|
Northern Ireland23702 Posts
Alas I forget or I would credit them, but wasn’t it said in one of these very threads ‘Torture the data enough, and eventually it will confess’?
|
On July 01 2024 02:06 WombaT wrote:
Alas I forget or I would credit them, but wasn’t it said in one of these very threads ‘Torture the data enough, and eventually it will confess’?
The poster who said it was not the original source is apparently economist Ron Coase, per Wiktionary.
On a completely unrelated note, I propose another way of weighting tournament winnings: how strong the player looked in the tournament, by eye-test, to you. Whoever you are reading this. I think you will find it correlates amazingly well with whatever other weightings you personally think are appropriate 
|
Earnings is a god awful metric.
|
United States1798 Posts
On July 01 2024 01:54 Antithesis wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2024 01:07 ejozl wrote:
To get a list more similar to Mizens list [...] putting 2016+ at 0.5 value. Is this satire designed to highlight the inevitability of subjective judgment even in ostensibly quantitative analyses such as Mizenhauer's? Genuinely asking.
It better be satire. I'd prefer to not be associated with that sort of madness.
|
On June 30 2024 11:09 Luolis wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2024 07:30 rwala wrote:On June 29 2024 04:39 WombaT wrote:On June 29 2024 03:53 rwala wrote:On June 29 2024 01:33 Blitzball04 wrote:On June 28 2024 20:01 ejozl wrote:
Maru is the GOAT the same way as SoO was the GOAT of HotS.
Maru is the 2nd best LotV player behind Serral.
Maru was the 2nd greatest Jin Air player behind Rogue, while still on Jin Air.
Maru was the 2nd best Jin Air proleague player behind sOs.
Maru is 2nd on player earnings.
Maru might actually have the most 2nd place premier finishes, I would have to double check. To add to that Maru is arguable the 3rd best player on his team during the whole existence of Jin air. When you think Proleague is an afterthought and equivalent to NationWars you end up with conclusions like this. It's also interesting to me that folks in this thread are no longer very subtle about the fact that because a primarily foreign (from the Korean perspective) audience constitutes the majority of SC2's viewership, this audience gets to retrospectively define which tournaments and leagues were the most important, competitive, prestigious, etc. It's even more interesting and telling to see that revisionist history so transparently play out in these bizarre ways. I understand the irony in my saying this in the context of a GOAT article written by Miz, but I don't think anyone would accuse him of a lack of knowledge or anti-Korean bias (even if many disagree with his analysis or conclusions). I've actually felt this way for a while before this GOAT convo. For example, for years it annoyed me when the primarily white, "Western" commentators would declaratively conclude that Maru has never been able to perform well outside of South Korea, ignoring the fact that the kid took home a fat bag winning and finishing runner-up in consecutive WESGs. Whatever you think about WESG, these were very impressive "weekender" performances in a premiere tournament against many top pros on foreign soil outside of the comfort of the GSL studios. I've noticed that more recently some of these commentators have started acknowledging those WESG performances, perhaps because they realize some of their previous takes that sought to lump in those WESGs into a broader category of performances "in Asia" weren't aging too well. (Some commentators had very specific theories about jet lag, which are valid, if not sound, but most takes were about the inability to perform in weekender tourneys outside of South Korea/GSL.) Which brings me to awkward situation that Wax pointed out in another article in which ESL gave Serral a trophy for a milestone that Oliveira had already met. The point is not that Serral doesn't deserve a special trophy, surely he does. It's important to recognize and celebrate such amazing performances. The point is that it sends the wrong message when you give Serral a trophy based on criteria that clearly and objectively would require Oliveira to have already gotten that trophy. This could have been avoided by giving Serral some lifetime achievement award (or really anything that would not open ESL up to accusations of bias and hypocrisy). Then there is the derision if not outright hostility that Artosis has been on the receiving end of for even suggesting that Rogue could be the GOAT, mostly from fans who summarily dismiss him as being some kind of pro-Korean simp rather than acknowledging that this is a legit take from one of the most experienced and knowledgeable Starcraft players and commentators. I see all these things as connected, and I'm fairly certain that most of the white, Western SC2 fans do not, or at least don't find them to be an issue. And to be fair, in the grand scheme of things it's not that big of a deal. But it's also not a non-issue. Do you have to add the white qualifier to Western? There’s plenty of that audience who aren’t in fact white folks I don’t think Oliveira did meet the criteria Serral did, but the fact it’s ’think’ indicates a pretty terrible bit of communication. My impression was it was for international events under their banner and included things like DH Masters which Serral has in his locker and Oliveira doesn’t. But, again the fact I and others are unsure what that trophy was meant for in and of itself are indicative of a pretty chaotic presentation. Largely I don’t think people are saying Proleague is equivalent to Nation Wars in quality, but equivalently difficult to weight in a scene where prestige is largely determined by individual leagues. You had to live in Korea, be on an eligible team and be active in a period of a few years to even play in it. How do I judge Serral versus Maru, or Mvp versus Maru while including Proleague? Well, I just don’t consider it, whereas I would consider it in a Maru vs Innovation for example. This doesn’t mean I don’t value Proleague as the competition it was, but we get into territory where it’s hard to factor in where players never played it versus those who did. On the flipside a player from a strong StarCraft nation can’t really replicate what Serral did in NationWars. You can’t solo carry a strong team, so while it’s impressive as a feat, it’s not a feat say, a Korean could ever realistically get the opportunity to replicate, so again it’s a fun feat nonetheless but not one I’d count in the wider GOAT debate. WESG had the problem of not connecting with audiences, and its actual fields not being the most stacked, so I understand how some undervalue it. On the flipside for those more familiar with the nitty gritty of the scene, qualifying to be the Korean representative was the real test, just as simply being the Korean(s) at WCG was probably harder than actually winning a WCG. It becomes a difficult tournament to accurately gauge, although I think people undervalue it. Really the case against Maru is he hasn’t shown up and won a weekender with a high-quality field on said weekend. An arbitrary distinction some may say, but I think it’s a reasonable enough one. I personally thoroughly disagree with Artosis re Rogue, but I don’t think it’s an outrageous enough opinion to attract genuine vitriol. I think one can make an argument for Rogue versus Maru and Serral individually, but not the both of them. Maru has a better HoTS by a distance, and way more KILs, Serral has WCs too, better numbers, better consistency and more regular premiers. So you can make an argument for Rogue > Serral if you rate Starleagues super high, but then Maru beats him. And you can make an argument that Rogue > Maru because of WCs but then Serral has equivalent accomplishments there, in less time as a progamer and IMO wins elsewhere if WCs are tied After you answer, consider this. Babe Ruth is as close as you'll get to a consensus GOAT pick in any sport or game. I don't care about the other stuff in the post but nah. Wayne Gretzky is the most obvious consensus GOAT pick. Literally everyone knows that.
Phil Taylor is probably the most consensus GOAT pick. You won't find many darts fans who would put anyone else forward. Of course, most people don't know or care about darts...
I know this is completely off-topic, but I feel like we're beating the space where a dead horse used to be, but the dead horse has already decomposed to nothingness...
|
Northern Ireland23702 Posts
On July 01 2024 15:33 MJG wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2024 11:09 Luolis wrote:On June 29 2024 07:30 rwala wrote:On June 29 2024 04:39 WombaT wrote:On June 29 2024 03:53 rwala wrote:On June 29 2024 01:33 Blitzball04 wrote:On June 28 2024 20:01 ejozl wrote:
Maru is the GOAT the same way as SoO was the GOAT of HotS.
Maru is the 2nd best LotV player behind Serral.
Maru was the 2nd greatest Jin Air player behind Rogue, while still on Jin Air.
Maru was the 2nd best Jin Air proleague player behind sOs.
Maru is 2nd on player earnings.
Maru might actually have the most 2nd place premier finishes, I would have to double check. To add to that Maru is arguable the 3rd best player on his team during the whole existence of Jin air. When you think Proleague is an afterthought and equivalent to NationWars you end up with conclusions like this. It's also interesting to me that folks in this thread are no longer very subtle about the fact that because a primarily foreign (from the Korean perspective) audience constitutes the majority of SC2's viewership, this audience gets to retrospectively define which tournaments and leagues were the most important, competitive, prestigious, etc. It's even more interesting and telling to see that revisionist history so transparently play out in these bizarre ways. I understand the irony in my saying this in the context of a GOAT article written by Miz, but I don't think anyone would accuse him of a lack of knowledge or anti-Korean bias (even if many disagree with his analysis or conclusions). I've actually felt this way for a while before this GOAT convo. For example, for years it annoyed me when the primarily white, "Western" commentators would declaratively conclude that Maru has never been able to perform well outside of South Korea, ignoring the fact that the kid took home a fat bag winning and finishing runner-up in consecutive WESGs. Whatever you think about WESG, these were very impressive "weekender" performances in a premiere tournament against many top pros on foreign soil outside of the comfort of the GSL studios. I've noticed that more recently some of these commentators have started acknowledging those WESG performances, perhaps because they realize some of their previous takes that sought to lump in those WESGs into a broader category of performances "in Asia" weren't aging too well. (Some commentators had very specific theories about jet lag, which are valid, if not sound, but most takes were about the inability to perform in weekender tourneys outside of South Korea/GSL.) Which brings me to awkward situation that Wax pointed out in another article in which ESL gave Serral a trophy for a milestone that Oliveira had already met. The point is not that Serral doesn't deserve a special trophy, surely he does. It's important to recognize and celebrate such amazing performances. The point is that it sends the wrong message when you give Serral a trophy based on criteria that clearly and objectively would require Oliveira to have already gotten that trophy. This could have been avoided by giving Serral some lifetime achievement award (or really anything that would not open ESL up to accusations of bias and hypocrisy). Then there is the derision if not outright hostility that Artosis has been on the receiving end of for even suggesting that Rogue could be the GOAT, mostly from fans who summarily dismiss him as being some kind of pro-Korean simp rather than acknowledging that this is a legit take from one of the most experienced and knowledgeable Starcraft players and commentators. I see all these things as connected, and I'm fairly certain that most of the white, Western SC2 fans do not, or at least don't find them to be an issue. And to be fair, in the grand scheme of things it's not that big of a deal. But it's also not a non-issue. Do you have to add the white qualifier to Western? There’s plenty of that audience who aren’t in fact white folks I don’t think Oliveira did meet the criteria Serral did, but the fact it’s ’think’ indicates a pretty terrible bit of communication. My impression was it was for international events under their banner and included things like DH Masters which Serral has in his locker and Oliveira doesn’t. But, again the fact I and others are unsure what that trophy was meant for in and of itself are indicative of a pretty chaotic presentation. Largely I don’t think people are saying Proleague is equivalent to Nation Wars in quality, but equivalently difficult to weight in a scene where prestige is largely determined by individual leagues. You had to live in Korea, be on an eligible team and be active in a period of a few years to even play in it. How do I judge Serral versus Maru, or Mvp versus Maru while including Proleague? Well, I just don’t consider it, whereas I would consider it in a Maru vs Innovation for example. This doesn’t mean I don’t value Proleague as the competition it was, but we get into territory where it’s hard to factor in where players never played it versus those who did. On the flipside a player from a strong StarCraft nation can’t really replicate what Serral did in NationWars. You can’t solo carry a strong team, so while it’s impressive as a feat, it’s not a feat say, a Korean could ever realistically get the opportunity to replicate, so again it’s a fun feat nonetheless but not one I’d count in the wider GOAT debate. WESG had the problem of not connecting with audiences, and its actual fields not being the most stacked, so I understand how some undervalue it. On the flipside for those more familiar with the nitty gritty of the scene, qualifying to be the Korean representative was the real test, just as simply being the Korean(s) at WCG was probably harder than actually winning a WCG. It becomes a difficult tournament to accurately gauge, although I think people undervalue it. Really the case against Maru is he hasn’t shown up and won a weekender with a high-quality field on said weekend. An arbitrary distinction some may say, but I think it’s a reasonable enough one. I personally thoroughly disagree with Artosis re Rogue, but I don’t think it’s an outrageous enough opinion to attract genuine vitriol. I think one can make an argument for Rogue versus Maru and Serral individually, but not the both of them. Maru has a better HoTS by a distance, and way more KILs, Serral has WCs too, better numbers, better consistency and more regular premiers. So you can make an argument for Rogue > Serral if you rate Starleagues super high, but then Maru beats him. And you can make an argument that Rogue > Maru because of WCs but then Serral has equivalent accomplishments there, in less time as a progamer and IMO wins elsewhere if WCs are tied After you answer, consider this. Babe Ruth is as close as you'll get to a consensus GOAT pick in any sport or game. I don't care about the other stuff in the post but nah. Wayne Gretzky is the most obvious consensus GOAT pick. Literally everyone knows that. Phil Taylor is probably the most consensus GOAT pick. You won't find many darts fans who would put anyone else forward. Of course, most people don't know or care about darts... I know this is completely off-topic, but I feel like we're beating the space where a dead horse used to be, but the dead horse has already decomposed to nothingness...
Ronnie O’Sullivan is (almost) there in the more gentlemanly, superior but also largely globally niche sport of snooker.
Phil Taylor is a good shout, and I’d say a rare example of a possibly unassailable GOAT. I’m not darts aficionado but I’ve heard it say the standard of the field, plus its depth nowadays is so much higher in terms of scoring averages (is that even the term?) that it’s almost inconceivable that anyone can be as prolific a title winner
IIRC Taylor’s numbers would be right up there with the modern guys, and he’d still be winning things. But it’s almost like the hypothetical time traveller with modern chops going backwards in time scenario, only that it just happened in accordance to the normal temporal flow.
But yes we are rather metaphorically beating a dead horse now, or perhaps it was never alive to begin with…
|
On June 30 2024 20:37 Balnazza wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2024 21:47 rwala wrote:On June 29 2024 11:42 Mizenhauer wrote:On June 29 2024 08:27 rwala wrote:On June 29 2024 04:57 Bennito_bh wrote:
The Rogue angle is a bit silly TBF, though as a solid 3rd-4th place contender it certainly isn't absurd by any stretch. It only works if you rate GSLs as high as Kato/BCs and ignore Maru's better Proleague record. Rogue's more of an $o$ figure than GOAT material - albeit with more success in Korea - albeit he only did that in the period where Zerg was vastly overperforming relative to T and P.
From what I've read the community's backlash against Arty has less to do with the claim and more to do with how he presents it. Insulting people and treating them like morons may generate engagement (and thus $$) on a Twitch stream, but it does not actually help when presenting yourself as a credible source. Whether he presents himself as a credible source is beside the point. He is a credible source, but that's also beside the point, because he presents a sound argument. I actually think Arty has done a better job than anyone at very clearly and concisely defining what GOAT means, and explaining his reasoning for why Rogue is the GOAT in less than 5 minutes with a very simple chart that compares accomplishments. Which is why he doesn't get into excuses like you're doing with the above balance whining or random irrelevant things like how much money someone made. Arty's the only one who has explained the difference betweeen a bonjwa and the GOAT, and explained why head-to-head records are not the appropriate metric (e.g. some progamers have winning head-to-head records against Flash, the undisputed BW GOAT). He persuaded me, and I am not someone who is inclined to want to attribute GOAT status to Rogue. One thing I'm not sure Arty touched on was Rogue's insane 13-1 offline tournament finals record. This in and of itself is not only one of the greatest accomplishments in SC2, but in all of esports. It's kind of hard to overestimate how insane this is. People can disagree with me, but I think it's impossible to discuss the GOAT argument in sufficient detail in five minutes. In an ideal world you would have to take Rogue's performances in Proleague (he was never an ace player, but was very solid), his lack of individual results pre 2017, the fact that his win percentage is wanting (compared to other goat candidates) in long running tournaments (Code S) as well as on a year by year basis into account. Head to head matters as well, just as analyzing the strength of the field in the events in which he won (or was eliminated surprisingly early) without incorporating too much subjectivity. The 13-1 record in premier finals is a huge point in his favor but, you also need to look at how he performed in the R8 and R4 over the years (a great example is soO, who is 0-6 in Code S finals, but 13-1 in the quarter/semifinals). Artosis raises some good points, but bonjwa is an absurdly nebulous term and you need way more context to establish what "Great" means in the context of the rankings and how "Greatest player" differs from "Greatest Career". I personally feel like Rogue's combined achievements place him ahead of Mvp (who I had fourth), but his lack of consistency set him on a tier below Serral and Maru. I'm cutting this short because I could go on and on about all the elements that go into something like this (this is my opinion so, again, feel free to disagree), but I'm 100% certain that you can't cover all the factors listed above (let alone apply them when discussing one players profile versus another's) in that amount of time. Agree to disagree. I live and work in a world in which if you can’t present your argument in 5 minutes, it’s probably because your argument isn’t very good. So...not a scientific field then? Because if there is one things scientist universally can't do is keeping it short. And that is good. Because keeping it short means omitting things. Not "trivia", but actual important data, facts or even speculations. If you explain your data and reasoning, yes, you make yourself vulnerable. But you make yourself even more vulnerable if you just willy-nilly throw out your arguments and don't cover as much ground as possible. This gets more true the bigger the scope of the problem at hand. Yes, if you need to decide what colour your office should be painted in, the argument should be done in under five minutes, otherwise you ramble. But if you want to cover a very hard to quantify era of 14 years of professional SC2 over three different iterations...I might think five minutes could cut it tight just a tad.
I'm a lawyer, but I work in advocacy, 90% of which is figuring out how to persuade people. And ironically the science on this is very clear, which is that long, voluminous interventions don't tend to persuade because, again, it's just very easy to get lost in the details and lose track of what is important and why. Your point about science is interesting. Most scientists I know don't even need words, they can just look at the data. Even longer academic scientific articles are largely descriptive, not normative, and a very significant amount of the text is devoted to simply explaining the methodology so the reader can understand what the data means.
There's very little by way of "argumentation" in science as the scientific method is largely about data development and observation. If science is what you're looking for, you have found very little of it in these threads, and the closest thing you'll get is some regression analysis that will require many more tables and graphs and many fewer words.
|
On June 29 2024 22:48 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2024 21:47 rwala wrote:On June 29 2024 11:42 Mizenhauer wrote:On June 29 2024 08:27 rwala wrote:On June 29 2024 04:57 Bennito_bh wrote:
The Rogue angle is a bit silly TBF, though as a solid 3rd-4th place contender it certainly isn't absurd by any stretch. It only works if you rate GSLs as high as Kato/BCs and ignore Maru's better Proleague record. Rogue's more of an $o$ figure than GOAT material - albeit with more success in Korea - albeit he only did that in the period where Zerg was vastly overperforming relative to T and P.
From what I've read the community's backlash against Arty has less to do with the claim and more to do with how he presents it. Insulting people and treating them like morons may generate engagement (and thus $$) on a Twitch stream, but it does not actually help when presenting yourself as a credible source. Whether he presents himself as a credible source is beside the point. He is a credible source, but that's also beside the point, because he presents a sound argument. I actually think Arty has done a better job than anyone at very clearly and concisely defining what GOAT means, and explaining his reasoning for why Rogue is the GOAT in less than 5 minutes with a very simple chart that compares accomplishments. Which is why he doesn't get into excuses like you're doing with the above balance whining or random irrelevant things like how much money someone made. Arty's the only one who has explained the difference betweeen a bonjwa and the GOAT, and explained why head-to-head records are not the appropriate metric (e.g. some progamers have winning head-to-head records against Flash, the undisputed BW GOAT). He persuaded me, and I am not someone who is inclined to want to attribute GOAT status to Rogue. One thing I'm not sure Arty touched on was Rogue's insane 13-1 offline tournament finals record. This in and of itself is not only one of the greatest accomplishments in SC2, but in all of esports. It's kind of hard to overestimate how insane this is. People can disagree with me, but I think it's impossible to discuss the GOAT argument in sufficient detail in five minutes. In an ideal world you would have to take Rogue's performances in Proleague (he was never an ace player, but was very solid), his lack of individual results pre 2017, the fact that his win percentage is wanting (compared to other goat candidates) in long running tournaments (Code S) as well as on a year by year basis into account. Head to head matters as well, just as analyzing the strength of the field in the events in which he won (or was eliminated surprisingly early) without incorporating too much subjectivity. The 13-1 record in premier finals is a huge point in his favor but, you also need to look at how he performed in the R8 and R4 over the years (a great example is soO, who is 0-6 in Code S finals, but 13-1 in the quarter/semifinals). Artosis raises some good points, but bonjwa is an absurdly nebulous term and you need way more context to establish what "Great" means in the context of the rankings and how "Greatest player" differs from "Greatest Career". I personally feel like Rogue's combined achievements place him ahead of Mvp (who I had fourth), but his lack of consistency set him on a tier below Serral and Maru. I'm cutting this short because I could go on and on about all the elements that go into something like this (this is my opinion so, again, feel free to disagree), but I'm 100% certain that you can't cover all the factors listed above (let alone apply them when discussing one players profile versus another's) in that amount of time. Agree to disagree. I live and work in a world in which if you can’t present your argument in 5 minutes, it’s probably because your argument isn’t very good. I don’t think that’s the case with you, but I would also ask you whether this volume of back-and-forth in this forum has added more illumination than heat with all this “detail.” It’s often the case that spewing “detail” serves to obfuscate more than clarify, which is why you see folks just throwing out random “details” like how much money someone made if they think it’ll bolster their argument. It’s much more important to be clear about your definitions, values, methodologies, which further clarifies which details, factors, and elements are important, and which are not. It really depends on what you’re attempting to argue. Complex problems can require complex solutions. You see this being a very apparent phenomenon in politics where the folks who promise simple solutions to complex problems appear to many to be the more convincing to many a voter because folks respond better to confident assertions than a ‘well this issue is complicated and I’m not sure about x’. Doesn’t necessarily give us good policy. Miz alluded to this complexity from the off and did at least explain his methodology pretty damn thoroughly. Not saying you didn’t, but it’s not really his fault that other people critical of his list didn’t actually read all his rationales. I mean I’ve long said there are too many incomparable factors to really have a definitive GOAT anyway, it’s a hell of a lot easier in BW which had a pretty consistent competition structure for most of its pro shelf life Rogue was still a good player in the Proleague era, but perhaps an A class player and not an S class killer like someone like Innovation, or a Maru/Zest and players like that. He clearly did become that S class player from 2017 onwards, but equally Maru won 4 GSLs in a row shortly after. Serral’s got a ridiculous resume in that span with similar big accomplishments but a consistency nobody else has ever really had. In combination it feels hard to stick Rogue at #1 and I think his finals record gives him more a ‘most clutch’ cache and is a tad overrated re overall greatness. I know that’s an unpopular opinion but it’s to me indicative of a streaky player who’s great when they’re in the zone. If somebody could correct me, as I briefly scanned it the other day I don’t think Serral has a worse than Ro8 performance in some 6/7 years of competition, has won more tournaments and has better win rates than anyone in that span. Rogue’s finals record does attest to his ability to perform on the big stage when it counts, but the flipside of it given he frequently would drop out early in tournaments where he wasn’t making finals is ‘when Rogue is in good form he’ll win, and when he isn’t he doesn’t make finals’. Whereas a player who can still drag himself to a final even out of form and by sheer force of will and lose it will still ultimately get the loss in that column. For me one of Mvp’s greatest achievements was even reaching a GSL finals against Life despite injuries clearly impacting his play to the degree he changed style considerably, and still almost pulled it off. Rogue also has lost finals which is why the stat kept morphing until it’s ‘has never lost a finals in a Bo7 offline’ form it currently is. Which is still bloody impressive but the more caveats you add to a stat the less impressive it becomes. In short I think you probably need a little more than 5 minutes for this one!
I want to clarify that I think Miz and the editorial team did a really wonderful job with the article series. I think the articles are very well written and the arguments are cogent. I personally enjoy all the detail and context. In fact, what I perhaps enjoyed most about the article series was the intro article explaining the methodology. It was very well done and frankly I think most of the disputes here come down to disagreeing with the methodology.
My only point was that I don't think you need all this extra context to make a simple and straightforward case, and that sometimes when you go down the rabbit hole, you end up losing the forest for the trees (mixed metaphors, sorry....).
Regarding Rogue I don't think the argument is that complicated. He has similar international WC-tier tourney results to Serral plus the 4 GSLs so depending on how much value you put on one tournament category versus the other it's very easy to see how Rogue could be the GOAT.
Regarding Serral, I don't think the argument is that complicated. He has the best international WC-tier tourney results, and is widely considered to be the "best" player to ever play the game both in terms of perception of his peers and his head-to-head win rates against other top players.
Regarding Maru, I don't think the argument is that complicated. He has the ridiculous GSL wins, and is the only one to be a dominant player in the most competitive eras of SC2 (via his KIL and Proleague performances).
There's a lot more that can be said, but I don't think you lose a lot by boiling it down like this, and if anything it helps clarify where the fault lines are.
|
On July 01 2024 23:31 rwala wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2024 20:37 Balnazza wrote:On June 29 2024 21:47 rwala wrote:On June 29 2024 11:42 Mizenhauer wrote:On June 29 2024 08:27 rwala wrote:On June 29 2024 04:57 Bennito_bh wrote:
The Rogue angle is a bit silly TBF, though as a solid 3rd-4th place contender it certainly isn't absurd by any stretch. It only works if you rate GSLs as high as Kato/BCs and ignore Maru's better Proleague record. Rogue's more of an $o$ figure than GOAT material - albeit with more success in Korea - albeit he only did that in the period where Zerg was vastly overperforming relative to T and P.
From what I've read the community's backlash against Arty has less to do with the claim and more to do with how he presents it. Insulting people and treating them like morons may generate engagement (and thus $$) on a Twitch stream, but it does not actually help when presenting yourself as a credible source. Whether he presents himself as a credible source is beside the point. He is a credible source, but that's also beside the point, because he presents a sound argument. I actually think Arty has done a better job than anyone at very clearly and concisely defining what GOAT means, and explaining his reasoning for why Rogue is the GOAT in less than 5 minutes with a very simple chart that compares accomplishments. Which is why he doesn't get into excuses like you're doing with the above balance whining or random irrelevant things like how much money someone made. Arty's the only one who has explained the difference betweeen a bonjwa and the GOAT, and explained why head-to-head records are not the appropriate metric (e.g. some progamers have winning head-to-head records against Flash, the undisputed BW GOAT). He persuaded me, and I am not someone who is inclined to want to attribute GOAT status to Rogue. One thing I'm not sure Arty touched on was Rogue's insane 13-1 offline tournament finals record. This in and of itself is not only one of the greatest accomplishments in SC2, but in all of esports. It's kind of hard to overestimate how insane this is. People can disagree with me, but I think it's impossible to discuss the GOAT argument in sufficient detail in five minutes. In an ideal world you would have to take Rogue's performances in Proleague (he was never an ace player, but was very solid), his lack of individual results pre 2017, the fact that his win percentage is wanting (compared to other goat candidates) in long running tournaments (Code S) as well as on a year by year basis into account. Head to head matters as well, just as analyzing the strength of the field in the events in which he won (or was eliminated surprisingly early) without incorporating too much subjectivity. The 13-1 record in premier finals is a huge point in his favor but, you also need to look at how he performed in the R8 and R4 over the years (a great example is soO, who is 0-6 in Code S finals, but 13-1 in the quarter/semifinals). Artosis raises some good points, but bonjwa is an absurdly nebulous term and you need way more context to establish what "Great" means in the context of the rankings and how "Greatest player" differs from "Greatest Career". I personally feel like Rogue's combined achievements place him ahead of Mvp (who I had fourth), but his lack of consistency set him on a tier below Serral and Maru. I'm cutting this short because I could go on and on about all the elements that go into something like this (this is my opinion so, again, feel free to disagree), but I'm 100% certain that you can't cover all the factors listed above (let alone apply them when discussing one players profile versus another's) in that amount of time. Agree to disagree. I live and work in a world in which if you can’t present your argument in 5 minutes, it’s probably because your argument isn’t very good. So...not a scientific field then? Because if there is one things scientist universally can't do is keeping it short. And that is good. Because keeping it short means omitting things. Not "trivia", but actual important data, facts or even speculations. If you explain your data and reasoning, yes, you make yourself vulnerable. But you make yourself even more vulnerable if you just willy-nilly throw out your arguments and don't cover as much ground as possible. This gets more true the bigger the scope of the problem at hand. Yes, if you need to decide what colour your office should be painted in, the argument should be done in under five minutes, otherwise you ramble. But if you want to cover a very hard to quantify era of 14 years of professional SC2 over three different iterations...I might think five minutes could cut it tight just a tad. I'm a lawyer, but I work in advocacy, 90% of which is figuring out how to persuade people. And ironically the science on this is very clear, which is that long, voluminous interventions don't tend to persuade because, again, it's just very easy to get lost in the details and lose track of what is important and why. Your point about science is interesting. Most scientists I know don't even need words, they can just look at the data. Even longer academic scientific articles are largely descriptive, not normative, and a very significant amount of the text is devoted to simply explaining the methodology so the reader can understand what the data means. There's very little by way of "argumentation" in science as the scientific method is largely about data development and observation. If science is what you're looking for, you have found very little of it in these threads, and the closest thing you'll get is some regression analysis that will require many more tables and graphs and many fewer words.
that depends in what field of science you work. You can only describe data if you have definitive data and a clear set of executing them correctly.
I work in a field in which data is often not available easily, tends to be contradicting or you first have to filter out any bias out of the raw sources. And I promise you, historians can not cut themselves short...german historians in fact are notorious for not even being able to keep their book-titles short.
And this discussion is much more one close to history than physic for example. You have different eras, different weighting systems, different parameters. And in the end, you can only form an argument-based opinion. But for that, you have to explain your arguments, have to look at the different options, have to explain your own weighting-systems.
Did this discussion convince someone to change sides from Serral to Maru or vice-versa? No, probably not, at best a few people. But did it enlight me about the things other people look for in a GOAT, the way they see the history of SC2? Yes, tremendously. If I had just said at the start "Serral is the best because A and B and C" and then never visited this or other threads, I would have continued my life thinking "Serral is the undisputed GOAT and there is literally no argument against it"...which would be false and very narrow-minded.
So yes, I enjoy this discussions, even if they might not convince someone to change sides. But that isn't necessarily the goal of science.
There will never be a 100% clear scientific answer who is the GOAT, because there is no data-point for GOATness. If you ask "who is the best at throwing a spear?", the guy who threw it the farthest in a fair enviroment is clearly the World Record Holder. But if you ask who is the GOAT of throwing a spear...is it the guy who holds the WR or is it the other guy who beat the WR-Holder three Olympics in a row? And there you already have to do a weighting. And with that, it leaves the clear cut-and-dry field of STEM-science.
(Disclaimer: I have literally no clue about or interesting in Spear-Throwing, it was just an example...don't want to enrage the passionate Spear-Thrower community, since...well, they know how to throw a spear...)
|
On July 02 2024 00:28 rwala wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2024 22:48 WombaT wrote:On June 29 2024 21:47 rwala wrote:On June 29 2024 11:42 Mizenhauer wrote:On June 29 2024 08:27 rwala wrote:On June 29 2024 04:57 Bennito_bh wrote:
The Rogue angle is a bit silly TBF, though as a solid 3rd-4th place contender it certainly isn't absurd by any stretch. It only works if you rate GSLs as high as Kato/BCs and ignore Maru's better Proleague record. Rogue's more of an $o$ figure than GOAT material - albeit with more success in Korea - albeit he only did that in the period where Zerg was vastly overperforming relative to T and P.
From what I've read the community's backlash against Arty has less to do with the claim and more to do with how he presents it. Insulting people and treating them like morons may generate engagement (and thus $$) on a Twitch stream, but it does not actually help when presenting yourself as a credible source. Whether he presents himself as a credible source is beside the point. He is a credible source, but that's also beside the point, because he presents a sound argument. I actually think Arty has done a better job than anyone at very clearly and concisely defining what GOAT means, and explaining his reasoning for why Rogue is the GOAT in less than 5 minutes with a very simple chart that compares accomplishments. Which is why he doesn't get into excuses like you're doing with the above balance whining or random irrelevant things like how much money someone made. Arty's the only one who has explained the difference betweeen a bonjwa and the GOAT, and explained why head-to-head records are not the appropriate metric (e.g. some progamers have winning head-to-head records against Flash, the undisputed BW GOAT). He persuaded me, and I am not someone who is inclined to want to attribute GOAT status to Rogue. One thing I'm not sure Arty touched on was Rogue's insane 13-1 offline tournament finals record. This in and of itself is not only one of the greatest accomplishments in SC2, but in all of esports. It's kind of hard to overestimate how insane this is. People can disagree with me, but I think it's impossible to discuss the GOAT argument in sufficient detail in five minutes. In an ideal world you would have to take Rogue's performances in Proleague (he was never an ace player, but was very solid), his lack of individual results pre 2017, the fact that his win percentage is wanting (compared to other goat candidates) in long running tournaments (Code S) as well as on a year by year basis into account. Head to head matters as well, just as analyzing the strength of the field in the events in which he won (or was eliminated surprisingly early) without incorporating too much subjectivity. The 13-1 record in premier finals is a huge point in his favor but, you also need to look at how he performed in the R8 and R4 over the years (a great example is soO, who is 0-6 in Code S finals, but 13-1 in the quarter/semifinals). Artosis raises some good points, but bonjwa is an absurdly nebulous term and you need way more context to establish what "Great" means in the context of the rankings and how "Greatest player" differs from "Greatest Career". I personally feel like Rogue's combined achievements place him ahead of Mvp (who I had fourth), but his lack of consistency set him on a tier below Serral and Maru. I'm cutting this short because I could go on and on about all the elements that go into something like this (this is my opinion so, again, feel free to disagree), but I'm 100% certain that you can't cover all the factors listed above (let alone apply them when discussing one players profile versus another's) in that amount of time. Agree to disagree. I live and work in a world in which if you can’t present your argument in 5 minutes, it’s probably because your argument isn’t very good. I don’t think that’s the case with you, but I would also ask you whether this volume of back-and-forth in this forum has added more illumination than heat with all this “detail.” It’s often the case that spewing “detail” serves to obfuscate more than clarify, which is why you see folks just throwing out random “details” like how much money someone made if they think it’ll bolster their argument. It’s much more important to be clear about your definitions, values, methodologies, which further clarifies which details, factors, and elements are important, and which are not. It really depends on what you’re attempting to argue. Complex problems can require complex solutions. You see this being a very apparent phenomenon in politics where the folks who promise simple solutions to complex problems appear to many to be the more convincing to many a voter because folks respond better to confident assertions than a ‘well this issue is complicated and I’m not sure about x’. Doesn’t necessarily give us good policy. Miz alluded to this complexity from the off and did at least explain his methodology pretty damn thoroughly. Not saying you didn’t, but it’s not really his fault that other people critical of his list didn’t actually read all his rationales. I mean I’ve long said there are too many incomparable factors to really have a definitive GOAT anyway, it’s a hell of a lot easier in BW which had a pretty consistent competition structure for most of its pro shelf life Rogue was still a good player in the Proleague era, but perhaps an A class player and not an S class killer like someone like Innovation, or a Maru/Zest and players like that. He clearly did become that S class player from 2017 onwards, but equally Maru won 4 GSLs in a row shortly after. Serral’s got a ridiculous resume in that span with similar big accomplishments but a consistency nobody else has ever really had. In combination it feels hard to stick Rogue at #1 and I think his finals record gives him more a ‘most clutch’ cache and is a tad overrated re overall greatness. I know that’s an unpopular opinion but it’s to me indicative of a streaky player who’s great when they’re in the zone. If somebody could correct me, as I briefly scanned it the other day I don’t think Serral has a worse than Ro8 performance in some 6/7 years of competition, has won more tournaments and has better win rates than anyone in that span. Rogue’s finals record does attest to his ability to perform on the big stage when it counts, but the flipside of it given he frequently would drop out early in tournaments where he wasn’t making finals is ‘when Rogue is in good form he’ll win, and when he isn’t he doesn’t make finals’. Whereas a player who can still drag himself to a final even out of form and by sheer force of will and lose it will still ultimately get the loss in that column. For me one of Mvp’s greatest achievements was even reaching a GSL finals against Life despite injuries clearly impacting his play to the degree he changed style considerably, and still almost pulled it off. Rogue also has lost finals which is why the stat kept morphing until it’s ‘has never lost a finals in a Bo7 offline’ form it currently is. Which is still bloody impressive but the more caveats you add to a stat the less impressive it becomes. In short I think you probably need a little more than 5 minutes for this one! I want to clarify that I think Miz and the editorial team did a really wonderful job with the article series. I think the articles are very well written and the arguments are cogent. I personally enjoy all the detail and context. In fact, what I perhaps enjoyed most about the article series was the intro article explaining the methodology. It was very well done and frankly I think most of the disputes here come down to disagreeing with the methodology. My only point was that I don't think you need all this extra context to make a simple and straightforward case, and that sometimes when you go down the rabbit hole, you end up losing the forest for the trees (mixed metaphors, sorry....). Regarding Rogue I don't think the argument is that complicated. He has similar international WC-tier tourney results to Serral plus the 4 GSLs so depending on how much value you put on one tournament category versus the other it's very easy to see how Rogue could be the GOAT. Regarding Serral, I don't think the argument is that complicated. He has the best international WC-tier tourney results, and is widely considered to be the "best" player to ever play the game both in terms of perception of his peers and his head-to-head win rates against other top players. Regarding Maru, I don't think the argument is that complicated. He has the ridiculous GSL wins, and is the only one to be a dominant player in the most competitive eras of SC2 (via his KIL and Proleague performances). There's a lot more that can be said, but I don't think you lose a lot by boiling it down like this, and if anything it helps clarify where the fault lines are.
This is a great post and well said.
|
On July 02 2024 00:31 Balnazza wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2024 23:31 rwala wrote:On June 30 2024 20:37 Balnazza wrote:On June 29 2024 21:47 rwala wrote:On June 29 2024 11:42 Mizenhauer wrote:On June 29 2024 08:27 rwala wrote:On June 29 2024 04:57 Bennito_bh wrote:
The Rogue angle is a bit silly TBF, though as a solid 3rd-4th place contender it certainly isn't absurd by any stretch. It only works if you rate GSLs as high as Kato/BCs and ignore Maru's better Proleague record. Rogue's more of an $o$ figure than GOAT material - albeit with more success in Korea - albeit he only did that in the period where Zerg was vastly overperforming relative to T and P.
From what I've read the community's backlash against Arty has less to do with the claim and more to do with how he presents it. Insulting people and treating them like morons may generate engagement (and thus $$) on a Twitch stream, but it does not actually help when presenting yourself as a credible source. Whether he presents himself as a credible source is beside the point. He is a credible source, but that's also beside the point, because he presents a sound argument. I actually think Arty has done a better job than anyone at very clearly and concisely defining what GOAT means, and explaining his reasoning for why Rogue is the GOAT in less than 5 minutes with a very simple chart that compares accomplishments. Which is why he doesn't get into excuses like you're doing with the above balance whining or random irrelevant things like how much money someone made. Arty's the only one who has explained the difference betweeen a bonjwa and the GOAT, and explained why head-to-head records are not the appropriate metric (e.g. some progamers have winning head-to-head records against Flash, the undisputed BW GOAT). He persuaded me, and I am not someone who is inclined to want to attribute GOAT status to Rogue. One thing I'm not sure Arty touched on was Rogue's insane 13-1 offline tournament finals record. This in and of itself is not only one of the greatest accomplishments in SC2, but in all of esports. It's kind of hard to overestimate how insane this is. People can disagree with me, but I think it's impossible to discuss the GOAT argument in sufficient detail in five minutes. In an ideal world you would have to take Rogue's performances in Proleague (he was never an ace player, but was very solid), his lack of individual results pre 2017, the fact that his win percentage is wanting (compared to other goat candidates) in long running tournaments (Code S) as well as on a year by year basis into account. Head to head matters as well, just as analyzing the strength of the field in the events in which he won (or was eliminated surprisingly early) without incorporating too much subjectivity. The 13-1 record in premier finals is a huge point in his favor but, you also need to look at how he performed in the R8 and R4 over the years (a great example is soO, who is 0-6 in Code S finals, but 13-1 in the quarter/semifinals). Artosis raises some good points, but bonjwa is an absurdly nebulous term and you need way more context to establish what "Great" means in the context of the rankings and how "Greatest player" differs from "Greatest Career". I personally feel like Rogue's combined achievements place him ahead of Mvp (who I had fourth), but his lack of consistency set him on a tier below Serral and Maru. I'm cutting this short because I could go on and on about all the elements that go into something like this (this is my opinion so, again, feel free to disagree), but I'm 100% certain that you can't cover all the factors listed above (let alone apply them when discussing one players profile versus another's) in that amount of time. Agree to disagree. I live and work in a world in which if you can’t present your argument in 5 minutes, it’s probably because your argument isn’t very good. So...not a scientific field then? Because if there is one things scientist universally can't do is keeping it short. And that is good. Because keeping it short means omitting things. Not "trivia", but actual important data, facts or even speculations. If you explain your data and reasoning, yes, you make yourself vulnerable. But you make yourself even more vulnerable if you just willy-nilly throw out your arguments and don't cover as much ground as possible. This gets more true the bigger the scope of the problem at hand. Yes, if you need to decide what colour your office should be painted in, the argument should be done in under five minutes, otherwise you ramble. But if you want to cover a very hard to quantify era of 14 years of professional SC2 over three different iterations...I might think five minutes could cut it tight just a tad. I'm a lawyer, but I work in advocacy, 90% of which is figuring out how to persuade people. And ironically the science on this is very clear, which is that long, voluminous interventions don't tend to persuade because, again, it's just very easy to get lost in the details and lose track of what is important and why. Your point about science is interesting. Most scientists I know don't even need words, they can just look at the data. Even longer academic scientific articles are largely descriptive, not normative, and a very significant amount of the text is devoted to simply explaining the methodology so the reader can understand what the data means. There's very little by way of "argumentation" in science as the scientific method is largely about data development and observation. If science is what you're looking for, you have found very little of it in these threads, and the closest thing you'll get is some regression analysis that will require many more tables and graphs and many fewer words. that depends in what field of science you work. You can only describe data if you have definitive data and a clear set of executing them correctly. I work in a field in which data is often not available easily, tends to be contradicting or you first have to filter out any bias out of the raw sources. And I promise you, historians can not cut themselves short...german historians in fact are notorious for not even being able to keep their book-titles short. And this discussion is much more one close to history than physic for example. You have different eras, different weighting systems, different parameters. And in the end, you can only form an argument-based opinion. But for that, you have to explain your arguments, have to look at the different options, have to explain your own weighting-systems. Did this discussion convince someone to change sides from Serral to Maru or vice-versa? No, probably not, at best a few people. But did it enlight me about the things other people look for in a GOAT, the way they see the history of SC2? Yes, tremendously. If I had just said at the start "Serral is the best because A and B and C" and then never visited this or other threads, I would have continued my life thinking "Serral is the undisputed GOAT and there is literally no argument against it"...which would be false and very narrow-minded. So yes, I enjoy this discussions, even if they might not convince someone to change sides. But that isn't necessarily the goal of science. There will never be a 100% clear scientific answer who is the GOAT, because there is no data-point for GOATness. If you ask "who is the best at throwing a spear?", the guy who threw it the farthest in a fair enviroment is clearly the World Record Holder. But if you ask who is the GOAT of throwing a spear...is it the guy who holds the WR or is it the other guy who beat the WR-Holder three Olympics in a row? And there you already have to do a weighting. And with that, it leaves the clear cut-and-dry field of STEM-science. (Disclaimer: I have literally no clue about or interesting in Spear-Throwing, it was just an example...don't want to enrage the passionate Spear-Thrower community, since...well, they know how to throw a spear...)
I agree you won't find a scientific answer to this question, but you're the one who raised science so I was just explaining that you're getting nothing like a scientific approach with all this data and "analysis" being thrown around in these forums. Most of it is obfuscating more than it's illuminating, which was my point.
I also agree with you that much of this comes down to how you decide to weigh and value various factors, but I disagree that you need anything like a history dissertation to effectively do this. I did it in a few sentences in another post, but if that's too boiled down, surely it can be done in a few minutes. In my experience if you're not able to do that, your case is probably weak, or at minimum lacks clarity.
For those who want more, the good news is you have it since thankfully Miz and the tl.net editors invested the time and energy to produce this series!
|
On July 02 2024 01:48 rwala wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2024 00:31 Balnazza wrote:On July 01 2024 23:31 rwala wrote:On June 30 2024 20:37 Balnazza wrote:On June 29 2024 21:47 rwala wrote:On June 29 2024 11:42 Mizenhauer wrote:On June 29 2024 08:27 rwala wrote:On June 29 2024 04:57 Bennito_bh wrote:
The Rogue angle is a bit silly TBF, though as a solid 3rd-4th place contender it certainly isn't absurd by any stretch. It only works if you rate GSLs as high as Kato/BCs and ignore Maru's better Proleague record. Rogue's more of an $o$ figure than GOAT material - albeit with more success in Korea - albeit he only did that in the period where Zerg was vastly overperforming relative to T and P.
From what I've read the community's backlash against Arty has less to do with the claim and more to do with how he presents it. Insulting people and treating them like morons may generate engagement (and thus $$) on a Twitch stream, but it does not actually help when presenting yourself as a credible source. Whether he presents himself as a credible source is beside the point. He is a credible source, but that's also beside the point, because he presents a sound argument. I actually think Arty has done a better job than anyone at very clearly and concisely defining what GOAT means, and explaining his reasoning for why Rogue is the GOAT in less than 5 minutes with a very simple chart that compares accomplishments. Which is why he doesn't get into excuses like you're doing with the above balance whining or random irrelevant things like how much money someone made. Arty's the only one who has explained the difference betweeen a bonjwa and the GOAT, and explained why head-to-head records are not the appropriate metric (e.g. some progamers have winning head-to-head records against Flash, the undisputed BW GOAT). He persuaded me, and I am not someone who is inclined to want to attribute GOAT status to Rogue. One thing I'm not sure Arty touched on was Rogue's insane 13-1 offline tournament finals record. This in and of itself is not only one of the greatest accomplishments in SC2, but in all of esports. It's kind of hard to overestimate how insane this is. People can disagree with me, but I think it's impossible to discuss the GOAT argument in sufficient detail in five minutes. In an ideal world you would have to take Rogue's performances in Proleague (he was never an ace player, but was very solid), his lack of individual results pre 2017, the fact that his win percentage is wanting (compared to other goat candidates) in long running tournaments (Code S) as well as on a year by year basis into account. Head to head matters as well, just as analyzing the strength of the field in the events in which he won (or was eliminated surprisingly early) without incorporating too much subjectivity. The 13-1 record in premier finals is a huge point in his favor but, you also need to look at how he performed in the R8 and R4 over the years (a great example is soO, who is 0-6 in Code S finals, but 13-1 in the quarter/semifinals). Artosis raises some good points, but bonjwa is an absurdly nebulous term and you need way more context to establish what "Great" means in the context of the rankings and how "Greatest player" differs from "Greatest Career". I personally feel like Rogue's combined achievements place him ahead of Mvp (who I had fourth), but his lack of consistency set him on a tier below Serral and Maru. I'm cutting this short because I could go on and on about all the elements that go into something like this (this is my opinion so, again, feel free to disagree), but I'm 100% certain that you can't cover all the factors listed above (let alone apply them when discussing one players profile versus another's) in that amount of time. Agree to disagree. I live and work in a world in which if you can’t present your argument in 5 minutes, it’s probably because your argument isn’t very good. So...not a scientific field then? Because if there is one things scientist universally can't do is keeping it short. And that is good. Because keeping it short means omitting things. Not "trivia", but actual important data, facts or even speculations. If you explain your data and reasoning, yes, you make yourself vulnerable. But you make yourself even more vulnerable if you just willy-nilly throw out your arguments and don't cover as much ground as possible. This gets more true the bigger the scope of the problem at hand. Yes, if you need to decide what colour your office should be painted in, the argument should be done in under five minutes, otherwise you ramble. But if you want to cover a very hard to quantify era of 14 years of professional SC2 over three different iterations...I might think five minutes could cut it tight just a tad. I'm a lawyer, but I work in advocacy, 90% of which is figuring out how to persuade people. And ironically the science on this is very clear, which is that long, voluminous interventions don't tend to persuade because, again, it's just very easy to get lost in the details and lose track of what is important and why. Your point about science is interesting. Most scientists I know don't even need words, they can just look at the data. Even longer academic scientific articles are largely descriptive, not normative, and a very significant amount of the text is devoted to simply explaining the methodology so the reader can understand what the data means. There's very little by way of "argumentation" in science as the scientific method is largely about data development and observation. If science is what you're looking for, you have found very little of it in these threads, and the closest thing you'll get is some regression analysis that will require many more tables and graphs and many fewer words. that depends in what field of science you work. You can only describe data if you have definitive data and a clear set of executing them correctly. I work in a field in which data is often not available easily, tends to be contradicting or you first have to filter out any bias out of the raw sources. And I promise you, historians can not cut themselves short...german historians in fact are notorious for not even being able to keep their book-titles short. And this discussion is much more one close to history than physic for example. You have different eras, different weighting systems, different parameters. And in the end, you can only form an argument-based opinion. But for that, you have to explain your arguments, have to look at the different options, have to explain your own weighting-systems. Did this discussion convince someone to change sides from Serral to Maru or vice-versa? No, probably not, at best a few people. But did it enlight me about the things other people look for in a GOAT, the way they see the history of SC2? Yes, tremendously. If I had just said at the start "Serral is the best because A and B and C" and then never visited this or other threads, I would have continued my life thinking "Serral is the undisputed GOAT and there is literally no argument against it"...which would be false and very narrow-minded. So yes, I enjoy this discussions, even if they might not convince someone to change sides. But that isn't necessarily the goal of science. There will never be a 100% clear scientific answer who is the GOAT, because there is no data-point for GOATness. If you ask "who is the best at throwing a spear?", the guy who threw it the farthest in a fair enviroment is clearly the World Record Holder. But if you ask who is the GOAT of throwing a spear...is it the guy who holds the WR or is it the other guy who beat the WR-Holder three Olympics in a row? And there you already have to do a weighting. And with that, it leaves the clear cut-and-dry field of STEM-science. (Disclaimer: I have literally no clue about or interesting in Spear-Throwing, it was just an example...don't want to enrage the passionate Spear-Thrower community, since...well, they know how to throw a spear...) I agree you won't find a scientific answer to this question, but you're the one who raised science so I was just explaining that you're getting nothing like a scientific approach with all this data and "analysis" being thrown around in these forums. Most of it is obfuscating more than it's illuminating, which was my point. I also agree with you that much of this comes down to how you decide to weigh and value various factors, but I disagree that you need anything like a history dissertation to effectively do this. I did it in a few sentences in another post, but if that's too boiled down, surely it can be done in a few minutes. In my experience if you're not able to do that, your case is probably weak, or at minimum lacks clarity. For those who want more, the good news is you have it since thankfully Miz and the tl.net editors invested the time and energy to produce this series!
Yes, you have boiled it down and if that is enough for you, you can stay at that. No problem. But you can easily attack each of the arguments you bring for each players. You can in- or decrease the value of WCs and GSLs, you can argue about the "most competitive era" and you didn't even acknowledge the fact that Serral did everything he did without the effect of teamhouses buffing him andandand.
I know in law and often in economics, there is this five minute rule. In history, if you think your deep-dive into a topic is covered in five minutes, you probably fucked up 90% of your work.
One mistake fresh history students make is to pick their topic too large. They then want to write their first essay about "The Fall of the Roman Empire" or "the consequences of the American Civil War". And every good history professor will ask them how they plan to attack this problem in ten pages or whatever your first essay might be long. It's impossible.
The question "Who is the GOAT of SC2" is probably one of the biggest questions data-wise you can ask about SC2. You can't discuss this in five minutes and cover all your bases. Not possible.
Btw, if you wonder "how do historians even finish anything then": They usually just fully admit at the start of their books what they focus on...and mention several things they actively omitted. It generally also ends with an explanation which aspects of their topic need further research and thoughts. I would assume that are two things you can't really do in the field of law, starting your argument with "well, I won't cover this because I couldn't be bothered (or it didn't help my client)", but that is effectively what you do with boiling everything down to five minutes tops.
|
Northern Ireland23702 Posts
On July 02 2024 00:28 rwala wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2024 22:48 WombaT wrote:On June 29 2024 21:47 rwala wrote:On June 29 2024 11:42 Mizenhauer wrote:On June 29 2024 08:27 rwala wrote:On June 29 2024 04:57 Bennito_bh wrote:
The Rogue angle is a bit silly TBF, though as a solid 3rd-4th place contender it certainly isn't absurd by any stretch. It only works if you rate GSLs as high as Kato/BCs and ignore Maru's better Proleague record. Rogue's more of an $o$ figure than GOAT material - albeit with more success in Korea - albeit he only did that in the period where Zerg was vastly overperforming relative to T and P.
From what I've read the community's backlash against Arty has less to do with the claim and more to do with how he presents it. Insulting people and treating them like morons may generate engagement (and thus $$) on a Twitch stream, but it does not actually help when presenting yourself as a credible source. Whether he presents himself as a credible source is beside the point. He is a credible source, but that's also beside the point, because he presents a sound argument. I actually think Arty has done a better job than anyone at very clearly and concisely defining what GOAT means, and explaining his reasoning for why Rogue is the GOAT in less than 5 minutes with a very simple chart that compares accomplishments. Which is why he doesn't get into excuses like you're doing with the above balance whining or random irrelevant things like how much money someone made. Arty's the only one who has explained the difference betweeen a bonjwa and the GOAT, and explained why head-to-head records are not the appropriate metric (e.g. some progamers have winning head-to-head records against Flash, the undisputed BW GOAT). He persuaded me, and I am not someone who is inclined to want to attribute GOAT status to Rogue. One thing I'm not sure Arty touched on was Rogue's insane 13-1 offline tournament finals record. This in and of itself is not only one of the greatest accomplishments in SC2, but in all of esports. It's kind of hard to overestimate how insane this is. People can disagree with me, but I think it's impossible to discuss the GOAT argument in sufficient detail in five minutes. In an ideal world you would have to take Rogue's performances in Proleague (he was never an ace player, but was very solid), his lack of individual results pre 2017, the fact that his win percentage is wanting (compared to other goat candidates) in long running tournaments (Code S) as well as on a year by year basis into account. Head to head matters as well, just as analyzing the strength of the field in the events in which he won (or was eliminated surprisingly early) without incorporating too much subjectivity. The 13-1 record in premier finals is a huge point in his favor but, you also need to look at how he performed in the R8 and R4 over the years (a great example is soO, who is 0-6 in Code S finals, but 13-1 in the quarter/semifinals). Artosis raises some good points, but bonjwa is an absurdly nebulous term and you need way more context to establish what "Great" means in the context of the rankings and how "Greatest player" differs from "Greatest Career". I personally feel like Rogue's combined achievements place him ahead of Mvp (who I had fourth), but his lack of consistency set him on a tier below Serral and Maru. I'm cutting this short because I could go on and on about all the elements that go into something like this (this is my opinion so, again, feel free to disagree), but I'm 100% certain that you can't cover all the factors listed above (let alone apply them when discussing one players profile versus another's) in that amount of time. Agree to disagree. I live and work in a world in which if you can’t present your argument in 5 minutes, it’s probably because your argument isn’t very good. I don’t think that’s the case with you, but I would also ask you whether this volume of back-and-forth in this forum has added more illumination than heat with all this “detail.” It’s often the case that spewing “detail” serves to obfuscate more than clarify, which is why you see folks just throwing out random “details” like how much money someone made if they think it’ll bolster their argument. It’s much more important to be clear about your definitions, values, methodologies, which further clarifies which details, factors, and elements are important, and which are not. It really depends on what you’re attempting to argue. Complex problems can require complex solutions. You see this being a very apparent phenomenon in politics where the folks who promise simple solutions to complex problems appear to many to be the more convincing to many a voter because folks respond better to confident assertions than a ‘well this issue is complicated and I’m not sure about x’. Doesn’t necessarily give us good policy. Miz alluded to this complexity from the off and did at least explain his methodology pretty damn thoroughly. Not saying you didn’t, but it’s not really his fault that other people critical of his list didn’t actually read all his rationales. I mean I’ve long said there are too many incomparable factors to really have a definitive GOAT anyway, it’s a hell of a lot easier in BW which had a pretty consistent competition structure for most of its pro shelf life Rogue was still a good player in the Proleague era, but perhaps an A class player and not an S class killer like someone like Innovation, or a Maru/Zest and players like that. He clearly did become that S class player from 2017 onwards, but equally Maru won 4 GSLs in a row shortly after. Serral’s got a ridiculous resume in that span with similar big accomplishments but a consistency nobody else has ever really had. In combination it feels hard to stick Rogue at #1 and I think his finals record gives him more a ‘most clutch’ cache and is a tad overrated re overall greatness. I know that’s an unpopular opinion but it’s to me indicative of a streaky player who’s great when they’re in the zone. If somebody could correct me, as I briefly scanned it the other day I don’t think Serral has a worse than Ro8 performance in some 6/7 years of competition, has won more tournaments and has better win rates than anyone in that span. Rogue’s finals record does attest to his ability to perform on the big stage when it counts, but the flipside of it given he frequently would drop out early in tournaments where he wasn’t making finals is ‘when Rogue is in good form he’ll win, and when he isn’t he doesn’t make finals’. Whereas a player who can still drag himself to a final even out of form and by sheer force of will and lose it will still ultimately get the loss in that column. For me one of Mvp’s greatest achievements was even reaching a GSL finals against Life despite injuries clearly impacting his play to the degree he changed style considerably, and still almost pulled it off. Rogue also has lost finals which is why the stat kept morphing until it’s ‘has never lost a finals in a Bo7 offline’ form it currently is. Which is still bloody impressive but the more caveats you add to a stat the less impressive it becomes. In short I think you probably need a little more than 5 minutes for this one! I want to clarify that I think Miz and the editorial team did a really wonderful job with the article series. I think the articles are very well written and the arguments are cogent. I personally enjoy all the detail and context. In fact, what I perhaps enjoyed most about the article series was the intro article explaining the methodology. It was very well done and frankly I think most of the disputes here come down to disagreeing with the methodology. My only point was that I don't think you need all this extra context to make a simple and straightforward case, and that sometimes when you go down the rabbit hole, you end up losing the forest for the trees (mixed metaphors, sorry....). Regarding Rogue I don't think the argument is that complicated. He has similar international WC-tier tourney results to Serral plus the 4 GSLs so depending on how much value you put on one tournament category versus the other it's very easy to see how Rogue could be the GOAT. Regarding Serral, I don't think the argument is that complicated. He has the best international WC-tier tourney results, and is widely considered to be the "best" player to ever play the game both in terms of perception of his peers and his head-to-head win rates against other top players. Regarding Maru, I don't think the argument is that complicated. He has the ridiculous GSL wins, and is the only one to be a dominant player in the most competitive eras of SC2 (via his KIL and Proleague performances). There's a lot more that can be said, but I don't think you lose a lot by boiling it down like this, and if anything it helps clarify where the fault lines are.
As I alluded to with politics, and you did through legal advocacy and the skill set required, persuasion in making a clear, concise argument is important. Although I was a bit more negative in how we’re susceptible to confident assertions as a species, be that some innate biological trait or something more cultural.
I do basically agree here actually, but it’s a 1-2 punch of sorts. You need a strong core argument, then you deal with the complex stuff when you have to deal with likely, or emerging counter-arguments.
Your Serral argument is basically verbatim mine for example, I think it’s a pretty potent argument. Others do exist of course!
I guess it’s the difference between making a clear, compelling argument, which is simple enough, versus arriving at a generally accepted answer, which is considerably harder.
Going back to say the political realm it’s extremely easy to make a ‘poverty is bad’ argument, but gaining consensus on its root causes never mind solutions is exceptionally difficult
|
United States1798 Posts
On July 02 2024 02:37 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2024 00:28 rwala wrote:On June 29 2024 22:48 WombaT wrote:On June 29 2024 21:47 rwala wrote:On June 29 2024 11:42 Mizenhauer wrote:On June 29 2024 08:27 rwala wrote:On June 29 2024 04:57 Bennito_bh wrote:
The Rogue angle is a bit silly TBF, though as a solid 3rd-4th place contender it certainly isn't absurd by any stretch. It only works if you rate GSLs as high as Kato/BCs and ignore Maru's better Proleague record. Rogue's more of an $o$ figure than GOAT material - albeit with more success in Korea - albeit he only did that in the period where Zerg was vastly overperforming relative to T and P.
From what I've read the community's backlash against Arty has less to do with the claim and more to do with how he presents it. Insulting people and treating them like morons may generate engagement (and thus $$) on a Twitch stream, but it does not actually help when presenting yourself as a credible source. Whether he presents himself as a credible source is beside the point. He is a credible source, but that's also beside the point, because he presents a sound argument. I actually think Arty has done a better job than anyone at very clearly and concisely defining what GOAT means, and explaining his reasoning for why Rogue is the GOAT in less than 5 minutes with a very simple chart that compares accomplishments. Which is why he doesn't get into excuses like you're doing with the above balance whining or random irrelevant things like how much money someone made. Arty's the only one who has explained the difference betweeen a bonjwa and the GOAT, and explained why head-to-head records are not the appropriate metric (e.g. some progamers have winning head-to-head records against Flash, the undisputed BW GOAT). He persuaded me, and I am not someone who is inclined to want to attribute GOAT status to Rogue. One thing I'm not sure Arty touched on was Rogue's insane 13-1 offline tournament finals record. This in and of itself is not only one of the greatest accomplishments in SC2, but in all of esports. It's kind of hard to overestimate how insane this is. People can disagree with me, but I think it's impossible to discuss the GOAT argument in sufficient detail in five minutes. In an ideal world you would have to take Rogue's performances in Proleague (he was never an ace player, but was very solid), his lack of individual results pre 2017, the fact that his win percentage is wanting (compared to other goat candidates) in long running tournaments (Code S) as well as on a year by year basis into account. Head to head matters as well, just as analyzing the strength of the field in the events in which he won (or was eliminated surprisingly early) without incorporating too much subjectivity. The 13-1 record in premier finals is a huge point in his favor but, you also need to look at how he performed in the R8 and R4 over the years (a great example is soO, who is 0-6 in Code S finals, but 13-1 in the quarter/semifinals). Artosis raises some good points, but bonjwa is an absurdly nebulous term and you need way more context to establish what "Great" means in the context of the rankings and how "Greatest player" differs from "Greatest Career". I personally feel like Rogue's combined achievements place him ahead of Mvp (who I had fourth), but his lack of consistency set him on a tier below Serral and Maru. I'm cutting this short because I could go on and on about all the elements that go into something like this (this is my opinion so, again, feel free to disagree), but I'm 100% certain that you can't cover all the factors listed above (let alone apply them when discussing one players profile versus another's) in that amount of time. Agree to disagree. I live and work in a world in which if you can’t present your argument in 5 minutes, it’s probably because your argument isn’t very good. I don’t think that’s the case with you, but I would also ask you whether this volume of back-and-forth in this forum has added more illumination than heat with all this “detail.” It’s often the case that spewing “detail” serves to obfuscate more than clarify, which is why you see folks just throwing out random “details” like how much money someone made if they think it’ll bolster their argument. It’s much more important to be clear about your definitions, values, methodologies, which further clarifies which details, factors, and elements are important, and which are not. It really depends on what you’re attempting to argue. Complex problems can require complex solutions. You see this being a very apparent phenomenon in politics where the folks who promise simple solutions to complex problems appear to many to be the more convincing to many a voter because folks respond better to confident assertions than a ‘well this issue is complicated and I’m not sure about x’. Doesn’t necessarily give us good policy. Miz alluded to this complexity from the off and did at least explain his methodology pretty damn thoroughly. Not saying you didn’t, but it’s not really his fault that other people critical of his list didn’t actually read all his rationales. I mean I’ve long said there are too many incomparable factors to really have a definitive GOAT anyway, it’s a hell of a lot easier in BW which had a pretty consistent competition structure for most of its pro shelf life Rogue was still a good player in the Proleague era, but perhaps an A class player and not an S class killer like someone like Innovation, or a Maru/Zest and players like that. He clearly did become that S class player from 2017 onwards, but equally Maru won 4 GSLs in a row shortly after. Serral’s got a ridiculous resume in that span with similar big accomplishments but a consistency nobody else has ever really had. In combination it feels hard to stick Rogue at #1 and I think his finals record gives him more a ‘most clutch’ cache and is a tad overrated re overall greatness. I know that’s an unpopular opinion but it’s to me indicative of a streaky player who’s great when they’re in the zone. If somebody could correct me, as I briefly scanned it the other day I don’t think Serral has a worse than Ro8 performance in some 6/7 years of competition, has won more tournaments and has better win rates than anyone in that span. Rogue’s finals record does attest to his ability to perform on the big stage when it counts, but the flipside of it given he frequently would drop out early in tournaments where he wasn’t making finals is ‘when Rogue is in good form he’ll win, and when he isn’t he doesn’t make finals’. Whereas a player who can still drag himself to a final even out of form and by sheer force of will and lose it will still ultimately get the loss in that column. For me one of Mvp’s greatest achievements was even reaching a GSL finals against Life despite injuries clearly impacting his play to the degree he changed style considerably, and still almost pulled it off. Rogue also has lost finals which is why the stat kept morphing until it’s ‘has never lost a finals in a Bo7 offline’ form it currently is. Which is still bloody impressive but the more caveats you add to a stat the less impressive it becomes. In short I think you probably need a little more than 5 minutes for this one! I want to clarify that I think Miz and the editorial team did a really wonderful job with the article series. I think the articles are very well written and the arguments are cogent. I personally enjoy all the detail and context. In fact, what I perhaps enjoyed most about the article series was the intro article explaining the methodology. It was very well done and frankly I think most of the disputes here come down to disagreeing with the methodology. My only point was that I don't think you need all this extra context to make a simple and straightforward case, and that sometimes when you go down the rabbit hole, you end up losing the forest for the trees (mixed metaphors, sorry....). Regarding Rogue I don't think the argument is that complicated. He has similar international WC-tier tourney results to Serral plus the 4 GSLs so depending on how much value you put on one tournament category versus the other it's very easy to see how Rogue could be the GOAT. Regarding Serral, I don't think the argument is that complicated. He has the best international WC-tier tourney results, and is widely considered to be the "best" player to ever play the game both in terms of perception of his peers and his head-to-head win rates against other top players. Regarding Maru, I don't think the argument is that complicated. He has the ridiculous GSL wins, and is the only one to be a dominant player in the most competitive eras of SC2 (via his KIL and Proleague performances). There's a lot more that can be said, but I don't think you lose a lot by boiling it down like this, and if anything it helps clarify where the fault lines are. As I alluded to with politics, and you did through legal advocacy and the skill set required, persuasion in making a clear, concise argument is important. Although I was a bit more negative in how we’re susceptible to confident assertions as a species, be that some innate biological trait or something more cultural. I do basically agree here actually, but it’s a 1-2 punch of sorts. You need a strong core argument, then you deal with the complex stuff when you have to deal with likely, or emerging counter-arguments. Your Serral argument is basically verbatim mine for example, I think it’s a pretty potent argument. Others do exist of course! I guess it’s the difference between making a clear, compelling argument, which is simple enough, versus arriving at a generally accepted answer, which is considerably harder. Going back to say the political realm it’s extremely easy to make a ‘poverty is bad’ argument, but gaining consensus on its root causes never mind solutions is exceptionally difficult
Wax and I attempted to do a TLDR with the bullet points at the top of each piece so readers could choice how much time they wanted to invest sorting through the nuances of each player's case. I would always encourage people to read the entire piece because we're all vain, attention seeking humans, but I understand that sometimes people just skip to the end and shit on the predictions :D
I also situationally agree with those who are saying that a proposal/argument/similar type deal needs to be succinct, but I really think it comes down to what field you're in and the industry standard. Submitting books to a literary agent (something I've done a lot) varies from agency to agency. Sometimes they want a 10 page sample with a (fill in the number of words) synopsis. Other times they just want a paragraph or two to see if it's worth asking for more material. Either way, you don't have a lot of space to make your case when you're pitching a 100k+ word book, but you just have to make due with the opportunity you're given,
Thankfully, the wonderful editors (and other staff members) on tl.net (wax, olli, cosmicspiral etc) have frequently given me the leniency to indulge in some meandering musings along the way.
|
On July 02 2024 13:33 Mizenhauer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2024 02:37 WombaT wrote:On July 02 2024 00:28 rwala wrote:On June 29 2024 22:48 WombaT wrote:On June 29 2024 21:47 rwala wrote:On June 29 2024 11:42 Mizenhauer wrote:On June 29 2024 08:27 rwala wrote:On June 29 2024 04:57 Bennito_bh wrote:
The Rogue angle is a bit silly TBF, though as a solid 3rd-4th place contender it certainly isn't absurd by any stretch. It only works if you rate GSLs as high as Kato/BCs and ignore Maru's better Proleague record. Rogue's more of an $o$ figure than GOAT material - albeit with more success in Korea - albeit he only did that in the period where Zerg was vastly overperforming relative to T and P.
From what I've read the community's backlash against Arty has less to do with the claim and more to do with how he presents it. Insulting people and treating them like morons may generate engagement (and thus $$) on a Twitch stream, but it does not actually help when presenting yourself as a credible source. Whether he presents himself as a credible source is beside the point. He is a credible source, but that's also beside the point, because he presents a sound argument. I actually think Arty has done a better job than anyone at very clearly and concisely defining what GOAT means, and explaining his reasoning for why Rogue is the GOAT in less than 5 minutes with a very simple chart that compares accomplishments. Which is why he doesn't get into excuses like you're doing with the above balance whining or random irrelevant things like how much money someone made. Arty's the only one who has explained the difference betweeen a bonjwa and the GOAT, and explained why head-to-head records are not the appropriate metric (e.g. some progamers have winning head-to-head records against Flash, the undisputed BW GOAT). He persuaded me, and I am not someone who is inclined to want to attribute GOAT status to Rogue. One thing I'm not sure Arty touched on was Rogue's insane 13-1 offline tournament finals record. This in and of itself is not only one of the greatest accomplishments in SC2, but in all of esports. It's kind of hard to overestimate how insane this is. People can disagree with me, but I think it's impossible to discuss the GOAT argument in sufficient detail in five minutes. In an ideal world you would have to take Rogue's performances in Proleague (he was never an ace player, but was very solid), his lack of individual results pre 2017, the fact that his win percentage is wanting (compared to other goat candidates) in long running tournaments (Code S) as well as on a year by year basis into account. Head to head matters as well, just as analyzing the strength of the field in the events in which he won (or was eliminated surprisingly early) without incorporating too much subjectivity. The 13-1 record in premier finals is a huge point in his favor but, you also need to look at how he performed in the R8 and R4 over the years (a great example is soO, who is 0-6 in Code S finals, but 13-1 in the quarter/semifinals). Artosis raises some good points, but bonjwa is an absurdly nebulous term and you need way more context to establish what "Great" means in the context of the rankings and how "Greatest player" differs from "Greatest Career". I personally feel like Rogue's combined achievements place him ahead of Mvp (who I had fourth), but his lack of consistency set him on a tier below Serral and Maru. I'm cutting this short because I could go on and on about all the elements that go into something like this (this is my opinion so, again, feel free to disagree), but I'm 100% certain that you can't cover all the factors listed above (let alone apply them when discussing one players profile versus another's) in that amount of time. Agree to disagree. I live and work in a world in which if you can’t present your argument in 5 minutes, it’s probably because your argument isn’t very good. I don’t think that’s the case with you, but I would also ask you whether this volume of back-and-forth in this forum has added more illumination than heat with all this “detail.” It’s often the case that spewing “detail” serves to obfuscate more than clarify, which is why you see folks just throwing out random “details” like how much money someone made if they think it’ll bolster their argument. It’s much more important to be clear about your definitions, values, methodologies, which further clarifies which details, factors, and elements are important, and which are not. It really depends on what you’re attempting to argue. Complex problems can require complex solutions. You see this being a very apparent phenomenon in politics where the folks who promise simple solutions to complex problems appear to many to be the more convincing to many a voter because folks respond better to confident assertions than a ‘well this issue is complicated and I’m not sure about x’. Doesn’t necessarily give us good policy. Miz alluded to this complexity from the off and did at least explain his methodology pretty damn thoroughly. Not saying you didn’t, but it’s not really his fault that other people critical of his list didn’t actually read all his rationales. I mean I’ve long said there are too many incomparable factors to really have a definitive GOAT anyway, it’s a hell of a lot easier in BW which had a pretty consistent competition structure for most of its pro shelf life Rogue was still a good player in the Proleague era, but perhaps an A class player and not an S class killer like someone like Innovation, or a Maru/Zest and players like that. He clearly did become that S class player from 2017 onwards, but equally Maru won 4 GSLs in a row shortly after. Serral’s got a ridiculous resume in that span with similar big accomplishments but a consistency nobody else has ever really had. In combination it feels hard to stick Rogue at #1 and I think his finals record gives him more a ‘most clutch’ cache and is a tad overrated re overall greatness. I know that’s an unpopular opinion but it’s to me indicative of a streaky player who’s great when they’re in the zone. If somebody could correct me, as I briefly scanned it the other day I don’t think Serral has a worse than Ro8 performance in some 6/7 years of competition, has won more tournaments and has better win rates than anyone in that span. Rogue’s finals record does attest to his ability to perform on the big stage when it counts, but the flipside of it given he frequently would drop out early in tournaments where he wasn’t making finals is ‘when Rogue is in good form he’ll win, and when he isn’t he doesn’t make finals’. Whereas a player who can still drag himself to a final even out of form and by sheer force of will and lose it will still ultimately get the loss in that column. For me one of Mvp’s greatest achievements was even reaching a GSL finals against Life despite injuries clearly impacting his play to the degree he changed style considerably, and still almost pulled it off. Rogue also has lost finals which is why the stat kept morphing until it’s ‘has never lost a finals in a Bo7 offline’ form it currently is. Which is still bloody impressive but the more caveats you add to a stat the less impressive it becomes. In short I think you probably need a little more than 5 minutes for this one! I want to clarify that I think Miz and the editorial team did a really wonderful job with the article series. I think the articles are very well written and the arguments are cogent. I personally enjoy all the detail and context. In fact, what I perhaps enjoyed most about the article series was the intro article explaining the methodology. It was very well done and frankly I think most of the disputes here come down to disagreeing with the methodology. My only point was that I don't think you need all this extra context to make a simple and straightforward case, and that sometimes when you go down the rabbit hole, you end up losing the forest for the trees (mixed metaphors, sorry....). Regarding Rogue I don't think the argument is that complicated. He has similar international WC-tier tourney results to Serral plus the 4 GSLs so depending on how much value you put on one tournament category versus the other it's very easy to see how Rogue could be the GOAT. Regarding Serral, I don't think the argument is that complicated. He has the best international WC-tier tourney results, and is widely considered to be the "best" player to ever play the game both in terms of perception of his peers and his head-to-head win rates against other top players. Regarding Maru, I don't think the argument is that complicated. He has the ridiculous GSL wins, and is the only one to be a dominant player in the most competitive eras of SC2 (via his KIL and Proleague performances). There's a lot more that can be said, but I don't think you lose a lot by boiling it down like this, and if anything it helps clarify where the fault lines are. As I alluded to with politics, and you did through legal advocacy and the skill set required, persuasion in making a clear, concise argument is important. Although I was a bit more negative in how we’re susceptible to confident assertions as a species, be that some innate biological trait or something more cultural. I do basically agree here actually, but it’s a 1-2 punch of sorts. You need a strong core argument, then you deal with the complex stuff when you have to deal with likely, or emerging counter-arguments. Your Serral argument is basically verbatim mine for example, I think it’s a pretty potent argument. Others do exist of course! I guess it’s the difference between making a clear, compelling argument, which is simple enough, versus arriving at a generally accepted answer, which is considerably harder. Going back to say the political realm it’s extremely easy to make a ‘poverty is bad’ argument, but gaining consensus on its root causes never mind solutions is exceptionally difficult Wax and I attempted to do a TLDR with the bullet points at the top of each piece so readers could choice how much time they wanted to invest sorting through the nuances of each player's case. I would always encourage people to read the entire piece because we're all vain, attention seeking humans, but I understand that sometimes people just skip to the end and shit on the predictions :D I also situationally agree with those who are saying that a proposal/argument/similar type deal needs to be succinct, but I really think it comes down to what field you're in and the industry standard. Submitting books to a literary agent (something I've done a lot) varies from agency to agency. Sometimes they want a 10 page sample with a (fill in the number of words) synopsis. Other times they just want a paragraph or two to see if it's worth asking for more material. Either way, you don't have a lot of space to make your case when you're pitching a 100k+ word book, but you just have to make due with the opportunity you're given, Thankfully, the wonderful editors (and other staff members) on tl.net (wax, olli, cosmicspiral etc) have frequently given me the leniency to indulge in some meandering musings along the way.
And we are grateful for it. We could simply have put a triangle with (GSLs, WCs, winrate consistency) on vertices and (Maru, Rogue, Serral) on edges on the first page, but where's the fun in that ?
Although, nice to finally have found the one lawyer unconcerned with charging by the hour 
|
Miz is the goat + is right unless someone else writes such an awesome article. gg serral, gg.
|
On July 02 2024 01:48 rwala wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2024 00:31 Balnazza wrote:On July 01 2024 23:31 rwala wrote:On June 30 2024 20:37 Balnazza wrote:On June 29 2024 21:47 rwala wrote:On June 29 2024 11:42 Mizenhauer wrote:On June 29 2024 08:27 rwala wrote:On June 29 2024 04:57 Bennito_bh wrote:
The Rogue angle is a bit silly TBF, though as a solid 3rd-4th place contender it certainly isn't absurd by any stretch. It only works if you rate GSLs as high as Kato/BCs and ignore Maru's better Proleague record. Rogue's more of an $o$ figure than GOAT material - albeit with more success in Korea - albeit he only did that in the period where Zerg was vastly overperforming relative to T and P.
From what I've read the community's backlash against Arty has less to do with the claim and more to do with how he presents it. Insulting people and treating them like morons may generate engagement (and thus $$) on a Twitch stream, but it does not actually help when presenting yourself as a credible source. Whether he presents himself as a credible source is beside the point. He is a credible source, but that's also beside the point, because he presents a sound argument. I actually think Arty has done a better job than anyone at very clearly and concisely defining what GOAT means, and explaining his reasoning for why Rogue is the GOAT in less than 5 minutes with a very simple chart that compares accomplishments. Which is why he doesn't get into excuses like you're doing with the above balance whining or random irrelevant things like how much money someone made. Arty's the only one who has explained the difference betweeen a bonjwa and the GOAT, and explained why head-to-head records are not the appropriate metric (e.g. some progamers have winning head-to-head records against Flash, the undisputed BW GOAT). He persuaded me, and I am not someone who is inclined to want to attribute GOAT status to Rogue. One thing I'm not sure Arty touched on was Rogue's insane 13-1 offline tournament finals record. This in and of itself is not only one of the greatest accomplishments in SC2, but in all of esports. It's kind of hard to overestimate how insane this is. People can disagree with me, but I think it's impossible to discuss the GOAT argument in sufficient detail in five minutes. In an ideal world you would have to take Rogue's performances in Proleague (he was never an ace player, but was very solid), his lack of individual results pre 2017, the fact that his win percentage is wanting (compared to other goat candidates) in long running tournaments (Code S) as well as on a year by year basis into account. Head to head matters as well, just as analyzing the strength of the field in the events in which he won (or was eliminated surprisingly early) without incorporating too much subjectivity. The 13-1 record in premier finals is a huge point in his favor but, you also need to look at how he performed in the R8 and R4 over the years (a great example is soO, who is 0-6 in Code S finals, but 13-1 in the quarter/semifinals). Artosis raises some good points, but bonjwa is an absurdly nebulous term and you need way more context to establish what "Great" means in the context of the rankings and how "Greatest player" differs from "Greatest Career". I personally feel like Rogue's combined achievements place him ahead of Mvp (who I had fourth), but his lack of consistency set him on a tier below Serral and Maru. I'm cutting this short because I could go on and on about all the elements that go into something like this (this is my opinion so, again, feel free to disagree), but I'm 100% certain that you can't cover all the factors listed above (let alone apply them when discussing one players profile versus another's) in that amount of time. Agree to disagree. I live and work in a world in which if you can’t present your argument in 5 minutes, it’s probably because your argument isn’t very good. So...not a scientific field then? Because if there is one things scientist universally can't do is keeping it short. And that is good. Because keeping it short means omitting things. Not "trivia", but actual important data, facts or even speculations. If you explain your data and reasoning, yes, you make yourself vulnerable. But you make yourself even more vulnerable if you just willy-nilly throw out your arguments and don't cover as much ground as possible. This gets more true the bigger the scope of the problem at hand. Yes, if you need to decide what colour your office should be painted in, the argument should be done in under five minutes, otherwise you ramble. But if you want to cover a very hard to quantify era of 14 years of professional SC2 over three different iterations...I might think five minutes could cut it tight just a tad. I'm a lawyer, but I work in advocacy, 90% of which is figuring out how to persuade people. And ironically the science on this is very clear, which is that long, voluminous interventions don't tend to persuade because, again, it's just very easy to get lost in the details and lose track of what is important and why. Your point about science is interesting. Most scientists I know don't even need words, they can just look at the data. Even longer academic scientific articles are largely descriptive, not normative, and a very significant amount of the text is devoted to simply explaining the methodology so the reader can understand what the data means. There's very little by way of "argumentation" in science as the scientific method is largely about data development and observation. If science is what you're looking for, you have found very little of it in these threads, and the closest thing you'll get is some regression analysis that will require many more tables and graphs and many fewer words. that depends in what field of science you work. You can only describe data if you have definitive data and a clear set of executing them correctly. I work in a field in which data is often not available easily, tends to be contradicting or you first have to filter out any bias out of the raw sources. And I promise you, historians can not cut themselves short...german historians in fact are notorious for not even being able to keep their book-titles short. And this discussion is much more one close to history than physic for example. You have different eras, different weighting systems, different parameters. And in the end, you can only form an argument-based opinion. But for that, you have to explain your arguments, have to look at the different options, have to explain your own weighting-systems. Did this discussion convince someone to change sides from Serral to Maru or vice-versa? No, probably not, at best a few people. But did it enlight me about the things other people look for in a GOAT, the way they see the history of SC2? Yes, tremendously. If I had just said at the start "Serral is the best because A and B and C" and then never visited this or other threads, I would have continued my life thinking "Serral is the undisputed GOAT and there is literally no argument against it"...which would be false and very narrow-minded. So yes, I enjoy this discussions, even if they might not convince someone to change sides. But that isn't necessarily the goal of science. There will never be a 100% clear scientific answer who is the GOAT, because there is no data-point for GOATness. If you ask "who is the best at throwing a spear?", the guy who threw it the farthest in a fair enviroment is clearly the World Record Holder. But if you ask who is the GOAT of throwing a spear...is it the guy who holds the WR or is it the other guy who beat the WR-Holder three Olympics in a row? And there you already have to do a weighting. And with that, it leaves the clear cut-and-dry field of STEM-science. (Disclaimer: I have literally no clue about or interesting in Spear-Throwing, it was just an example...don't want to enrage the passionate Spear-Thrower community, since...well, they know how to throw a spear...) I agree you won't find a scientific answer to this question, but you're the one who raised science so I was just explaining that you're getting nothing like a scientific approach with all this data and "analysis" being thrown around in these forums. Most of it is obfuscating more than it's illuminating, which was my point. I also agree with you that much of this comes down to how you decide to weigh and value various factors, but I disagree that you need anything like a history dissertation to effectively do this. I did it in a few sentences in another post, but if that's too boiled down, surely it can be done in a few minutes. In my experience if you're not able to do that, your case is probably weak, or at minimum lacks clarity. For those who want more, the good news is you have it since thankfully Miz and the tl.net editors invested the time and energy to produce this series!
I'd push back a bit on these points. Science doesn't happen by forums, that's not how new materials are discovered or how nuclear fusion will be solved. It happens by publication in journals, and scientists taking months to expound on their findings and present the long-form in a paper, the short form (10-15 mins) in an oral at a conference, the TLDR (2 to 5 mins) on a poster.
So just because the TLDR is 'the GOAT case is a balanced (1/3, 1/3, 1/3) categorical between Maru, Serral and Rogue' doesn't mean there's not plenty of good stuff to be uncovered by exploratory data analysis, it just needs to be done carefully and presented clearly. That's months of work and dedication, and Miz' series is the closest we've got so far, so we should appreciate it consequently. We're evidently having fun and doing nothing of the hard scientific variety on the forum. But even the weightings point could be illuminated, if not solved, by meta-analyses.
Another point: this debate itself is in flux, as new SC2 results come in and make the situation evolve. For instance, much as I like Rogue, he's fallen quite behind the other 2 due to military. And ceteris paribus, it's very likely that Serral will keep on keeping on and soon present an indisputable GOAT case somewhere around next year on current trends [terms and conditions apply, the future is not written yet]. We should therefore enjoy this lengthy debate as much as we can while it's hot, and while things are, well, debatable.
|
On July 02 2024 01:48 rwala wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2024 00:31 Balnazza wrote:On July 01 2024 23:31 rwala wrote:On June 30 2024 20:37 Balnazza wrote:On June 29 2024 21:47 rwala wrote:On June 29 2024 11:42 Mizenhauer wrote:On June 29 2024 08:27 rwala wrote:On June 29 2024 04:57 Bennito_bh wrote:
The Rogue angle is a bit silly TBF, though as a solid 3rd-4th place contender it certainly isn't absurd by any stretch. It only works if you rate GSLs as high as Kato/BCs and ignore Maru's better Proleague record. Rogue's more of an $o$ figure than GOAT material - albeit with more success in Korea - albeit he only did that in the period where Zerg was vastly overperforming relative to T and P.
From what I've read the community's backlash against Arty has less to do with the claim and more to do with how he presents it. Insulting people and treating them like morons may generate engagement (and thus $$) on a Twitch stream, but it does not actually help when presenting yourself as a credible source. Whether he presents himself as a credible source is beside the point. He is a credible source, but that's also beside the point, because he presents a sound argument. I actually think Arty has done a better job than anyone at very clearly and concisely defining what GOAT means, and explaining his reasoning for why Rogue is the GOAT in less than 5 minutes with a very simple chart that compares accomplishments. Which is why he doesn't get into excuses like you're doing with the above balance whining or random irrelevant things like how much money someone made. Arty's the only one who has explained the difference betweeen a bonjwa and the GOAT, and explained why head-to-head records are not the appropriate metric (e.g. some progamers have winning head-to-head records against Flash, the undisputed BW GOAT). He persuaded me, and I am not someone who is inclined to want to attribute GOAT status to Rogue. One thing I'm not sure Arty touched on was Rogue's insane 13-1 offline tournament finals record. This in and of itself is not only one of the greatest accomplishments in SC2, but in all of esports. It's kind of hard to overestimate how insane this is. People can disagree with me, but I think it's impossible to discuss the GOAT argument in sufficient detail in five minutes. In an ideal world you would have to take Rogue's performances in Proleague (he was never an ace player, but was very solid), his lack of individual results pre 2017, the fact that his win percentage is wanting (compared to other goat candidates) in long running tournaments (Code S) as well as on a year by year basis into account. Head to head matters as well, just as analyzing the strength of the field in the events in which he won (or was eliminated surprisingly early) without incorporating too much subjectivity. The 13-1 record in premier finals is a huge point in his favor but, you also need to look at how he performed in the R8 and R4 over the years (a great example is soO, who is 0-6 in Code S finals, but 13-1 in the quarter/semifinals). Artosis raises some good points, but bonjwa is an absurdly nebulous term and you need way more context to establish what "Great" means in the context of the rankings and how "Greatest player" differs from "Greatest Career". I personally feel like Rogue's combined achievements place him ahead of Mvp (who I had fourth), but his lack of consistency set him on a tier below Serral and Maru. I'm cutting this short because I could go on and on about all the elements that go into something like this (this is my opinion so, again, feel free to disagree), but I'm 100% certain that you can't cover all the factors listed above (let alone apply them when discussing one players profile versus another's) in that amount of time. Agree to disagree. I live and work in a world in which if you can’t present your argument in 5 minutes, it’s probably because your argument isn’t very good. So...not a scientific field then? Because if there is one things scientist universally can't do is keeping it short. And that is good. Because keeping it short means omitting things. Not "trivia", but actual important data, facts or even speculations. If you explain your data and reasoning, yes, you make yourself vulnerable. But you make yourself even more vulnerable if you just willy-nilly throw out your arguments and don't cover as much ground as possible. This gets more true the bigger the scope of the problem at hand. Yes, if you need to decide what colour your office should be painted in, the argument should be done in under five minutes, otherwise you ramble. But if you want to cover a very hard to quantify era of 14 years of professional SC2 over three different iterations...I might think five minutes could cut it tight just a tad. I'm a lawyer, but I work in advocacy, 90% of which is figuring out how to persuade people. And ironically the science on this is very clear, which is that long, voluminous interventions don't tend to persuade because, again, it's just very easy to get lost in the details and lose track of what is important and why. Your point about science is interesting. Most scientists I know don't even need words, they can just look at the data. Even longer academic scientific articles are largely descriptive, not normative, and a very significant amount of the text is devoted to simply explaining the methodology so the reader can understand what the data means. There's very little by way of "argumentation" in science as the scientific method is largely about data development and observation. If science is what you're looking for, you have found very little of it in these threads, and the closest thing you'll get is some regression analysis that will require many more tables and graphs and many fewer words. that depends in what field of science you work. You can only describe data if you have definitive data and a clear set of executing them correctly. I work in a field in which data is often not available easily, tends to be contradicting or you first have to filter out any bias out of the raw sources. And I promise you, historians can not cut themselves short...german historians in fact are notorious for not even being able to keep their book-titles short. And this discussion is much more one close to history than physic for example. You have different eras, different weighting systems, different parameters. And in the end, you can only form an argument-based opinion. But for that, you have to explain your arguments, have to look at the different options, have to explain your own weighting-systems. Did this discussion convince someone to change sides from Serral to Maru or vice-versa? No, probably not, at best a few people. But did it enlight me about the things other people look for in a GOAT, the way they see the history of SC2? Yes, tremendously. If I had just said at the start "Serral is the best because A and B and C" and then never visited this or other threads, I would have continued my life thinking "Serral is the undisputed GOAT and there is literally no argument against it"...which would be false and very narrow-minded. So yes, I enjoy this discussions, even if they might not convince someone to change sides. But that isn't necessarily the goal of science. There will never be a 100% clear scientific answer who is the GOAT, because there is no data-point for GOATness. If you ask "who is the best at throwing a spear?", the guy who threw it the farthest in a fair enviroment is clearly the World Record Holder. But if you ask who is the GOAT of throwing a spear...is it the guy who holds the WR or is it the other guy who beat the WR-Holder three Olympics in a row? And there you already have to do a weighting. And with that, it leaves the clear cut-and-dry field of STEM-science. (Disclaimer: I have literally no clue about or interesting in Spear-Throwing, it was just an example...don't want to enrage the passionate Spear-Thrower community, since...well, they know how to throw a spear...) I agree you won't find a scientific answer to this question, but you're the one who raised science so I was just explaining that you're getting nothing like a scientific approach with all this data and "analysis" being thrown around in these forums. Most of it is obfuscating more than it's illuminating, which was my point. I also agree with you that much of this comes down to how you decide to weigh and value various factors, but I disagree that you need anything like a history dissertation to effectively do this. I did it in a few sentences in another post, but if that's too boiled down, surely it can be done in a few minutes. In my experience if you're not able to do that, your case is probably weak, or at minimum lacks clarity. For those who want more, the good news is you have it since thankfully Miz and the tl.net editors invested the time and energy to produce this series!
I guess I really wasted my time writing a ~300 page thesis for my doctorate.
My case was clearly weak and lacked clarity.
Miz has done a great job laying out his statistics-driven approach in his articles.
Because it's a statistics-driven approach, and because statistics is very much a science, full detail is needed for those who want to scrutinise the conclusions drawn. Those scrutinising the conclusions drawn are likely to provide similar levels of detail, else it'd be far too easy to ignore or dismiss a potential counter-argument.
If you're only interested in a summary of the conclusions drawn then that's fine, but that wasn't the purpose of the articles, nor does it need to be the direction of discourse surrounding the articles. It has nothing to do with anyone having a weak or unclear case.
EDIT:
There's very little by way of "argumentation" in science as the scientific method is largely about data development and observation.
You've clearly never seen what happens when two different professors interpret the same data in different ways...
|
Yeah, I was close to writing 'tell me you've never designed/patented an algorithm without telling me', but that's entirely too snarky given how earnestly and honestly rwala is making their point.
I wonder how many of us are STEM/quant PhDs on the forum, Poopi or another Frenchman has one too IIRC. There is a world in which we start a shared Overleaf... just sayin'...
|
France12758 Posts
On July 02 2024 17:50 MyLovelyLurker wrote:
Yeah, I was close to writing 'tell me you've never designed/patented an algorithm without telling me', but that's entirely too snarky given how earnestly and honestly rwala is making their point.
I wonder how many of us are STEM/quant PhDs on the forum, Poopi or another Frenchman has one too IIRC. There is a world in which we start a shared Overleaf... just sayin'...
Yeah I have one. And your talk about statistics reminded me I wanted to share in a blog or something my retroengineering work at the start of Miz list, or at least finish it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
