and Polt. Any other player simply doesn't have the resume right now to have any right being in the discussion.
|
On November 15 2013 00:59 Heat_023 wrote:
These sort of opinions upset me. To me it feels like the SC2 community is so "platonist" about "the best in the world". It's like you're looking for some kind of absolute truth somewhere. It's like when people say "Innovation's the best player still", don't get me wrong he's my favorite player but what does that mean exactly ?
To me, the best in the world is the player who prevailed in the highest tier tournament (under some conditions of course), there is no truth beyond that as far as being a good player is not a quality that one possesses, but is something that has to be proved in a special competition that is tailored to determine that.
I'm not sure that the simplest assumption here is that TL posters are platonists, although some may be. You're free to have your own definition of "best player in the world" but I think a more realistic and representative view is that when someone says so and so is the best player in the world they mean that there is a reasonable consensus among informed parties that this player, generally weighting recent results most heavily and based primarily on recent results (weighting premier tournaments the most heavily), is the best player in the world. If asked, most people would say that this consensus best player in the world would be favored against any other player in the world.
Personally I like more objective definitions, with perhaps a hint of subjectivity -- for example, use Elo to establish the presumption of who's the best (assuming you have a large enough pool of games) and then from there assess whether there are any factors that might cause you to say Elo doesn't capture the full picture (a player was sick during a tournament, a player's wins were primarily in small tournaments so people didn't bring their A games, etc.).
|
Yes there is, his name is sOs.
Power rankings are really fun. Sad they were gone when Innovation declined.
1. sOs
2. Dear
3. JD
4. Soulkey
5. Bomber
6. Maru
7. Polt
8. Taeja
9. Innovation
10. Duckdeok
Bomber has the skills to be Number One and Bonjwa. Just do it man :D
|
Excellent article, completely agree and I hope next year's WCS will be of the same standard.
|
for at this exact moment i would give Dear the first place with Jaedong coming second and sOs as 3rd. this is based on the last 2 months. 4th i would place Maru, with a lot of other players coming with the same level.
why dear on 1st place, when he won he won all matchups with 3-0, 3-1 - convincingly, plus he is quite stable in the last 3 big tourneys.
|
Yea it's too hard to pick a very best player in the world. All these top players are so good they can take series off each other all the time. I think the best we can hope for is picking top 3 of each race, even that is a debate that is hard to agree upon.
|
|
|
This story reminds me of the NY Giants when they won their last two Super Bowls. Both years, they did not look dominant at all during the regular season, but did just well enough to reach the playoffs. And then they peaked at the right time and played their best football during the playoffs. Both years, they beat a team in the Super Bowl that was arguably "the best team" in the league -- the New England Patriots.
I think it's good for a sport to allow for this possibility, that a player or team can win a championship by getting hot at the right time. People pay attention to sports because of the uncertainty of the outcome.
|
United States7483 Posts
On November 16 2013 03:27 mvdunecats wrote:
This story reminds me of the NY Giants when they won their last two Super Bowls. Both years, they did not look dominant at all during the regular season, but did just well enough to reach the playoffs. And then they peaked at the right time and played their best football during the playoffs. Both years, they beat a team in the Super Bowl that was arguably "the best team" in the league -- the New England Patriots.
I think it's good for a sport to allow for this possibility, that a player or team can win a championship by getting hot at the right time. People pay attention to sports because of the uncertainty of the outcome.
One of those years the Patriots were 18-0, then they blew it in the Super Bowl. Dammit!
(I'm from Massachusetts)
|
Awesome article! Thanks for the write-up.
|
On November 16 2013 03:27 mvdunecats wrote:
This story reminds me of the NY Giants when they won their last two Super Bowls. Both years, they did not look dominant at all during the regular season, but did just well enough to reach the playoffs. And then they peaked at the right time and played their best football during the playoffs. Both years, they beat a team in the Super Bowl that was arguably "the best team" in the league -- the New England Patriots.
I think it's good for a sport to allow for this possibility, that a player or team can win a championship by getting hot at the right time. People pay attention to sports because of the uncertainty of the outcome.
The difference is, when the Giants won their Superbowls, everyone agreed that they had proven themselves the best team by winning those championships. Whereas if NFL fans were like Starcraft fans, they'd still be insisting that the Patriots were the best because they won more in the regular season.
|
On November 16 2013 06:28 awesomoecalypse wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2013 03:27 mvdunecats wrote:
This story reminds me of the NY Giants when they won their last two Super Bowls. Both years, they did not look dominant at all during the regular season, but did just well enough to reach the playoffs. And then they peaked at the right time and played their best football during the playoffs. Both years, they beat a team in the Super Bowl that was arguably "the best team" in the league -- the New England Patriots.
I think it's good for a sport to allow for this possibility, that a player or team can win a championship by getting hot at the right time. People pay attention to sports because of the uncertainty of the outcome. The difference is, when the Giants won their Superbowls, everyone agreed that they had proven themselves the best team by winning those championships. Whereas if NFL fans were like Starcraft fans, they'd still be insisting that the Patriots were the best because they won more in the regular season.
Yeah, and they did. People constantly argue about who was best regardless of who wins in any sport
|
On November 16 2013 06:28 awesomoecalypse wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2013 03:27 mvdunecats wrote:
This story reminds me of the NY Giants when they won their last two Super Bowls. Both years, they did not look dominant at all during the regular season, but did just well enough to reach the playoffs. And then they peaked at the right time and played their best football during the playoffs. Both years, they beat a team in the Super Bowl that was arguably "the best team" in the league -- the New England Patriots.
I think it's good for a sport to allow for this possibility, that a player or team can win a championship by getting hot at the right time. People pay attention to sports because of the uncertainty of the outcome. The difference is, when the Giants won their Superbowls, everyone agreed that they had proven themselves the best team by winning those championships. Whereas if NFL fans were like Starcraft fans, they'd still be insisting that the Patriots were the best because they won more in the regular season.
You've got that mixed up. If Starcraft fans were like NFL fans and never disputed which team was best after a championship, then you'd have two sets of fans that completely contradict how fans in any other competitive game/sport actually work in the real world. You must be surrounded by Giants fans or something.
|
On November 16 2013 06:37 rd wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2013 06:28 awesomoecalypse wrote:On November 16 2013 03:27 mvdunecats wrote:
This story reminds me of the NY Giants when they won their last two Super Bowls. Both years, they did not look dominant at all during the regular season, but did just well enough to reach the playoffs. And then they peaked at the right time and played their best football during the playoffs. Both years, they beat a team in the Super Bowl that was arguably "the best team" in the league -- the New England Patriots.
I think it's good for a sport to allow for this possibility, that a player or team can win a championship by getting hot at the right time. People pay attention to sports because of the uncertainty of the outcome. The difference is, when the Giants won their Superbowls, everyone agreed that they had proven themselves the best team by winning those championships. Whereas if NFL fans were like Starcraft fans, they'd still be insisting that the Patriots were the best because they won more in the regular season. You've got that mixed up. If Starcraft fans were like NFL fans and never disputed which team was best after a championship, then you'd have two sets of fans that completely contradict how fans in any other competitive game/sport actually work in the real world. You must be surrounded by Giants fans or something.
I spend a ton of time on NFL and NBA forums, and the consensus that winning a championship means you're the best team is pretty overwhelming. The Heat only narrowly squeaked by the Spurs last season on a 1 in a million fluke play, but if you asked a hundred different NBA fans who the best NBA team was last year, nearly all of them would say the Heat.
|
On November 16 2013 06:53 awesomoecalypse wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2013 06:37 rd wrote:On November 16 2013 06:28 awesomoecalypse wrote:On November 16 2013 03:27 mvdunecats wrote:
This story reminds me of the NY Giants when they won their last two Super Bowls. Both years, they did not look dominant at all during the regular season, but did just well enough to reach the playoffs. And then they peaked at the right time and played their best football during the playoffs. Both years, they beat a team in the Super Bowl that was arguably "the best team" in the league -- the New England Patriots.
I think it's good for a sport to allow for this possibility, that a player or team can win a championship by getting hot at the right time. People pay attention to sports because of the uncertainty of the outcome. The difference is, when the Giants won their Superbowls, everyone agreed that they had proven themselves the best team by winning those championships. Whereas if NFL fans were like Starcraft fans, they'd still be insisting that the Patriots were the best because they won more in the regular season. You've got that mixed up. If Starcraft fans were like NFL fans and never disputed which team was best after a championship, then you'd have two sets of fans that completely contradict how fans in any other competitive game/sport actually work in the real world. You must be surrounded by Giants fans or something. I spend a ton of time on NFL and NBA forums, and the consensus that winning a championship means you're the best team is pretty overwhelming. The Heat only narrowly squeaked by the Spurs last season on a 1 in a million fluke play, but if you asked a hundred different NBA fans who the best NBA team was last year, nearly all of them would say the Heat.
Thank god Starcraft 2 fans think for themselves then and don't take championships for granted. I don't know how you're going to bash criticizing a championship with the sole argument that sports fans (for whatever reason) don't criticize championships (who do criticize the legitimacy of a championship despite what you say).
|
On November 16 2013 06:53 awesomoecalypse wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2013 06:37 rd wrote:On November 16 2013 06:28 awesomoecalypse wrote:On November 16 2013 03:27 mvdunecats wrote:
This story reminds me of the NY Giants when they won their last two Super Bowls. Both years, they did not look dominant at all during the regular season, but did just well enough to reach the playoffs. And then they peaked at the right time and played their best football during the playoffs. Both years, they beat a team in the Super Bowl that was arguably "the best team" in the league -- the New England Patriots.
I think it's good for a sport to allow for this possibility, that a player or team can win a championship by getting hot at the right time. People pay attention to sports because of the uncertainty of the outcome. The difference is, when the Giants won their Superbowls, everyone agreed that they had proven themselves the best team by winning those championships. Whereas if NFL fans were like Starcraft fans, they'd still be insisting that the Patriots were the best because they won more in the regular season. You've got that mixed up. If Starcraft fans were like NFL fans and never disputed which team was best after a championship, then you'd have two sets of fans that completely contradict how fans in any other competitive game/sport actually work in the real world. You must be surrounded by Giants fans or something. I spend a ton of time on NFL and NBA forums, and the consensus that winning a championship means you're the best team is pretty overwhelming. The Heat only narrowly squeaked by the Spurs last season on a 1 in a million fluke play, but if you asked a hundred different NBA fans who the best NBA team was last year, nearly all of them would say the Heat.
I'm a huge NBA fan and I've been following heavily for years. The Heat aren't even my favourite team , far from it, but they've reached the Finals three years in a row, winning twice. They've consistently proven they're the best team, although I think this is the year they will fall off.
|
These best of 3 formats throughout the year contribute to randomness. The game is already fairly random. No series at the highest level should be anything less than a best of 5. The Blizzcon grand finals should have been double elimination as well. If you did that tournament 10 times, you'd get probably 5-6 winners. If you did a double elimination style, you'd probably get 3-4 different winners instead.
|
On November 16 2013 17:33 KJSharp wrote:
These best of 3 formats throughout the year contribute to randomness. The game is already fairly random. No series at the highest level should be anything less than a best of 5. The Blizzcon grand finals should have been double elimination as well. If you did that tournament 10 times, you'd get probably 5-6 winners. If you did a double elimination style, you'd probably get 3-4 different winners instead.
Yeah it is so random that we have the same players over and over again in ro8 and ro4 and sometimes even finals (JD^^).
Double elimination is just a hype killer and produces weird finals.
|
Dear in my eyes definitely has to be a top3 world player these days. dude is just a machine, his standard play is just so damn good, better than Rain was even, Rain in his prime.
I thought he was going to win Blizzcon but he ran into JD (damn that series was epic) who was just rampant and played flawless Zerg... up until he faced sOs of course. Protoss players like sOs feel like the perfect anti-JD players, who will just play with seemingly no pressure or intimidation and just pull out a full gamut of strategies which fuck with exactly how JD has had his success against such strong players... JD usually the the one who initiates making the first aggressive plays and pokes, constantly countering setting up flanking postions, all the while scouting and reading his opponents constantly all game... yet for whatever reason sOs completely threw him off his game... in longer games, simply passively teching (when not randomly cannon rushing and all-in) waiting for JD to make his patented uber tech switches and then using up his free supply and tech to counter that and eventually crush the maxed zerg army. sOs play was really eye opening but it's not like haven't seen this a bit before in Proleague but was surprised to see this play out so successfully in a tournament like this.
As I see it these days the top 3 players has to consist of *currently* Dear, sOs, Jaedong... and right below them Maru and to a lesser extent Soulkey (so consistent just.... sometimes falls so terribly disappointing and lacks certain aspects in his play that I feel a player like Jaedong would be a much scarier opponent to face in any boX). And imo those with the most potential to "dominate" in the near future or next year or so are Maru, Dear, and JD, all due respect to sOs of course, but his play seems a bit too volatile.
Man I dunno what happened to Innoation, he's still definitely hasn't "lost it' dude is a total beast, tears up GSTL like it's nothing but seems to maybe not be in the best mental state. I would never bet on him in a TvT against any top Terran player.
|
4713 Posts
This year feels way more volatile then all the previous ones. We did have periods of short term dominance, and small spurs of random unexpected wins as well, but if you ask anyone about 2011 everybody will say it was the year of Mvp and NesTea, or if you ask someone about 2012 then Life or PartinG will come to mind.
This year was just all over the place, the longest period of domination belonged to Innovation, but that was just too short and too remote. Had Innovation won another 3-4 tournaments spread out trough out the year, or had Soulkey/Jaedong turned his deep tournament runs into more victories, then you could have had a strong case for one or the other being the best of the year, now though all the arguments are flimsy at best.
Is that a good or a bad thing? That's probably a highly subjective matter.
In my opinion its a bad thing, I believe that not having a single super consistent, player or set of players win a lot of tournaments during a year, damages the sense of legitimacy of the scene.
If it is perceived to be so volatile that, past a certain level, anyone can take series off of anyone, then it feels like the game stops being about skill and it starts being about luck.
And while I firmly believe SC2 is a game of skill, this year has done a very, very poor job of reinforcing my view of it.
I would greatly have preferred to have a clear, consistent and dominant player or set of players just like the years past.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
