|
So I opened up TeamLiquid's "TLPD - SC2 International - Individual League Index" to look at the recent tournament results, and I was surprised by what I saw...
I counted up the results for the last 85 tournaments for each race, and here they are:
First Place finishes:
Zerg: 7/85 = 8.2%
Protoss: 22/85 = 25.9%
Terran: 54/85 = 63.5%
TLPD - SC2 International - Individual Leagues, Page 1
TLPD - SC2 International - Individual Leagues, Page 2
Out of curiosity I began perusing the individual players and seeing their average win rates by race as well. I copied the stats for the top 40 players by ELO.
TLPD - Players, Page 1
Here are the data from each player. The first number, next to the name, represents their winrate against all races. The second listed number is their winrate against Zerg opponents.
+ Show Spoiler +61whitera
70
65naniwa
74
60strelok
61
58mana
60
57drewbie
67
61naama
84
63kas
67
63huk
55
62socke
76
76genius
100
63predy
80
67idra
100
58qxc
70
63envious
56
68ahhboxxah
100
54goody
75
65sjow
75
58tarson
58
53insolence
82
58morrow
61
64jinro
71
57sen
67
73krolu
71
54TLO
50
55satiini
63
63bratok
73
51tefel
57
49diestar
65
58adel
83
63optikzero
80
55slider
86
53joe
73
63select
58
51jimpo
53
47funky
67
67TOP
100
50ciara
67
55kiwikaki
42
Average winrate against ALL players = 59.5
Average winrate against ZERG players = 71.0
Just curious as to TL's response to and explanation for these numbers. If anyone knows of any discrepancy in the data or any reason the data is skewed (apart from there being slightly fewer Zerg's) that could explain these numbers, that would also be appreciated.
EDIT:
Since everyone keeps mentioning GSL, maybe we should look at the most recent GSL results to see if they correspond with the current tournament results...
+ Show Spoiler +
Code S
IMNesTea = Z
MVP = T
MarineKing = T
Jinro = T
Code A
TOP = T
sC = T
Bleach = T
Lyn = T
Current Standings by Race
Zerg 1/8 = 12.5%
Protoss 0/8 = 0%
Terran 7/8 = 87.5%
|
but yet zerg has won 2 GSL's, which if you wanted to win any tournament, you would want to win that one.
sorry but zerg UP isn't going to work, GSL has the best players in the world.
|
On January 19 2011 08:57 Silidons wrote:
but yet zerg has won 2 GSL's, which if you wanted to win any tournament, you would want to win that one.
sorry but zerg UP isn't going to work, GSL has the best players in the world.
QFT
In addition, based on the fact that Blizzard's reports have in the past shown win% of each race against each race on each map in the past - if such a massive differential existed across the board, they would have at least acknowledged in by now.
In addition, do the OP's figures take into account the weighting of each race at this level?
|
|
|
We get this exact thread every week, it's no longer a cleverly designed whine thread. We all know what you're trying to say.
The fact of the matter is that you are taking all levels of tournament from craftcup to GSL and over all the major patches and then putting them on the same ground. Balance has changed, skill has changed, and the best zergs definitley aren't frequenting the craftcup (no offense, i think they are wonderful for the lower bracket of players)
There were like 18 Terran Bonjwas in BW but those stats don't make Terran overpowered...
|
On January 19 2011 08:57 Silidons wrote:
but yet zerg has won 2 GSL's, which if you wanted to win any tournament, you would want to win that one.
sorry but zerg UP isn't going to work, GSL has the best players in the world.
Yeah well done. When presented with a larger number of statistics you chose to use a smaller sample to discredit them. When using numbers you always use the larger sample size because it is less likely to be effected by variance. Also I play Zerg and I don't think they're UP. But I think your arguement is pretty badly flawed.
|
On January 19 2011 09:04 Highways wrote:If you look at the big tournaments, it's pretty even  Major Tournaments
That link doesn't seem to contain anything, unless I am missing something here... :/
|
On January 19 2011 09:05 Backpack wrote:
We get this exact thread every week, it's no longer a cleverly designed whine thread. We all know what you're trying to say.
The fact of the matter is that you are taking all levels of tournament from craftcup to GSL and over all the major patches and then putting them on the same ground. Balance has changed, skill has changed, and the best zergs definitley aren't frequenting the craftcup (no offense, i think they are wonderful for the lower bracket of players)
There were like 18 Terran Bonjwas in BW but those stats don't make Terran overpowered...
lol my OP didn't have any whining at all, I'm just trying to understand the numbers. Your explanation is that Zerg's simply aren't playing in the tournaments? Any reason why?
|
|
|
On January 19 2011 09:06 haffy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2011 08:57 Silidons wrote:
but yet zerg has won 2 GSL's, which if you wanted to win any tournament, you would want to win that one.
sorry but zerg UP isn't going to work, GSL has the best players in the world. Yeah well done. When presented with a larger number of statistics you chose to use a smaller sample to discredit them. When using numbers you always use the larger sample size because it is less likely to be effected by variance. Also I play Zerg and I don't think they're UP. But I think your arguement is pretty badly flawed.
Right, cause if there's an exception to a rule we should just completely ignore it, right? That's a great way to gather statistics. We see a trend, and ignore all the results that don't follow the trend. Your argument (yes, it's spelled that way, "A-R-G-U-M-E-N-T"), is pretty badly flawed as well.
Fact is, they're different. Until all the races are exactly the same, you won't see 33.3/33.3/33.3 numbers. How about this; have you looked into how many players played in the competition? If only 5 zergs entered each tournament, it's no wonder there were so few winners. You're extending your theory too far.
I play Toss, and I'll admit, the fundamentals for zerg aren't easy. Creep Spread, Larva Inject, Expanding, etc. It may be the most difficult race to play, which means there's a skill gap between pros and Code B and below. 2 Zergs won GSLs because they mastered the race (at that time), and played great with the understanding of a master. It isn't conclusive either way. Rather than produce a theory out of the results, just post the results and let the community formulate their own theories.
|
On January 19 2011 09:12 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2011 09:05 Backpack wrote:
We get this exact thread every week, it's no longer a cleverly designed whine thread. We all know what you're trying to say.
The fact of the matter is that you are taking all levels of tournament from craftcup to GSL and over all the major patches and then putting them on the same ground. Balance has changed, skill has changed, and the best zergs definitley aren't frequenting the craftcup (no offense, i think they are wonderful for the lower bracket of players)
There were like 18 Terran Bonjwas in BW but those stats don't make Terran overpowered... lol my OP didn't have any whining at all, I'm just trying to understand the numbers. Your explanation is that Zerg's simply aren't playing in the tournaments? Any reason why?
Did you read my post?
My explanation has to do with the scattered skill level and multiple balance patches that occurred over the course of the list that you are using.
|
Zerg won 2 big tournaments, and people use it for an excuse to say zerg is not UP....
It doesn't work that way.
Results don't show imba.....
Why not? Because it's played by people who have talent... And are not accurate for the whole view
|
8.2%
hahahaha
Balance thread incoming.
|
On January 19 2011 09:15 Exxo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2011 09:06 haffy wrote:On January 19 2011 08:57 Silidons wrote:
but yet zerg has won 2 GSL's, which if you wanted to win any tournament, you would want to win that one.
sorry but zerg UP isn't going to work, GSL has the best players in the world. Yeah well done. When presented with a larger number of statistics you chose to use a smaller sample to discredit them. When using numbers you always use the larger sample size because it is less likely to be effected by variance. Also I play Zerg and I don't think they're UP. But I think your arguement is pretty badly flawed. Right, cause if there's an exception to a rule we should just completely ignore it, right? That's a great way to gather statistics. We see a trend, and ignore all the results that don't follow the trend. Your argument (yes, it's spelled that way, "A-R-G-U-M-E-N-T"), is pretty badly flawed as well. Fact is, they're different. Until all the races are exactly the same, you won't see 33.3/33.3/33.3 numbers. How about this; have you looked into how many players played in the competition? If only 5 zergs entered each tournament, it's no wonder there were so few winners. You're extending your theory too far. I play Toss, and I'll admit, the fundamentals for zerg aren't easy. Creep Spread, Larva Inject, Expanding, etc. It may be the most difficult race to play, which means there's a skill gap between pros and Code B and below. 2 Zergs won GSLs because they mastered the race (at that time), and played great with the understanding of a master. It isn't conclusive either way. Rather than produce a theory out of the results, just post the results and let the community formulate their own theories.
Why are you trying to argue with me over balance? I already said in my post I don't think it's unfair. I said your argument was flawed. And thanks for taking such an effort to correct my spelling I guess.
Yes there is exceptions to rules. Like one player could just be better and could win with any race he wanted. But since we don't have all day to list every single variable I think it's simpler to look at statistics the way they were meant to. Not taking one specific example and using them to form a biased arugment.
Or if you want I can just state that Terran havn't won a GSL yet so obviously Terran need some serious buffs.
|
On January 19 2011 09:15 Exxo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2011 09:06 haffy wrote:On January 19 2011 08:57 Silidons wrote:
but yet zerg has won 2 GSL's, which if you wanted to win any tournament, you would want to win that one.
sorry but zerg UP isn't going to work, GSL has the best players in the world. Yeah well done. When presented with a larger number of statistics you chose to use a smaller sample to discredit them. When using numbers you always use the larger sample size because it is less likely to be effected by variance. Also I play Zerg and I don't think they're UP. But I think your arguement is pretty badly flawed. Right, cause if there's an exception to a rule we should just completely ignore it, right? That's a great way to gather statistics. .
SC2 balance is one thing, understanding of statistics is another!
You can estimate the error you'd expect from your result by taking the root of the sample size.
For instance, if I flip a coin 100 times, I'd expect it to land heads 50 times and tails 50 times. If I do the experiment, I'd expect an error of +/- sqrt(100) = 10.
So if my coin lands 40 times on heads and 60 times on tails, that's statistically consistent with a fair coin.
That means of a tournament sample of size 13 (looking only at major tournaments), we can expect +/- 3 at the very least!
If we remarkably did have perfect balance between all races, then having 7 or 8 Terran winners - or merely 1 or 2 Zerg winners - would be statistically expected.
On the other hand, if you look at a larger sample - say 85 tournaments, the error is only 9. Anything less than 20 or so Zerg victories is statistically suprising, assuming perfect balance, and no other factors.
There are of course other explanations than imbalances between the races, but the way you are using statistics is wrong and you should stop.
Edit: Out of 4 GSL tournaments, we should expect +/- 2. That means that current GSL results are consistent with Zerg being statistically expected to win zero, or statistically expected to win all of them. When your error bars are bigger than your signal, you should start worrying about your sample size for sure!
|
I personally don't care what's balanced/isn't, I'm too nooby for it to matter. But the zerg win rate for tournaments OVERALL has always been abysmal, and it hasn't really changed. Zergs got lucky and won 2 tournaments, and those were luckily GSL's, and all of a sudden every other tourney in the world doesn't matter?
Not likely.
|
I don't understand how this is possible.
85 tournaments... 54 terrans, 39 protoss, 7 zergs...
54+39+7=100, not 85...
Am I missing something here?
Either way, it doesn't change the percentages a lot. For this to be more significant, you'd need the proportion of all the progamers in the tournaments as well. Who's to say that Zerg weren't the minority in overall representation (and therefore the 7% would be more normal than if 1/3rd of the players were Zerg)?
Just sayin'.
|
Wow that's funny to look at. It's like each race is taking turns winning, so I guess a Protoss has to win the next major tournament to keep the perfection.
|
On January 19 2011 09:31 Dragar wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2011 09:15 Exxo wrote:On January 19 2011 09:06 haffy wrote:On January 19 2011 08:57 Silidons wrote:
but yet zerg has won 2 GSL's, which if you wanted to win any tournament, you would want to win that one.
sorry but zerg UP isn't going to work, GSL has the best players in the world. Yeah well done. When presented with a larger number of statistics you chose to use a smaller sample to discredit them. When using numbers you always use the larger sample size because it is less likely to be effected by variance. Also I play Zerg and I don't think they're UP. But I think your arguement is pretty badly flawed. Right, cause if there's an exception to a rule we should just completely ignore it, right? That's a great way to gather statistics. . SC2 balance is one thing, understanding of statistics is another! You can estimate the error you'd expect from your result by taking the root of the sample size. For instance, if I flip a coin 100 times, I'd expect it to land heads 50 times and tails 50 times. If I do the experiment, I'd expect an error of +/- sqrt(100) = 10. So if my coin lands 40 times on heads and 60 times on tails, that's statistically consistent with a fair coin. That means of a tournament sample of size 13 (looking only at major tournaments), we can expect +/- 3 at the very least! If we remarkably did have perfect balance between all races, then having 7 or 8 Terran winners - or merely 1 or 2 Zerg winners - would be statistically expected. On the other hand, if you look at a larger sample - say 85 tournaments, the error is only 9. Anything less than 20 or so Zerg victories is statistically suprising, assuming perfect balance, and no other factors. There are of course other explanations than imbalances between the races, but the way you are using statistics is wrong and you should stop. Edit: Out of 4 GSL tournaments, we should expect +/- 2. That means that current GSL results are consistent with Zerg being statistically expected to win zero, or statistically expected to win all of them. When your error bars are bigger than your signal, you should start worrying about your sample size for sure!
Again, you're assuming that the # of Zerg players = # of Protoss players = # of Terran players in these tournaments...
I doubt this is the case. Zerg is comparatively unpopular (EDIT: though not on TL.net...).
|
It's pretty even on major tournaments
In korea alone it's probably even more even
tho u did a good job it is clear to make zerg seems up =(
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
