|
On February 06 2025 22:05 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2025 09:10 FataLe wrote:
Can we get a greatest plays of all time? Squirtle’s Archon toilet against Mvp has gotta be up there. Also not sure if intentionally amazing observing or fortuitous, but the fact the camera wasn’t following the Mommaship and it effectively appeared from nowhere at the edge of the screen really added to the hype.
That was the moment I was envisaging when i wrote that post. Nerd chills Tasteless.
|
On February 07 2025 03:13 WombaT wrote:
Ok, it’s not quite the same, and my tongue is somewhat in cheek here.
One of my big loves is cricket, for those not familiar it’s somewhat similar to baseball (kinda). Anyway you got 11 a side, you try to hit a ball and score runs. The opposing side tries to get you out when bowling, which is basically throwing the ball but it has to bounce at some stage. You’ve 2 batsman ‘at the crease’ at any one time, but one ‘on strike’ i.e. directly facing a bowler. You can score a run by hitting the ball and running to the other end where your partner is, and they have to make the same ‘run’. You can absolute smack the ball to the boundary of the ground, you get 4 runs if it does so while touching the ground, 6 if you clean smack it over. Your primary task to avoid getting out is defending your ‘wicket’ of 3 stumps, but you can also be out if a bowler hits a delivery that you hit in the air, and someone catches it without it touching the ground. You can also be out ‘LBW’ (leg before wicket), in the case where a ball would have hit your stumps, but you blocked it with your leg rather than bat. Finally you can be run-out, so if you’re running between the wickets and the fielding team hits your wicket with a ball while you’re in the middle you’re also out. In a ‘Test match’ which can last 5 days, each team has 2 innings batting.
While numbers may vary somewhat, you tend to have maybe 7 specialist batsman at most, and 4 bowlers. All-rounders exist, who can bat and bowl very well, but broadly it’s a 7-4 balance, perhaps 6-5 at times.
Ok cricket primer being done.
It’s one of the oldest international sports going, so there’s records back a hell of a while. As opposed to something like football (soccer), it’s also very amenable to straight stats (like something like baseball)
A good test batsman, their average runs per innings in a test match, if it’s in the 40s to mid 40s, that’s very decent. An elite test player averages mid 50s. Some have averaged in the 60s, but from a handful of matches.
Regardless of era, that’s somewhat vaguely consistent, in the ballpark. Brian Lara 52, Sachin Tendulkur 53, Ricky Ponting at 51 for titans whose peak was in the 90s through 2000s. Steve Smith is rocking a 56 and Joe Root a 50.8 of some notable players of the 2010s through now vintage. Viv Richard’s rocked a 50.2 in the 70s thru 90s. (Sir) Garfield Sobers a 57 between 1954 and 1974.
I could keep going, also for the record these are like absolute all-timers, feature on GOAT lists, best of their time batsmen.
Donald Bradman averages 99.94 between 1928 and 1948.
It’s so, preposterously high that most cricket fans have their GOAT debate on who is number 2. The best of his contemporaries were in the 50s, as is consistent with over a century of ‘great Test batsmen do that, that’s the number’. Which has broadly been true over a century of cricket.
Nobody else in the history of the game has a career average even in the 60s, with a handful of players who didn’t play that many games admittedly. Who weren’t mainstays over a long period. Outside of the South African Graeme Pollock who has a 60.97 average.
The point of this post is, cricket’s been a thing for a long time. Era arguments exist there as well. People will argue about x 1990s player versus x 2010 player versus x 1970s player for days, because yeah their numbers are pretty similar, so the era does make a difference.
People don’t really do this with Don Bradman. He’s averaging over 40 more than everyone else, that number is too big. If the gap between Bradman and everyone else was a Test player, they’d be a solid international class batsman, a genuinely good player in their own right.
To bring it back to Starcraft, I think Serral’s numbers start to approach this. Not as extreme, sure. But they’re just so much higher that they start to transcend the ability to neuter them through other metrics.
Where the Don averaged 40 higher than basically every other cricketer ever, so Serral has a winrate like 15% higher than anyone else.
As I believe it was Stalin said, sometimes quantity has a quality all of its own.
If say, in an alternative universe Bradman averaged almost 100, but a bunch of his peers were in the 80s thru 90s, people would consider it differently.
But Bradman stands alone in over a century and, while not to the same degree so does Serral.
Nobody’s even close. It’s not 85% Serral’s best year, it’s 85% his average across 7/8 years.
It’s also almost bang on 85% online and offline. Like almost exactly 85 in both domains.
The numbers are silly. Say, herO’s a great player but if you take Serral’s gap over #2, over 7 years and minus it from herO’s winrate he’s losing more than he’s winning. That’s the degree of the gap.
Mvp, great player. On BW skill basically by far the best player to switch in WoL. Clearly the King of Wings. Won a lot. Didn’t even remotely approach that kind of win rate. Kespa era ok more competitive, hard to find that big edge but nobody got close then either. Post-Kespa, Serral is further beyond the other leading competitors than they are to those behind them, and not insignificantly so either.
When’s the last time Serral bombed out properly early in a tournament? He’s so good that people still remember Rag beat him 3-2 in a Ro8 World Championship game, and that’s a bad result. He lost to Clem or Reynor in either EU Ro4s or finals and losing are bad results.
You are probably right about the tournament title notion in regards to the 33% argument.
And you raise valid points. I might add the following as to why I think that this “Prime Era”-argument against Serral’s GOAT claim for me doesn’t really kick it.
Although it is a valid notion to some extent, I believe the importance is often overstated.
Even if we assume that the number of pro players in a tournament has significantly decreased, the practical impact on Serral’s dominance wouldn’t be that high.
For example: Adding more herO-like players, as you called it, to - for example - IEM 2024 would add a couple of groups and perhaps 1 more knockout stage to the tournament.
Given Serral’s 85% win rate, it’s unlikely that harder groups and this extra round would drastically alter his overall trophy count. While there would certainly be tournaments where he might have not made the group stage and dropped a series or two earlier due to the increased competition, the probability of this happening frequently enough to prevent him from being the most decorated player remains low, especially if we acknowledge the fact that we’d have to adjust the prime player’s trophy counts as well, as they would have to play against Serral, Clem, Reynor, MaxPax, etc.
Just to showcase his absurd win rates: Serral in 2018 was roughly 18% points higher than his fellow GOAT contenders in match win rates. In 2019 17% higher than Rogue and 13% higher than Maru. Except for Serral’s weakest year in 2021 where he “only” achieved 70,31% and Maru finished 6% higher, there is no single, relevant statistic where Serral is placed 2nd (match win rates, tournament-participation-win-rate and average placement) in any of his post-school years.
Most pros never even reached more than 65% in their whole career once.
Another key aspect that often gets overlooked in the “weaker era” argument is which part of the player base actually declined. While it’s true that the overall number of Korean professionals has decreased, the biggest drop-off has been among Tier 2 and Tier 3 (or even lesser) Korean players - those who were skilled but typically didn’t make deep tournament runs..
Yes, there were rare moments when lower-tier Korean players eliminated top-tier ones, but these were upsets, not the norm. The fact that such upsets were surprising in the first place suggests that these lower-tier players were not consistently competitive with the best. Their absence in later years meant fewer total competitors, but it didn’t fundamentally change the difficulty of winning a premier event, given how the better players mostly advanced and that you wouldn’t have to win that many more matches to actually win a tournament.
Another crucial factor is that Serral’s win rates are likely deflated compared to top Koreans. Unlike Maru, Rogue, or INnoVation, who had the opportunity to boost their career win percentages by facing lower-tier Korean opponents in domestic qualifiers and smaller Korean events, Serral only played the best Koreans on the biggest international stages. This means that while his recorded win rate, average placement and tournament-participation-win-rate might actually drop a little, this effect could be partly compensated by this Korean inflation, especially in later years when non-Koreans like Serral, Reynor, Clem and MaxPax reversed the roles and now many players have worse win rates versus all players than versus Koreans.
Another important factor when comparing different competitive eras is how tournament structures impact average placement statistics. In larger tournaments with extra rounds, a player may have to face strong opponents earlier than they would in a smaller event.
For example, if a player like Serral faced Clem in the first round of a Ro64 and lost, and Clem went on to win the entire tournament, the overall result of the event (or the tournament-participation-win-rate) would not change - the best player at that event still won, whether Serral was defeated in the Ro 64 or Ro8. The only difference is that Serral would have a lower average placement (and potentially less points in a score that factors in 3rd, 4th and less places) due to when he lost, not who he lost to.
This is also why metrics like average placement need to be interpreted carefully. In the prime era (2013-2015), tournaments had more rounds, including larger round-of-64 and round-of-32 brackets or even Code A and S formats. This means that players were statistically more likely to finish lower on average simply because there were more rounds to be eliminated in/face tough opponents earlier. In contrast, modern tournaments often start at the round of 24 or 16, meaning that players today will naturally have higher average placements, even if their overall performance is the same. For this metric, a stronger era-multiplier would be reasonable.
Other metrics, like tournament-participation-win-ratios wouldn’t be affected as much, as there being one or two more rounds of a more competitive environment do not suddenly half your chances, if you are indeed the best player. This also means that the 0.25 that was brought up is utterly exaggerated.
And the last theoretical point I can think of is tournament frequency. In 2023 and 2024 we had 8 and 10 individual PTs respectively. In 2013, 2014 there were over 30, in 2015 22. These years were stacked so much with tournaments, that they or their qualifiers even overlapped, which dispersed the higher player pool. Nowadays, people always need to play the best of the best in every tournament.
But we can also look at actual numbers and not only engage in theoretical thinking. Data shows that Koreans’ win rates among themselves did not really change much from the prime era 2013-2015 until modern times, neither overall nor versus their peers. The argument was brought up, that as everyone got “equally worse” of course their win rates did not change. But what about foreigners playing against them? I looked at MaNa, Scarlett, Nerchio and Stephano. Arguably not the biggest sample size, but there aren’tmany foreigners that qualify for such an investigation. We would either need to see a boost in their win rates because of “Korean deterioration” and/or them becoming better is correlating with Serral’s top years.
Scarlett had her strongest years versus Koreans in 2012 (55%), 2013 (55%), 2014 (48%) and 2015 (48%). 2018 and 2019, when Serral rose to power were already weaker (47 and 44%) and her win rates, except for 2021 (another strong 48% - ironically, Serral’s worst year) even dropped down to 32%.
Stephano’s strongest year by far: 2012 (62%). In 2014 he had 33% and in 2017 and 2018, 33 and 37% respectively. At Serral’s rise, he stayed consistent to his prime era results with 33% in 2017 and 37% in 2018.
Nerchio had a strong year in 2013 (58%) and peaked in 2017 (68%) and 2018 (67%) before dropping down to 33% in 2020.
MaNa had his strongest year in 2016 (51%) and his weakest in 2018 (18%).
To put it bluntly: Looking at these 4 players, there is absolutely no implication for any kind of supposed skill deterioration in Korean players. Some of these foreign players even had their best year in the prime era, which goes completely against the idea.
Even less is there any visible correlation between Serral’s rise and these player’s results. Thus, the skill deterioration argument, from my point of view, is shakier than ever.
So to sum up. If we want to compare the prime era with the modern era, we need to:
- Adjust the modern era negatively by incorporating more players, which leads to more groups and some more knockout stages (influence: low for the GOAT contenders)
- Adjust the modern era negatively by incorporating a higher relation of skilled players among that broader player base (influence: mid, because linked to the first adjustment, meaning you won’t have to play all of them to win a singular event)
- Adjust the prime era negatively because of more tournaments, dispersing players (influence: low, but giving the impression that some prime era players were better than they seem)
- Adjust the prime era negatively by incorporating modern players (influence: low)
If we further apply a similar method to Serral, we need to:
- Adjust his Korean opponents to their win rates versus Serral (in nearly all cases negatively) if the database includes Koreans only (influence: low)
- Adjust Serral’s statistics positively as he played a lot less tier 2 and tier 3 Koreans in relation to the Koreans, which in turn will boost his win rate (influence: low to mid)
- Adjust Serral’s win rate negatively because he is put against GOAT contenders in their prime, instead of them being 1-3 years older (influence: very low, as comparisons between Koreans themselves and foreigners indicate)
- The biggest hit Serral would take are his easier region-lock wins, where he would probably not have nearly as many if prime players at their peak and modern Koreans would have participated (influence: high)
- For a fair comparison we would also need to factor in Serral and the other non-Koreans in the 3 GSLs that have taken place once a year. Serral and Maru both have 17 wins in Premier Tournaments with top Korean participation. If we now add Serral, Clem, etc. into these, it is extremely likely that the Koreans including Maru wouldn’t have as many Premier Tournament wins, as the non-Koreans would at least take home 2 or 3 wins each over the years (influence: low in prime era, high after 2020)
Taking all these thoughts and statistics into account 66% less trophies for Serral is incredibly absurd in my opinion. That number might be true for the region lock events, but then again he could have scored in the GSLs over the years. It is safe to say that he would have less trophies, but I don’t see him having less than anyone else, if we equal out all factors.
On February 07 2025 05:03 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2025 22:03 WombaT wrote:On February 06 2025 16:44 PremoBeats wrote:On February 06 2025 03:27 ejozl wrote:
And we saw not even that long ago a player like taeja cming back and playing to serral's lvl in some games. Gumiho did the same, I am very confident in saying that if all the hots guys were active today as they were then, serral wouldn't win a 1/3 of what he is winning now, which is why I gave 2024 0.25 factor.
I don't know if neeb, Scarlett and serral would've been able to go to korea and win, it's possible, but unlikely. Similar to WombaT, with whom I agree mostly on this issue, I have to inquire into your statistics. So you are saying that Serral, if all the HotS guys were still around at their peak power, would only win 33% (rounded) of his current match win rate? Roughly 80% * 0,33? Am I correct in assuming that by HotS guys you mean players like sOs, Life, INnoVation, ByuL, Solar, herO, Classic, PartinG, soO, Rain, Hydra, Polt, Zest, Maru, ForGG, MMA, Cure, Flash, YoDa, Jaedong, TaeJa, Trap and Zest? Against sOs he won all 3 matches. He won his one encounter with ByuL, he won over 66% against Solar, over 70% versus herO, 80% versus Classic, 100% versus PartinG starting in 2015, over 66% versus soO, 50% versus Rain in 2015, 100% in 2015 versus Hydra, never played Polt, over 68% versus Zest, do I need to mention Maru?, lost 3 to ForGG from 2013-2015, never played MMA, won over 85% versus Cure, never played Flash, lost 1 to YoDa in 2014, lost 3 to Jaedong in 2013, lost 2 to TaeJa in 2014 and won 1 in 2018 (33% overall), has over 80% versus Trap and over 69% versus Zest. Are you suggesting that Serral, who mainly lost to a couple, not all, of these guys around 2015, when he wasn't a full pro yet would lose against all of them - including the ones he already beat at 70 - 100% win rates back then - in such a way, that he would only reach a roughly 25/26% (80%*0,33) win rate? That is your reasoning? This isn't even true, if we only look at Serral's win rates versus these guys from 2013-2017, much less does it make sense if we place a 100% skill, post-school, full pro Serral against them. Sorry, but that take is absolutely bonkers. I repeat myself, but people seriously underestimate, how some of these players mainly got PT titles because of so many events happening around the same times. The quantity of trophies to win were 6 times higher in certain years than in 2024 or 2023. Further, Serral's win rates are deflated against Koreans, as he only played the best of the best. He didn't beat any minor tier Koreans like all the other Koreans when he reached 85% win rates. A factor of 0.25 is completely ridiculous and from my estamitation can in no way be substantiated. On February 06 2025 05:11 Balnazza wrote:
You wanted to prove your opinion by statistics defined by your opinion. That is what is so infuriating about your rating, because it pretends to follow scientific methods, but is just an elaborate way of saying "nuh-uh, Serral overrated!"
So, considering that your ranking probably constituted a fair amount of work - just stick with "nuh-uh, Serral overrated!" in the future and save yourself the work. And I do mean that most sincere. I get the same feeling and can't wait to see a sound reasoning/methodology. So here’s a bunch of players, offline match win rate, pre 2017 and post-2017: Cure - 52.40% and 56.76% Dark - 62.84% and 70.14% herO - 65.23% and 63.61% Innovation - 68.10% and 67.01% Maru - 64.33% and 70.92% Parting - 67.73% and 59.32% Rogue - 55.00% and 69.39% Solar - 60.63% and 63.66% Stats - 65.37% and 66.43% Trap - 58.30% and 63.23% TY - 59.38% and 67.71% Zest - 63.17% and 61.49% They’re pretty stable overall. Some have risen reasonably appreciably, but some have dropped. Broadly I think just looking at the players some are obvious slump candidates, and you’ve a few that found form and had really strong patches. I ran out of patience so I’ve definitely missed some important names, but I think it’s a decent enough sample. What you’re not really seeing is a big winrate inflation across the board. Which I’d expect to see more in the less competitive, easy era or whatever. I think what you're missing is the level of players they play offline. In GSL for example pre-2017 offline matches started in Code A, while for large parts of LotV they started in the ro16. So nowadays when players play offline it's mostly vs one of the other top 16 players, while back then they could also play lots of offline matches vs players barely in the top 50. Also despite that, as I see it most players have still increased their winrate bar the obvious post-Kespa slump candidates like Inno, PartinG and Zest
I wouldn't put INno into the slump candidate category to be honest. He still had a 68% match win rate versus Koreans until mid 2020 afer all. There aren't many pros that even reached such high win rates in their entire career.
|
United States33281 Posts
On February 07 2025 03:13 WombaT wrote:
Ok, it’s not quite the same, and my tongue is somewhat in cheek here.
One of my big loves is cricket, for those not familiar it’s somewhat similar to baseball (kinda)...
I think this is an interesting representation of the culture in a specific sport (Cricket), but it doesn't necessarily mean those standards apply (or should apply) to other disciplines.
The obvious counterexample off the top of my head is Wilt Chamberlain, who doesn't really crack people's top five lists (or even top ten lists, in some cases) despite having some of the most ludicrous per-game records in the NBA. He averaged 50 points per game during the 1961-62 season of the NBA, has the three next highest PPG seasons after that, with next highest player after that being Michael Jordan with 37 PPG in 1986-87.
However, NBA GOAT culture has become established in a way that values championships and aura/narrative very highly, and Wilt can't overcome his lack of championships and the negative reputation he garnered from fans/media as being a 'loser.'
I'm not here to say what approach is right or wrong, or what's the correct ratio of factors should go into making a player legacy judgment. I'm just pointing out that none of this stuff is self-evident or obvious, and just because it's accepted as normal in another sport doesn't mean they're necessarily doing it 'right.'
|
Now your arguments are getting absolutely wild. Taking Stephano's performance who semi-retired after WoL as baseline that korean skill level didn't get worse 
I don't even know if it's worth continuing this argument at this point.
That's the same as taking Serral's winrate as baseline and saying because his winrates got better after 2017 koreans got worse
|
On February 07 2025 20:34 Charoisaur wrote:Now your arguments are getting absolutely wild. Taking Stephano's performance who semi-retired after WoL as baseline that korean skill level didn't get worse I don't even know if it's worth continuing this argument at this point. That's the same as taking Serral's winrate as baseline and saying because his winrates got better after 2017 koreans got worse
Accepted, Stephano was a shitty example. What about Scarlett, Nerchio and MaNa? And yes, I know, this is the biggest sample size, but none of them correlate with the idea that individual Korean skill level massively droped.
|
On February 07 2025 20:52 PremoBeats wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2025 20:34 Charoisaur wrote:Now your arguments are getting absolutely wild. Taking Stephano's performance who semi-retired after WoL as baseline that korean skill level didn't get worse I don't even know if it's worth continuing this argument at this point. That's the same as taking Serral's winrate as baseline and saying because his winrates got better after 2017 koreans got worse Accepted, Stephano was a shitty example. What about Scarlett, Nerchio and MaNa? And yes, I know, this is the biggest sample size, but none of them correlate with the idea that individual Korean skill level massively droped.
Why not take Serral as a baseline? Wouldn't he be the most suitable candidate for serving as the baseline given he's the most consistent player ever and hasn't lost motivation at all as far as we can tell?
In his first 3 years after his ascension his winrates against koreans were:
2018: Serral is 61–27 (69.32%) in games and 24–4 (85.71%) in matches.
2019:Serral is 65–29 (69.15%) in games and 23–7 (76.67%) in matches.
2020: Serral is 102–44 (69.86%) in games and 42–7 (85.71%) in matches.
and in 2024: Serral is 68–9 (88.31%) in games and 26–1 (96.30%) in matches.
By your own logic that should be irrefutable proof that koreans have declined.
If you want to say "but Serral has improved" you may come to the conclusion that you can't use any player as the baseline because nobody's skill level stays completely consistent across the years.
Personally, I will just go what with the pros say. Inno said he's gotten slower with advanced age. Dark said it. Maru said he can't practice much any more due to his injuries.
Uthermal in his interview with sc2historian extensively spoke about how younger players are just advantaged in competitive sc2.
|
On February 07 2025 21:12 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2025 20:52 PremoBeats wrote:On February 07 2025 20:34 Charoisaur wrote:Now your arguments are getting absolutely wild. Taking Stephano's performance who semi-retired after WoL as baseline that korean skill level didn't get worse I don't even know if it's worth continuing this argument at this point. That's the same as taking Serral's winrate as baseline and saying because his winrates got better after 2017 koreans got worse Accepted, Stephano was a shitty example. What about Scarlett, Nerchio and MaNa? And yes, I know, this is the biggest sample size, but none of them correlate with the idea that individual Korean skill level massively droped. Why not take Serral as a baseline? Wouldn't he be the most suitable candidate for serving as the baseline given he's the most consistent player ever and hasn't lost motivation at all as far as we can tell? In his first 3 years after his ascension his winrates against koreans were: 2018: Serral is 61–27 (69.32%) in games and 24–4 (85.71%) in matches. 2019:Serral is 65–29 (69.15%) in games and 23–7 (76.67%) in matches. 2020: Serral is 102–44 (69.86%) in games and 42–7 (85.71%) in matches. and in 2024: Serral is 68–9 (88.31%) in games and 26–1 (96.30%) in matches. By your own logic that should be irrefutable proof that koreans have declined. If you want to say "but Serral has improved" you may come to the conclusion that you can't use any player as the baseline because nobody's skill level stays completely consistent across the years. Personally, I will just go what with the pros say. Inno said he's gotten slower with advanced age. Dark said it. Maru said he can't practice much any more due to his injuries. Uthermal in his interview with sc2historian extensively spoke about how younger players are just advantaged in competitive sc2.
Taking Serral as baseline is probably as good as it gets.
Then somehow factor in that most Korean starplayers are preoccupied by their "own" accord which is responsible for quite a large margin.
Injury
Betting scandals
Military
Fatherhood
League of Legends
|
On February 07 2025 21:12 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2025 20:52 PremoBeats wrote:On February 07 2025 20:34 Charoisaur wrote:Now your arguments are getting absolutely wild. Taking Stephano's performance who semi-retired after WoL as baseline that korean skill level didn't get worse I don't even know if it's worth continuing this argument at this point. That's the same as taking Serral's winrate as baseline and saying because his winrates got better after 2017 koreans got worse Accepted, Stephano was a shitty example. What about Scarlett, Nerchio and MaNa? And yes, I know, this is the biggest sample size, but none of them correlate with the idea that individual Korean skill level massively droped. Why not take Serral as a baseline? Wouldn't he be the most suitable candidate for serving as the baseline given he's the most consistent player ever and hasn't lost motivation at all as far as we can tell? In his first 3 years after his ascension his winrates against koreans were: 2018: Serral is 61–27 (69.32%) in games and 24–4 (85.71%) in matches. 2019:Serral is 65–29 (69.15%) in games and 23–7 (76.67%) in matches. 2020: Serral is 102–44 (69.86%) in games and 42–7 (85.71%) in matches. and in 2024: Serral is 68–9 (88.31%) in games and 26–1 (96.30%) in matches. By your own logic that should be irrefutable proof that koreans have declined. If you want to say "but Serral has improved" you may come to the conclusion that you can't use any player as the baseline because nobody's skill level stays completely consistent across the years. Personally, I will just go what with the pros say. Inno said he's gotten slower with advanced age. Dark said it. Maru said he can't practice much any more due to his injuries. Uthermal in his interview with sc2historian extensively spoke about how younger players are just advantaged in competitive sc2.
I don't deny that age takes its toll. It is the scope that is the issue. If we only speak about age droping win percentages by 3%, that is absolutely fine by me. But that would not counter Serral's GOAT claim.
And Serral imo isn't the best example because he is the biggest outlier in SC2 history.
Further, you cannot take the player that you are trying to relate, as the anchor for the comparison. The relation between prime era players and Serral is the topic, thus you have to have other players to which you compare the idea, that Koreans overall got worse in comparison to Serral, who subsequently rose to power.
Serral also has 71% in 2021. Then again 85% in 2023. Did his age reset?
What about the other foreigners? Why didn't they get better versus the Koreans?
I do not deny that some of these prime era guys probably had injuries or weren't as fast as they were aged 22. My point is that this decline doesn't make a big impact on the GOAT debate.
|
On February 07 2025 21:56 PremoBeats wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2025 21:12 Charoisaur wrote:On February 07 2025 20:52 PremoBeats wrote:On February 07 2025 20:34 Charoisaur wrote:Now your arguments are getting absolutely wild. Taking Stephano's performance who semi-retired after WoL as baseline that korean skill level didn't get worse I don't even know if it's worth continuing this argument at this point. That's the same as taking Serral's winrate as baseline and saying because his winrates got better after 2017 koreans got worse Accepted, Stephano was a shitty example. What about Scarlett, Nerchio and MaNa? And yes, I know, this is the biggest sample size, but none of them correlate with the idea that individual Korean skill level massively droped. Why not take Serral as a baseline? Wouldn't he be the most suitable candidate for serving as the baseline given he's the most consistent player ever and hasn't lost motivation at all as far as we can tell? In his first 3 years after his ascension his winrates against koreans were: 2018: Serral is 61–27 (69.32%) in games and 24–4 (85.71%) in matches. 2019:Serral is 65–29 (69.15%) in games and 23–7 (76.67%) in matches. 2020: Serral is 102–44 (69.86%) in games and 42–7 (85.71%) in matches. and in 2024: Serral is 68–9 (88.31%) in games and 26–1 (96.30%) in matches. By your own logic that should be irrefutable proof that koreans have declined. If you want to say "but Serral has improved" you may come to the conclusion that you can't use any player as the baseline because nobody's skill level stays completely consistent across the years. Personally, I will just go what with the pros say. Inno said he's gotten slower with advanced age. Dark said it. Maru said he can't practice much any more due to his injuries. Uthermal in his interview with sc2historian extensively spoke about how younger players are just advantaged in competitive sc2. I don't deny that age takes its toll. It is the scope that is the issue. If we only speak about age droping win percentages by 3%, that is absolutely fine by me. But that would not counter Serral's GOAT claim. And Serral imo isn't the best example because he is the biggest outlier in SC2 history. Further, you cannot take the player that you are trying to relate, as the anchor for the comparison. The relation between prime era players and Serral is the topic, thus you have to have other players to which you compare the idea, that Koreans overall got worse in comparison to Serral, who subsequently rose to power. Serral also has 71% in 2021. Then again 85% in 2023. Did his age reset? What about the other foreigners? Why didn't they get better versus the Koreans? I do not deny that some of these prime era guys probably had injuries or weren't as fast as they were aged 22. My point is that this decline doesn't make a big impact on the GOAT debate.
Well, then I agree, I also think that if he played in the Kespa era he likely would have better winrates then anyone who played back then (although only by a slight degree). I just disagree with the premise that korean skill level hasn't decreased at all which in some of your previous replies it seemed you believed.
For Serral vs prime era guys I think we've seen that. Maru, Dark, Rogue and Stats were in their prime from 2018-2021 and are considered to be among the greatest of all time. Serral's winrate vs them in that era is probably a good predictor on how he would've fared against the top 10-12 players in the Kespa era (mostly in the 50-60% range).
|
If injuries are determinant to GOAT evaluation, then Van Basten is light years away a better player than CR7. And Ronaldo phenom would be godlike among those 2.
|
On February 07 2025 22:14 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2025 21:56 PremoBeats wrote:On February 07 2025 21:12 Charoisaur wrote:On February 07 2025 20:52 PremoBeats wrote:On February 07 2025 20:34 Charoisaur wrote:Now your arguments are getting absolutely wild. Taking Stephano's performance who semi-retired after WoL as baseline that korean skill level didn't get worse I don't even know if it's worth continuing this argument at this point. That's the same as taking Serral's winrate as baseline and saying because his winrates got better after 2017 koreans got worse Accepted, Stephano was a shitty example. What about Scarlett, Nerchio and MaNa? And yes, I know, this is the biggest sample size, but none of them correlate with the idea that individual Korean skill level massively droped. Why not take Serral as a baseline? Wouldn't he be the most suitable candidate for serving as the baseline given he's the most consistent player ever and hasn't lost motivation at all as far as we can tell? In his first 3 years after his ascension his winrates against koreans were: 2018: Serral is 61–27 (69.32%) in games and 24–4 (85.71%) in matches. 2019:Serral is 65–29 (69.15%) in games and 23–7 (76.67%) in matches. 2020: Serral is 102–44 (69.86%) in games and 42–7 (85.71%) in matches. and in 2024: Serral is 68–9 (88.31%) in games and 26–1 (96.30%) in matches. By your own logic that should be irrefutable proof that koreans have declined. If you want to say "but Serral has improved" you may come to the conclusion that you can't use any player as the baseline because nobody's skill level stays completely consistent across the years. Personally, I will just go what with the pros say. Inno said he's gotten slower with advanced age. Dark said it. Maru said he can't practice much any more due to his injuries. Uthermal in his interview with sc2historian extensively spoke about how younger players are just advantaged in competitive sc2. I don't deny that age takes its toll. It is the scope that is the issue. If we only speak about age droping win percentages by 3%, that is absolutely fine by me. But that would not counter Serral's GOAT claim. And Serral imo isn't the best example because he is the biggest outlier in SC2 history. Further, you cannot take the player that you are trying to relate, as the anchor for the comparison. The relation between prime era players and Serral is the topic, thus you have to have other players to which you compare the idea, that Koreans overall got worse in comparison to Serral, who subsequently rose to power. Serral also has 71% in 2021. Then again 85% in 2023. Did his age reset? What about the other foreigners? Why didn't they get better versus the Koreans? I do not deny that some of these prime era guys probably had injuries or weren't as fast as they were aged 22. My point is that this decline doesn't make a big impact on the GOAT debate. Well, then I agree, I also think that if he played in the Kespa era he likely would have better winrates then anyone who played back then (although only by a slight degree). I just disagree with the premise that korean skill level hasn't decreased at all which in some of your previous replies it seemed you believed. For Serral vs prime era guys I think we've seen that. Maru, Dark, Rogue and Stats were in their prime from 2018-2021 and are considered to be among the greatest of all time. Serral's winrate vs them in that era is probably a good predictor on how he would've fared against the top 10-12 players in the Kespa era (mostly in the 50-60% range).
Exatly!
Its hard to gauge the effect of having less pros competing.
But i dont think it would be like: There was a third (idk the true proportion) of pro players competing by 2018, then Serral would have a third of trophies... I think Serral would remain closer to his actual trophies number rather than not.
And why do I think that? Because it seems that the rate of top 5/10 players decreased slower than the rest of pro players, simply because those who were real contenders had more incentive to remain. I think 2013-2015 was still a time trial, the euphoria time.
Is it hard to win amongst 100 pros than to win amongst 30? For sure.
But it is also harder to win in a figured out esport in which the true prodigies (Maru/Rogue/Clem/Reynor/Serral/MaxPax) have achieved their final form (true outlier class) then to win in a game no so figured out.
Where new metas are always arising, you can come up with a new build, win a couple of premier in a 2 month span, and then get that build figured out to never again have the same success. Or have it when you figure something on another oportunity.
The truth is that Starcraft II never had the amount of popularity to sustain the number of pros from 2011-2016 era.
But the pros at the time thought it did, simply because we were all figuring out the game and the scene.
Like in all thing, Time, and Time only, had the answer to who would be the really best of SCII.
So just ask TIME who the GOAT is.
|
|
|
|
|
Northern Ireland24682 Posts
On February 07 2025 20:32 Waxangel wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2025 03:13 WombaT wrote:
Ok, it’s not quite the same, and my tongue is somewhat in cheek here.
One of my big loves is cricket, for those not familiar it’s somewhat similar to baseball (kinda)...
I think this is an interesting representation of the culture in a specific sport (Cricket), but it doesn't necessarily mean those standards apply (or should apply) to other disciplines. The obvious counterexample off the top of my head is Wilt Chamberlain, who doesn't really crack people's top five lists (or even top ten lists, in some cases) despite having some of the most ludicrous per-game records in the NBA. He averaged 50 points per game during the 1961-62 season of the NBA, has the three next highest PPG seasons after that, with next highest player after that being Michael Jordan with 37 PPG in 1986-87. However, NBA GOAT culture has become established in a way that values championships and aura/narrative very highly, and Wilt can't overcome his lack of championships and the negative reputation he garnered from fans/media as being a 'loser.' I'm not here to say what approach is right or wrong, or what's the correct ratio of factors should go into making a player legacy judgment. I'm just pointing out that none of this stuff is self-evident or obvious, and just because it's accepted as normal in another sport doesn't mean they're necessarily doing it 'right.'
Oh cricket still has those other debates, but it’s for everyone else, not the Don.
I imagine it’s similar in ice hockey. There’ll be passionate arguments about all sorts, but Gretzky is just the GOAT and folks don’t tend to argue that.
Cricket is a very numbers-friendly game by its nature. It’s a hybrid between a team game and an individual duel. What the fielders do is anlso very important, but the key duel is a 1 on 1 between batsman and bowler.
So you can have somebody like Andy Flower in a pretty terrible Zimbabwe team, but he can still be one of the best of his era anyway. He’s still facing the best bowling attacks, and he’s personally averaging 50+
Basketball and football are much more fluid team games and it gets harder to quantify what one player’s contribution is versus the overall unit.
You could stick an elite test player in the worst test playing nation in the world and individually they’ll largely perform the same. Whereas Lionel Messi probably doesn’t look as good playing in a shit side that can’t collectively pass the ball.
I think I broadly disagree with the US sports culture’s move to super valuing titles and auras so highly, because such a big part of that is being in a great team as well. Aura, clutchness are very important as well, but I think there’s an inordinate focus on trophies.
Just my focus, others may have their preferred weightings!
Some Europeans are shifting that direction as well, although more broadly I think they judge based on shown ability. You won’t have too many arguments that Ronaldo of the Brazilian variety should not feature on GOAT lists, but there’s plenty who won more:
Going back to Starcraft, it has its complexities too, but it’s a 1v1 game where winning games js ultimately what counts. Certain raw numbers become easier to parse in that context, versus ‘ok this dude is scoring x goals or points per game in a great team, how does that stack versus the dude slightly worse in those metrics playing in a terrible team.’
The point of invoking the Don was to look at another activity where fans went ‘OK we can have era/opposition arguments, but this guy’s numbers specifically are just too ridiculous’.
Regardless of one’s preferred sport, imagine a guy who’s almost doubling the numbers of the rest. Not the average player, but of the rest of top 10 GOATs. What that would actually look like? Just insanity right? I don’t imagine TL to be a hotbed of cricket fans, but take the GOATs from whatever your sport is and basically double the metric you’re looking at and consider how preposterous that player would be.
It’s so insane that cricket fans just say look there’s no point debating that one. He’s GOAT, let’s nitpick everyone else.
I will note I’ll stop short of definitively calling it, but Serral having an 85% match winrate and 15% gap to #2 is starting to approach that territory, where the number is just too big.
Not just at the top level either. Even when foreign land was notably weaker than Korea, you didn’t have a foreigner destroying other foreigners to close to that degree.
|
United States1809 Posts
On February 07 2025 22:14 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2025 21:56 PremoBeats wrote:On February 07 2025 21:12 Charoisaur wrote:On February 07 2025 20:52 PremoBeats wrote:On February 07 2025 20:34 Charoisaur wrote:Now your arguments are getting absolutely wild. Taking Stephano's performance who semi-retired after WoL as baseline that korean skill level didn't get worse I don't even know if it's worth continuing this argument at this point. That's the same as taking Serral's winrate as baseline and saying because his winrates got better after 2017 koreans got worse Accepted, Stephano was a shitty example. What about Scarlett, Nerchio and MaNa? And yes, I know, this is the biggest sample size, but none of them correlate with the idea that individual Korean skill level massively droped. Why not take Serral as a baseline? Wouldn't he be the most suitable candidate for serving as the baseline given he's the most consistent player ever and hasn't lost motivation at all as far as we can tell? In his first 3 years after his ascension his winrates against koreans were: 2018: Serral is 61–27 (69.32%) in games and 24–4 (85.71%) in matches. 2019:Serral is 65–29 (69.15%) in games and 23–7 (76.67%) in matches. 2020: Serral is 102–44 (69.86%) in games and 42–7 (85.71%) in matches. and in 2024: Serral is 68–9 (88.31%) in games and 26–1 (96.30%) in matches. By your own logic that should be irrefutable proof that koreans have declined. If you want to say "but Serral has improved" you may come to the conclusion that you can't use any player as the baseline because nobody's skill level stays completely consistent across the years. Personally, I will just go what with the pros say. Inno said he's gotten slower with advanced age. Dark said it. Maru said he can't practice much any more due to his injuries. Uthermal in his interview with sc2historian extensively spoke about how younger players are just advantaged in competitive sc2. I don't deny that age takes its toll. It is the scope that is the issue. If we only speak about age droping win percentages by 3%, that is absolutely fine by me. But that would not counter Serral's GOAT claim. And Serral imo isn't the best example because he is the biggest outlier in SC2 history. Further, you cannot take the player that you are trying to relate, as the anchor for the comparison. The relation between prime era players and Serral is the topic, thus you have to have other players to which you compare the idea, that Koreans overall got worse in comparison to Serral, who subsequently rose to power. Serral also has 71% in 2021. Then again 85% in 2023. Did his age reset? What about the other foreigners? Why didn't they get better versus the Koreans? I do not deny that some of these prime era guys probably had injuries or weren't as fast as they were aged 22. My point is that this decline doesn't make a big impact on the GOAT debate. Well, then I agree, I also think that if he played in the Kespa era he likely would have better winrates then anyone who played back then (although only by a slight degree). I just disagree with the premise that korean skill level hasn't decreased at all which in some of your previous replies it seemed you believed. For Serral vs prime era guys I think we've seen that. Maru, Dark, Rogue and Stats were in their prime from 2018-2021 and are considered to be among the greatest of all time. Serral's winrate vs them in that era is probably a good predictor on how he would've fared against the top 10-12 players in the Kespa era (mostly in the 50-60% range).
Serral wasn't even at his best in 2018, but he managed to beat sOs, Zest, Dark, Rogue and Stats (all of whom either won or made the finals of a KIL in 2017/18). His win rates would almost certainly drop if he was randomly inserted into the peak of the KeSPA era (hypotheticals don't enter in my rankings, but I'll entertain it for this discussion (no one wants to be a party pooper)).
One has to remember that the definition of "dominance" is not universal and the parameters change given the situation. Rain was arguably the best KIL performer in HotS because he won two KIL and made the finals of another. This might not seem "dominant" when you compare it to what Serral achieved in recent years or how Mvp lapped the field in WoL, but he achieved something no one else managed during that three year stretch. Serral would have had a lot of competition, but there's no reason to believe that Serral couldn't have been as successful as players like Rain, Maru, Classic and INnoVation—all of whom won two KIL between 2013 and 2015.
|
Northern Ireland24682 Posts
On February 08 2025 09:49 Mizenhauer wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2025 22:14 Charoisaur wrote:On February 07 2025 21:56 PremoBeats wrote:On February 07 2025 21:12 Charoisaur wrote:On February 07 2025 20:52 PremoBeats wrote:On February 07 2025 20:34 Charoisaur wrote:Now your arguments are getting absolutely wild. Taking Stephano's performance who semi-retired after WoL as baseline that korean skill level didn't get worse I don't even know if it's worth continuing this argument at this point. That's the same as taking Serral's winrate as baseline and saying because his winrates got better after 2017 koreans got worse Accepted, Stephano was a shitty example. What about Scarlett, Nerchio and MaNa? And yes, I know, this is the biggest sample size, but none of them correlate with the idea that individual Korean skill level massively droped. Why not take Serral as a baseline? Wouldn't he be the most suitable candidate for serving as the baseline given he's the most consistent player ever and hasn't lost motivation at all as far as we can tell? In his first 3 years after his ascension his winrates against koreans were: 2018: Serral is 61–27 (69.32%) in games and 24–4 (85.71%) in matches. 2019:Serral is 65–29 (69.15%) in games and 23–7 (76.67%) in matches. 2020: Serral is 102–44 (69.86%) in games and 42–7 (85.71%) in matches. and in 2024: Serral is 68–9 (88.31%) in games and 26–1 (96.30%) in matches. By your own logic that should be irrefutable proof that koreans have declined. If you want to say "but Serral has improved" you may come to the conclusion that you can't use any player as the baseline because nobody's skill level stays completely consistent across the years. Personally, I will just go what with the pros say. Inno said he's gotten slower with advanced age. Dark said it. Maru said he can't practice much any more due to his injuries. Uthermal in his interview with sc2historian extensively spoke about how younger players are just advantaged in competitive sc2. I don't deny that age takes its toll. It is the scope that is the issue. If we only speak about age droping win percentages by 3%, that is absolutely fine by me. But that would not counter Serral's GOAT claim. And Serral imo isn't the best example because he is the biggest outlier in SC2 history. Further, you cannot take the player that you are trying to relate, as the anchor for the comparison. The relation between prime era players and Serral is the topic, thus you have to have other players to which you compare the idea, that Koreans overall got worse in comparison to Serral, who subsequently rose to power. Serral also has 71% in 2021. Then again 85% in 2023. Did his age reset? What about the other foreigners? Why didn't they get better versus the Koreans? I do not deny that some of these prime era guys probably had injuries or weren't as fast as they were aged 22. My point is that this decline doesn't make a big impact on the GOAT debate. Well, then I agree, I also think that if he played in the Kespa era he likely would have better winrates then anyone who played back then (although only by a slight degree). I just disagree with the premise that korean skill level hasn't decreased at all which in some of your previous replies it seemed you believed. For Serral vs prime era guys I think we've seen that. Maru, Dark, Rogue and Stats were in their prime from 2018-2021 and are considered to be among the greatest of all time. Serral's winrate vs them in that era is probably a good predictor on how he would've fared against the top 10-12 players in the Kespa era (mostly in the 50-60% range). Serral wasn't even at his best in 2018, but he managed to beat sOs, Zest, Dark, Rogue and Stats (all of whom either won or made the finals of a KIL in 2017/18). His win rates would almost certainly drop if he was randomly inserted into the peak of the KeSPA era (hypotheticals don't enter in my rankings, but I'll entertain it for this discussion (no one wants to be a party pooper)). One has to remember that the definition of "dominance" is not universal and the parameters change given the situation. Rain was arguably the best KIL performer in HotS because he won two KIL and made the finals of another. This might not seem "dominant" when you compare it to what Serral achieved in recent years or how Mvp lapped the field in WoL, but he achieved something no one else managed during that three year stretch. Serral would have had a lot of competition, but there's no reason to believe that Serral couldn't have been as successful as players like Rain, Maru, Classic and INnoVation—all of whom won two KIL between 2013 and 2015.
From memory, I assume it was you that mentioned it as you’ve chatted soO a bit. Am I correct that soO was saying the Koreans were already pretty aware of Serral being a fearsome player when he was a mere ladder monster and hadn’t quite broke through?
Not especially relevant but I am curious as to my recollection, and it may be faulty!
For me what separates Serral from the pack is his consistency. I know some don’t rate it as highly as me versus peaking on the championship games, but I do value it very highly.
I think a hypothetical Serral transplanted into the Kespa peak era, probably isn’t dominant in a sense he’s winning all the time.
I think he might have an equal number of titles to X top other player, but what I think you would see is overall he’s doing better than everyone. Maybe not to an extreme degree, but a notable one.
Even Maru, who has been resolutely consistent for years in this rough epoch (and I think his level can be underrated by some) still has the odd bombing out in a group stage, or otherwise quite early.
Serral is perhaps unique in this regard. He basically never loses until a point that on paper you think ‘ok this is a spicy matchup’.
He’s so resolutely consistent in dispatching people he’s expected to beat, that people still recall him losing to a player as good as Rag, in a Ro8 match, in a 3-2 scoreline.
There probably is, but I can’t recall an equivalent of Life losing to Sjow, or Maru losing to Meiomika on his resume. Was looking through Mvp’s results earlier on and even pre-injury problems there’s the odd ‘he lost to who? result that stands out.
So my best guess is maybe Serral doesn’t gap the competition in terms of titles. But he’s probably the guy who’s making most playoff rounds, or the guy who doesn’t have that season he drops out of Code S entirely.
I think that’s Serral’s special sauce, perhaps even beyond his ability to hang with elite players. If you’re basically always able to navigate those early rounds you set yourself up to just naturally be more likely to take titles.
|
On February 08 2025 09:49 Mizenhauer wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2025 22:14 Charoisaur wrote:On February 07 2025 21:56 PremoBeats wrote:On February 07 2025 21:12 Charoisaur wrote:On February 07 2025 20:52 PremoBeats wrote:On February 07 2025 20:34 Charoisaur wrote:Now your arguments are getting absolutely wild. Taking Stephano's performance who semi-retired after WoL as baseline that korean skill level didn't get worse I don't even know if it's worth continuing this argument at this point. That's the same as taking Serral's winrate as baseline and saying because his winrates got better after 2017 koreans got worse Accepted, Stephano was a shitty example. What about Scarlett, Nerchio and MaNa? And yes, I know, this is the biggest sample size, but none of them correlate with the idea that individual Korean skill level massively droped. Why not take Serral as a baseline? Wouldn't he be the most suitable candidate for serving as the baseline given he's the most consistent player ever and hasn't lost motivation at all as far as we can tell? In his first 3 years after his ascension his winrates against koreans were: 2018: Serral is 61–27 (69.32%) in games and 24–4 (85.71%) in matches. 2019:Serral is 65–29 (69.15%) in games and 23–7 (76.67%) in matches. 2020: Serral is 102–44 (69.86%) in games and 42–7 (85.71%) in matches. and in 2024: Serral is 68–9 (88.31%) in games and 26–1 (96.30%) in matches. By your own logic that should be irrefutable proof that koreans have declined. If you want to say "but Serral has improved" you may come to the conclusion that you can't use any player as the baseline because nobody's skill level stays completely consistent across the years. Personally, I will just go what with the pros say. Inno said he's gotten slower with advanced age. Dark said it. Maru said he can't practice much any more due to his injuries. Uthermal in his interview with sc2historian extensively spoke about how younger players are just advantaged in competitive sc2. I don't deny that age takes its toll. It is the scope that is the issue. If we only speak about age droping win percentages by 3%, that is absolutely fine by me. But that would not counter Serral's GOAT claim. And Serral imo isn't the best example because he is the biggest outlier in SC2 history. Further, you cannot take the player that you are trying to relate, as the anchor for the comparison. The relation between prime era players and Serral is the topic, thus you have to have other players to which you compare the idea, that Koreans overall got worse in comparison to Serral, who subsequently rose to power. Serral also has 71% in 2021. Then again 85% in 2023. Did his age reset? What about the other foreigners? Why didn't they get better versus the Koreans? I do not deny that some of these prime era guys probably had injuries or weren't as fast as they were aged 22. My point is that this decline doesn't make a big impact on the GOAT debate. Well, then I agree, I also think that if he played in the Kespa era he likely would have better winrates then anyone who played back then (although only by a slight degree). I just disagree with the premise that korean skill level hasn't decreased at all which in some of your previous replies it seemed you believed. For Serral vs prime era guys I think we've seen that. Maru, Dark, Rogue and Stats were in their prime from 2018-2021 and are considered to be among the greatest of all time. Serral's winrate vs them in that era is probably a good predictor on how he would've fared against the top 10-12 players in the Kespa era (mostly in the 50-60% range). Serral wasn't even at his best in 2018, but he managed to beat sOs, Zest, Dark, Rogue and Stats (all of whom either won or made the finals of a KIL in 2017/18). His win rates would almost certainly drop if he was randomly inserted into the peak of the KeSPA era (hypotheticals don't enter in my rankings, but I'll entertain it for this discussion (no one wants to be a party pooper)). One has to remember that the definition of "dominance" is not universal and the parameters change given the situation. Rain was arguably the best KIL performer in HotS because he won two KIL and made the finals of another. This might not seem "dominant" when you compare it to what Serral achieved in recent years or how Mvp lapped the field in WoL, but he achieved something no one else managed during that three year stretch. Serral would have had a lot of competition, but there's no reason to believe that Serral couldn't have been as successful as players like Rain, Maru, Classic and INnoVation—all of whom won two KIL between 2013 and 2015.
I agree with you but what makes you say Serral wasn't at his best in 2018? He had his best winrates in that year after 2024 but due to the relative competitiveness I'd say 2018 was the more impressive year out of the two
|
On February 07 2025 22:14 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2025 21:56 PremoBeats wrote:On February 07 2025 21:12 Charoisaur wrote:On February 07 2025 20:52 PremoBeats wrote:On February 07 2025 20:34 Charoisaur wrote:Now your arguments are getting absolutely wild. Taking Stephano's performance who semi-retired after WoL as baseline that korean skill level didn't get worse I don't even know if it's worth continuing this argument at this point. That's the same as taking Serral's winrate as baseline and saying because his winrates got better after 2017 koreans got worse Accepted, Stephano was a shitty example. What about Scarlett, Nerchio and MaNa? And yes, I know, this is the biggest sample size, but none of them correlate with the idea that individual Korean skill level massively droped. Why not take Serral as a baseline? Wouldn't he be the most suitable candidate for serving as the baseline given he's the most consistent player ever and hasn't lost motivation at all as far as we can tell? In his first 3 years after his ascension his winrates against koreans were: 2018: Serral is 61–27 (69.32%) in games and 24–4 (85.71%) in matches. 2019:Serral is 65–29 (69.15%) in games and 23–7 (76.67%) in matches. 2020: Serral is 102–44 (69.86%) in games and 42–7 (85.71%) in matches. and in 2024: Serral is 68–9 (88.31%) in games and 26–1 (96.30%) in matches. By your own logic that should be irrefutable proof that koreans have declined. If you want to say "but Serral has improved" you may come to the conclusion that you can't use any player as the baseline because nobody's skill level stays completely consistent across the years. Personally, I will just go what with the pros say. Inno said he's gotten slower with advanced age. Dark said it. Maru said he can't practice much any more due to his injuries. Uthermal in his interview with sc2historian extensively spoke about how younger players are just advantaged in competitive sc2. I don't deny that age takes its toll. It is the scope that is the issue. If we only speak about age droping win percentages by 3%, that is absolutely fine by me. But that would not counter Serral's GOAT claim. And Serral imo isn't the best example because he is the biggest outlier in SC2 history. Further, you cannot take the player that you are trying to relate, as the anchor for the comparison. The relation between prime era players and Serral is the topic, thus you have to have other players to which you compare the idea, that Koreans overall got worse in comparison to Serral, who subsequently rose to power. Serral also has 71% in 2021. Then again 85% in 2023. Did his age reset? What about the other foreigners? Why didn't they get better versus the Koreans? I do not deny that some of these prime era guys probably had injuries or weren't as fast as they were aged 22. My point is that this decline doesn't make a big impact on the GOAT debate. Well, then I agree, I also think that if he played in the Kespa era he likely would have better winrates then anyone who played back then (although only by a slight degree). I just disagree with the premise that korean skill level hasn't decreased at all which in some of your previous replies it seemed you believed. For Serral vs prime era guys I think we've seen that. Maru, Dark, Rogue and Stats were in their prime from 2018-2021 and are considered to be among the greatest of all time. Serral's winrate vs them in that era is probably a good predictor on how he would've fared against the top 10-12 players in the Kespa era (mostly in the 50-60% range).
Then we can agree 
Looking at your example though, I think you'd have to set at least a 60% win base line.
In the time frame you mentioned, Serral's match win rate versus these 4 guys is 61% in total. And it includes a period where you have to add a 45% win rate versus Rogue in a pool of only 4 players. As Rogue is the only player that could match Serral overall (Serral by 2022, which I would still count as Rogue's prime, wins slightly with 8:7 - 53%), I'd take that sample size and time frame, where a 45% win rate versus Rogue is incorporated in a pool of 4 players with a grain of salt. Especially when prime players like INno, sOs, Zest and Solar all had over 65% against the top Koreans from 2013-2015. I don't see, Serral performing worse than them.
On February 08 2025 00:51 WombaT wrote:
I will note I’ll stop short of definitively calling it, but Serral having an 85% match winrate and 15% gap to #2 is starting to approach that territory, where the number is just too big.
Don't forget that the number #2 also distanced #3 by quite large margins on top of that. There were years when Serral distanced Maru by 15%, who distanced INno by another 7%, meaning #1 and #3 were 22% apart.
And again: The Korean numbers in comparison to Serral are slightly inflated, as Serral hardly played lower tier-Koreans to achieve his win rates.
On February 08 2025 09:49 Mizenhauer wrote:
His win rates would almost certainly drop if he was randomly inserted into the peak of the KeSPA era (hypotheticals don't enter in my rankings, but I'll entertain it for this discussion (no one wants to be a party pooper)).
One has to remember that the definition of "dominance" is not universal and the parameters change given the situation. Rain was arguably the best KIL performer in HotS because he won two KIL and made the finals of another. This might not seem "dominant" when you compare it to what Serral achieved in recent years or how Mvp lapped the field in WoL, but he achieved something no one else managed during that three year stretch. Serral would have had a lot of competition, but there's no reason to believe that Serral couldn't have been as successful as players like Rain, Maru, Classic and INnoVation—all of whom won two KIL between 2013 and 2015.
Agreed.
On February 08 2025 10:30 WombaT wrote:
From memory, I assume it was you that mentioned it as you’ve chatted soO a bit. Am I correct that soO was saying the Koreans were already pretty aware of Serral being a fearsome player when he was a mere ladder monster and hadn’t quite broke through?
Not especially relevant but I am curious as to my recollection, and it may be faulty!
For me what separates Serral from the pack is his consistency. I know some don’t rate it as highly as me versus peaking on the championship games, but I do value it very highly.
I think a hypothetical Serral transplanted into the Kespa peak era, probably isn’t dominant in a sense he’s winning all the time.
I think he might have an equal number of titles to X top other player, but what I think you would see is overall he’s doing better than everyone. Maybe not to an extreme degree, but a notable one.
Even Maru, who has been resolutely consistent for years in this rough epoch (and I think his level can be underrated by some) still has the odd bombing out in a group stage, or otherwise quite early.
Serral is perhaps unique in this regard. He basically never loses until a point that on paper you think ‘ok this is a spicy matchup’.
He’s so resolutely consistent in dispatching people he’s expected to beat, that people still recall him losing to a player as good as Rag, in a Ro8 match, in a 3-2 scoreline.
There probably is, but I can’t recall an equivalent of Life losing to Sjow, or Maru losing to Meiomika on his resume. Was looking through Mvp’s results earlier on and even pre-injury problems there’s the odd ‘he lost to who? result that stands out.
So my best guess is maybe Serral doesn’t gap the competition in terms of titles. But he’s probably the guy who’s making most playoff rounds, or the guy who doesn’t have that season he drops out of Code S entirely.
I think that’s Serral’s special sauce, perhaps even beyond his ability to hang with elite players. If you’re basically always able to navigate those early rounds you set yourself up to just naturally be more likely to take titles.
I also remember something being said among those lines. And it would make sense... I mean, Aligulac had Serral as #1 slightly before he started to take off, which absolutely makes sense, given that before winning his first PT in early 2018, he had a year full of 2nd places in Major and Premier Tournaments. While other guys won an event here and there, Serral already showed consistency in making final runs in most of the tournaments he participated in. No wonder, the algorithm noticed that.
And of course his average placements or tournament-participation-win-rates would go down if he was put in the KeSPA period, I think anyone is doubting that. But your points about consistency certainly make sense.
He most likely wouldn't have less titles than other contenders and possibly achieved slightly more.
On February 08 2025 12:30 Charoisaur wrote:
I agree with you but what makes you say Serral wasn't at his best in 2018? He had his best winrates in that year after 2024 but due to the relative competitiveness I'd say 2018 was the more impressive year out of the two
His best win rates versus Koreans indeed were 2018, 2020 and 2023 (85%), apart from the exceptionally insane 96% last year, where a lot of the gap is attributed to aging Koreans.
But then the question needs to be permitted: Why did #2 Clem and #3 MaxPax, both in their prime age in comparison to the older Serral and who inflated their numbers with lower ranked Koreans in Weeklies, achieve "only" 75% and 78% respectively in the same period, while Serral couldn't train normally because of his Military Service 
|
United States1809 Posts
On February 08 2025 12:30 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2025 09:49 Mizenhauer wrote:On February 07 2025 22:14 Charoisaur wrote:On February 07 2025 21:56 PremoBeats wrote:On February 07 2025 21:12 Charoisaur wrote:On February 07 2025 20:52 PremoBeats wrote:On February 07 2025 20:34 Charoisaur wrote:Now your arguments are getting absolutely wild. Taking Stephano's performance who semi-retired after WoL as baseline that korean skill level didn't get worse I don't even know if it's worth continuing this argument at this point. That's the same as taking Serral's winrate as baseline and saying because his winrates got better after 2017 koreans got worse Accepted, Stephano was a shitty example. What about Scarlett, Nerchio and MaNa? And yes, I know, this is the biggest sample size, but none of them correlate with the idea that individual Korean skill level massively droped. Why not take Serral as a baseline? Wouldn't he be the most suitable candidate for serving as the baseline given he's the most consistent player ever and hasn't lost motivation at all as far as we can tell? In his first 3 years after his ascension his winrates against koreans were: 2018: Serral is 61–27 (69.32%) in games and 24–4 (85.71%) in matches. 2019:Serral is 65–29 (69.15%) in games and 23–7 (76.67%) in matches. 2020: Serral is 102–44 (69.86%) in games and 42–7 (85.71%) in matches. and in 2024: Serral is 68–9 (88.31%) in games and 26–1 (96.30%) in matches. By your own logic that should be irrefutable proof that koreans have declined. If you want to say "but Serral has improved" you may come to the conclusion that you can't use any player as the baseline because nobody's skill level stays completely consistent across the years. Personally, I will just go what with the pros say. Inno said he's gotten slower with advanced age. Dark said it. Maru said he can't practice much any more due to his injuries. Uthermal in his interview with sc2historian extensively spoke about how younger players are just advantaged in competitive sc2. I don't deny that age takes its toll. It is the scope that is the issue. If we only speak about age droping win percentages by 3%, that is absolutely fine by me. But that would not counter Serral's GOAT claim. And Serral imo isn't the best example because he is the biggest outlier in SC2 history. Further, you cannot take the player that you are trying to relate, as the anchor for the comparison. The relation between prime era players and Serral is the topic, thus you have to have other players to which you compare the idea, that Koreans overall got worse in comparison to Serral, who subsequently rose to power. Serral also has 71% in 2021. Then again 85% in 2023. Did his age reset? What about the other foreigners? Why didn't they get better versus the Koreans? I do not deny that some of these prime era guys probably had injuries or weren't as fast as they were aged 22. My point is that this decline doesn't make a big impact on the GOAT debate. Well, then I agree, I also think that if he played in the Kespa era he likely would have better winrates then anyone who played back then (although only by a slight degree). I just disagree with the premise that korean skill level hasn't decreased at all which in some of your previous replies it seemed you believed. For Serral vs prime era guys I think we've seen that. Maru, Dark, Rogue and Stats were in their prime from 2018-2021 and are considered to be among the greatest of all time. Serral's winrate vs them in that era is probably a good predictor on how he would've fared against the top 10-12 players in the Kespa era (mostly in the 50-60% range). Serral wasn't even at his best in 2018, but he managed to beat sOs, Zest, Dark, Rogue and Stats (all of whom either won or made the finals of a KIL in 2017/18). His win rates would almost certainly drop if he was randomly inserted into the peak of the KeSPA era (hypotheticals don't enter in my rankings, but I'll entertain it for this discussion (no one wants to be a party pooper)). One has to remember that the definition of "dominance" is not universal and the parameters change given the situation. Rain was arguably the best KIL performer in HotS because he won two KIL and made the finals of another. This might not seem "dominant" when you compare it to what Serral achieved in recent years or how Mvp lapped the field in WoL, but he achieved something no one else managed during that three year stretch. Serral would have had a lot of competition, but there's no reason to believe that Serral couldn't have been as successful as players like Rain, Maru, Classic and INnoVation—all of whom won two KIL between 2013 and 2015. I agree with you but what makes you say Serral wasn't at his best in 2018? He had his best winrates in that year after 2024 but due to the relative competitiveness I'd say 2018 was the more impressive year out of the two
I think Serral improved as a player with time, even if the gulf between him and his peers was larger in 2018 than in the years that would follow.
On February 08 2025 10:30 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2025 09:49 Mizenhauer wrote:On February 07 2025 22:14 Charoisaur wrote:On February 07 2025 21:56 PremoBeats wrote:On February 07 2025 21:12 Charoisaur wrote:On February 07 2025 20:52 PremoBeats wrote:On February 07 2025 20:34 Charoisaur wrote:Now your arguments are getting absolutely wild. Taking Stephano's performance who semi-retired after WoL as baseline that korean skill level didn't get worse I don't even know if it's worth continuing this argument at this point. That's the same as taking Serral's winrate as baseline and saying because his winrates got better after 2017 koreans got worse Accepted, Stephano was a shitty example. What about Scarlett, Nerchio and MaNa? And yes, I know, this is the biggest sample size, but none of them correlate with the idea that individual Korean skill level massively droped. Why not take Serral as a baseline? Wouldn't he be the most suitable candidate for serving as the baseline given he's the most consistent player ever and hasn't lost motivation at all as far as we can tell? In his first 3 years after his ascension his winrates against koreans were: 2018: Serral is 61–27 (69.32%) in games and 24–4 (85.71%) in matches. 2019:Serral is 65–29 (69.15%) in games and 23–7 (76.67%) in matches. 2020: Serral is 102–44 (69.86%) in games and 42–7 (85.71%) in matches. and in 2024: Serral is 68–9 (88.31%) in games and 26–1 (96.30%) in matches. By your own logic that should be irrefutable proof that koreans have declined. If you want to say "but Serral has improved" you may come to the conclusion that you can't use any player as the baseline because nobody's skill level stays completely consistent across the years. Personally, I will just go what with the pros say. Inno said he's gotten slower with advanced age. Dark said it. Maru said he can't practice much any more due to his injuries. Uthermal in his interview with sc2historian extensively spoke about how younger players are just advantaged in competitive sc2. I don't deny that age takes its toll. It is the scope that is the issue. If we only speak about age droping win percentages by 3%, that is absolutely fine by me. But that would not counter Serral's GOAT claim. And Serral imo isn't the best example because he is the biggest outlier in SC2 history. Further, you cannot take the player that you are trying to relate, as the anchor for the comparison. The relation between prime era players and Serral is the topic, thus you have to have other players to which you compare the idea, that Koreans overall got worse in comparison to Serral, who subsequently rose to power. Serral also has 71% in 2021. Then again 85% in 2023. Did his age reset? What about the other foreigners? Why didn't they get better versus the Koreans? I do not deny that some of these prime era guys probably had injuries or weren't as fast as they were aged 22. My point is that this decline doesn't make a big impact on the GOAT debate. Well, then I agree, I also think that if he played in the Kespa era he likely would have better winrates then anyone who played back then (although only by a slight degree). I just disagree with the premise that korean skill level hasn't decreased at all which in some of your previous replies it seemed you believed. For Serral vs prime era guys I think we've seen that. Maru, Dark, Rogue and Stats were in their prime from 2018-2021 and are considered to be among the greatest of all time. Serral's winrate vs them in that era is probably a good predictor on how he would've fared against the top 10-12 players in the Kespa era (mostly in the 50-60% range). Serral wasn't even at his best in 2018, but he managed to beat sOs, Zest, Dark, Rogue and Stats (all of whom either won or made the finals of a KIL in 2017/18). His win rates would almost certainly drop if he was randomly inserted into the peak of the KeSPA era (hypotheticals don't enter in my rankings, but I'll entertain it for this discussion (no one wants to be a party pooper)). One has to remember that the definition of "dominance" is not universal and the parameters change given the situation. Rain was arguably the best KIL performer in HotS because he won two KIL and made the finals of another. This might not seem "dominant" when you compare it to what Serral achieved in recent years or how Mvp lapped the field in WoL, but he achieved something no one else managed during that three year stretch. Serral would have had a lot of competition, but there's no reason to believe that Serral couldn't have been as successful as players like Rain, Maru, Classic and INnoVation—all of whom won two KIL between 2013 and 2015. From memory, I assume it was you that mentioned it as you’ve chatted soO a bit. Am I correct that soO was saying the Koreans were already pretty aware of Serral being a fearsome player when he was a mere ladder monster and hadn’t quite broke through?
He said that Serral was the best Zerg at a WCS Circuit event where two Zergs not named Serral made the Round of 4.
|
@WOMBAT
This is the list before introducing 'welfare'
+ Show Spoiler +MARU
INNO
SERRAL
SOS
LIFE
DARK
ROGUE
ZEST
TY
MC
STATS
BYUN
MMA
HERO
CLASSIC
NEEB
TAEJA
PARTING
SOO
SPECIAL
While a fine list it does showcase the number one weakness of using esportsearnings, and that is that some tournaments simply disallow some players of participating in SC2. This is why I introduced 'welfare' and it affects: Serral, MC, MMA, Neeb and special. It's just me arbitrarily going in a deciding to substract % of money away from certain years, this is pretty much just molesting the stats, but I think it's still better than voiding out these players, or leaving it be.
The top 3 abusers of their race according to my list are: Dark, SoO and Serral, Rogue is closely behind, so your analysis putting Rogue together with Serral in terms of when they were winning most of their earnings is correct.
MVP and Rain are very low because they were the top 1 abusers of the other races, though still ranking behind most of the Zergs, hell even though Life is the lowest abuser of Zerg, he's still higher than MVP.
The balance factor for the year is simply found dividing earnings by race by total earnings. I don't know what else there is to reveal, I did say WoL era was higher than post kespa (blizzcon still around), but I now see that I've rated it the same.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
