|
Braavos36362 Posts
On December 04 2007 20:30 SuperJongMan wrote:
Well, I caught most of the month cept towards the end/thanksgiving.
I remember GGplay had nice games.
He rose in Kespa too.
Since flaming out of EVER with losses to Bisu and Shudder, GGPlay has made a recovery, with some nice proleague wins and a win over Up (though this shouldn't really count because Up already won the group and GGPlay was eliminated, so it was kind of a throwaway game). He has a win vs Casy (which was very, very close) and a win over Daezang which are "meh" wins. His two quality wins are Hwasin and Sangho. His losses are Darkelf and Light, both of which came toward the end of the month. He's got less momentum than Sea, who is on a big winning streak at the end of the month. Sea's quality wins are Anytime and Calm (and most recently Jaedong, but that was a day or two after Steve put up the PR).
It's close, but I don't think you can put GGPlay over Much or Sea.
I think Steve erred by not putting GGPlay in the "Close but no cigar" section, he definitely deserves to be there (in the "Close" section) over some of the people listed.
Bottom line is, I think that Much should be #9, Sea gets #10 by a hair over GGPlay because of the momentum difference.
Everyone else is not a good argument.
Steve has his reasons for Sea #9 and Much #10, maybe a little of it is bias, but generally they are legitimate reasons. The people freaking out over Sea even being on the rank fail to see that Sea should be #10 at worst or barely missing the PR. It's not as ridiculous as people make it seem that Steve has him at #9.
|
On December 04 2007 20:13 Hot_Bid wrote:
It's amazing you can accuse someone of bias when not presenting any viable alternatives.
You: "Sea is so overrated!!! Why is he there?? Steve is biased!!"
Me: "Name some players who you think should be there instead of Sea."
Lol.
Why do I need give alternatives? Just because I say something is fucked up I need to tell the correct answer? I'm not the author of this power rank. I see people ask why Sea is there and the only thing we get is "He is great. Name someone else who can be there". Everyone thinks their favorite player is great. I always thought of this rank as fakesteves, as a knowledgeable starcraft fan, list and nothing objective. I love reading the ranks and comments, but when you talk like this is some kind of truth with the argument that he is fucking great it's just stupid as hell. I think GGplay is great as well and just need some luck to be at the top again. I watch every GGplay game and I know much about him and I see great potential in him. Who cares.
Hot_Bid wrote:
"It's month by month, but in the weird situation you put up that will almost never happen, yes you would take into consideration the MSL win from the previous month. For the guys I listed though, I don't think you can justify putting Mania or Kwanro on for their performances from two months ago when they are clearly doing nothing now. Same with people that are "falling."
Ok I might be stupid but according to this it's impossible to question any single decision in this rank. Results can be ignored if the player looks good in the few BO1 games he plays and it is only for this month but there can be exceptions which aren't clear. An earlier MSL win can be taken into account, but playing close to every proleague match for months with decent results like ForGG can not.
It's just gibberish to me. I really really tried to understand how this rank works, but I'll just leave it since it's impossible with all these hidden rules which are made up everytime someone questions something. This pisses me off more than it should so I'll let you continue think this rank to be the ultimate truth while I consider it bullshit after this "Sea is great" argument. Everyone's happy.
|
Sea is eight on december's kespa ranking
dont diss ok, steve put him on 9.
|
The thing is that, contrary to what most people think, the power rank is entirely not objective. It's the opinion of one person, presented to be debated by the community as a whole. The fact that the power rank is not purely based on results and can be based on how good someone looks in a game guarantees that it can never be 100% correct. The whole point is to generate discussion, not to make a list of exactly who is best. We have kespa for that.
Back when etter was the one who ran the power rank, he never claimed that the list was anything but subjective. If steve didn't claim that "anyone who disagrees with sea's presence doesn't know anything", then we wouldn't have any problems.
On the other hand, it's kind of stupid to suggest sea shouldn't be in there when you can't name people who should take his place. We can't exactly kick him out and put in a blank slot.
|
Braavos36362 Posts
On December 04 2007 22:06 joeki wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2007 20:13 Hot_Bid wrote:
It's amazing you can accuse someone of bias when not presenting any viable alternatives.
You: "Sea is so overrated!!! Why is he there?? Steve is biased!!"
Me: "Name some players who you think should be there instead of Sea." Lol. Why do I need give alternatives? Just because I say something is fucked up I need to tell the correct answer? I'm not the author of this power rank. I see people ask why Sea is there and the only thing we get is "He is great. Name someone else who can be there". Everyone thinks their favorite player is great. I always thought of this rank as fakesteves, as a knowledgeable starcraft fan, list and nothing objective. I love reading the ranks and comments, but when you talk like this is some kind of truth with the argument that he is fucking great it's just stupid as hell. I think GGplay is great as well and just need some luck to be at the top again. I watch every GGplay game and I know much about him and I see great potential in him. Who cares.
This should be obvious, but if I have to spell it out for you, fine.
You need alternatives because the PR puts supposedly the top 10 most powerful players on the list. If there aren't players that are better than Sea that aren't on the list, then Sea's position is justified, regardless of how biased FakeSteve is. I already explained why I believed GGPlay isn't on it (but is close) and why Sea or Much should be on it.
I can't believe I have to explain this, but for example, if I'm picking the tallest person out of 5 people, and I think it's this 5'1" guy. Unless you can show me someone who is 5'1" or higher among the 5 people, the 5'1" guy deserves the "tallest person" rank. Sea is among the top 10 best players right now. Unless you can show an alternative and support it, he deserves the sport. It doesn't matter how big a fan Steve is of Sea.
People ask why Sea is there and the only thing we get is 'he is great, name someone else."
This is just a completely incorrect characterization of the situation. Have you even been reading this thread? Don't make stupid statements that are just blatantly wrong. People suggested alternatives, and had those alternatives argued against and disproved. The only viable alternatives to Sea for the #9-10 spots are Much and GGPlay, and I already said why I thought it should be Sea+Much rather than Much+GGPlay. I have yet to see a good argument against Sea, other than "I think Fakesteve is biased!!"
Show nested quote +Hot_Bid wrote:
"It's month by month, but in the weird situation you put up that will almost never happen, yes you would take into consideration the MSL win from the previous month. For the guys I listed though, I don't think you can justify putting Mania or Kwanro on for their performances from two months ago when they are clearly doing nothing now. Same with people that are "falling." Ok I might be stupid but according to this it's impossible to question any single decision in this rank. Results can be ignored if the player looks good in the few BO1 games he plays and it is only for this month but there can be exceptions which aren't clear. An earlier MSL win can be taken into account, but playing close to every proleague match for months with decent results like ForGG can not. It's just gibberish to me. I really really tried to understand how this rank works, but I'll just leave it since it's impossible with all these hidden rules which are made up everytime someone questions something. This pisses me off more than it should so I'll let you continue think this rank to be the ultimate truth while I consider it bullshit after this "Sea is great" argument. Everyone's happy.
Decent results like ForGG? Are you kidding me? You really think that ForGG should be there instead of Sea?
There aren't any "hidden" rules. I'm saying its debatable, and nobody has put up a good argument for why Sea shouldn't be there (as #9-10, assume him and Much are interchangeable). All people have been saying is "FakeSteve is biased!!! Why isn't ABC on the list?" Then someone comes up with support of why its ridiculous to consider ABC, and people like you continue to say "OMG SO BIASED!" when in reality the only support you have is your unfounded opinion of how FakeSteve evaluates things.
Nobody says this rank is the perfect objective standard. Nobody can be perfect in a subjective ranking system. I do, however, agree with a lot of FakeSteve's opinions in this month's rank, with the exception of switching Much and Sea.
Again, you might think it's all bullshit, but judging by the analysis and logic for opinions between you and FakeSteve, his opinion is clearly far more informed and considered and supported than anything you've said. He provided reasons with analyis; there's visual evidence from the games and statistical evidence from the TLPD. You, however, have offered nothing but assumptions about how biased he is.
You can't expect people to take you seriously when you don't read previous posts, you make ridiculous arguments (ForGG??), and then come back with accusations about how "bullshit" the process is, offering no alternatives for the player you think doesn't deserve to be there and no analysis or support for why he shouldn't be there. PR may be biased, but it's way better than the way you go about justifying things.
|
Braavos36362 Posts
On December 04 2007 23:36 nobodyhome246 wrote:
...
On the other hand, it's kind of stupid to suggest sea shouldn't be in there when you can't name people who should take his place. We can't exactly kick him out and put in a blank slot.
Exactly.
|
of course steve is going to say that his ranking is 100% FACT and youre all a bunch of dipshits for not agreeing. what the hell else is going to say? its my humble opinion? weak.
youre in his world now, baby.
|
On December 04 2007 22:06 joeki wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2007 20:13 Hot_Bid wrote:
It's amazing you can accuse someone of bias when not presenting any viable alternatives.
You: "Sea is so overrated!!! Why is he there?? Steve is biased!!"
Me: "Name some players who you think should be there instead of Sea." Lol. Why do I need give alternatives? Just because I say something is fucked up I need to tell the correct answer?
Normally not always. Normally it is all right just to say, that is bullshit. Like in normal life, it happens all day around us. It is actually OK to find something not good enough, even if you are not able to provide a better solution, for example there are enough complex problem, there is probably nobody has ultimately solution for it. Like it happens to politic issues, or environment problem and so on. Most of people just find this or that not good and try to point out something with his own idea, in most case, people just find it is not good, but does not have alternative for it.
Nevertheless, I think regarding PowerRanking you should be able to provide some alternative if you are not satisfied with someone's placement.
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
On December 05 2007 02:24 fig_newbie wrote:
of course steve is going to say that his ranking is 100% FACT and youre all a bunch of dipshits for not agreeing. what the hell else is going to say? its my humble opinion? weak.
youre in his world now, baby.
hahaha
Honestly I'm just having fun with it. I really enjoy the discussion that spawns from the Power Rank, and I really enjoy explaining the logic behind my choices.
The only thing I don't like is when people don't have anything to say, and instead use this space to tell me how "biased" I am.
It's impossible for the Power Rank to be 100% objective, and that was never its intent. These are the ten strongest players, in order, according to me. I welcome any discussion about the placement of the players, but I don't welcome people that can't back up their thoughts with evidence 
|
On December 05 2007 06:24 neotoss wrote:
Nevertheless, I think regarding PowerRanking you should be able to provide some alternative if you are not satisfied with someone's placement.
Hmm good post, but this last thing I just wonder why? Steve has taken the responsibility to make a credible power rank and I have not. I question his decision as a reader (or voter if it was about politics) who maybe speaks his mind too much, but still... just a reader. I have no obligation to do anything and the only reason Hot_Bid wants me to come up with alternatives is because it's so fucking easy to beat down a player who is not in the top-5-non-debatable-part of the list instead of giving straight answers to my questions.
To Hot_Bid:
Hot_Bid I would appreciate if you could focus less on trying to make me look like an idiot and more on proving me wrong or giving answers to the questions I ask. It's a discussion about opinion and there's no need to be an ass.
I do not know if someone deserves the spot more than Sea. And if there is I do not know who. I do not make top 10 lists on my free time and I don't know enough about statistics to make a good power rank. Now with that set aside let me explain my point:
Steve has taken the responsibility to make a power rank and I have not. He is supposed to defend his decisions and he does a great job at it because either he proves them wrong OR they get tired of arguing. I'm not tired yet (I'm sorry) and I don't feel I've been proven wrong and apparentely not Hot_Bid either since you gave up on defending Sea and instead tries to make me make a decision YOU can question instead. But again, I'm not doing this, it's not my job, I don't know enough and the question where the visual and statistical evidence you talk about is still is not answered.
Steve, I can't come up with something, but that's not the reason I call you biased. The reason I say you are biased is that YOU can't come up with something.
And as a final note. If you require evidence from everyone questioning your decision while using the "he looked great that game" argument you set the standard for evidence very low (and that's a happy smiley not an arrogant one)
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
On December 05 2007 07:30 joeki wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2007 06:24 neotoss wrote:
Nevertheless, I think regarding PowerRanking you should be able to provide some alternative if you are not satisfied with someone's placement.
Hmm good post, but this last thing I just wonder why? Steve has taken the responsibility to make a credible power rank and I have not. I question his decision as a reader (or voter if it was about politics) who maybe speaks his mind too much, but still... just a reader. I have no obligation to do anything and the only reason Hot_Bid wants me to come up with alternatives is because it's so fucking easy to beat down a player who is not in the top-5-non-debatable-part of the list instead of giving straight answers to my questions. To Hot_Bid: Hot_Bid I would appreciate if you could focus less on trying to make me look like an idiot and more on proving me wrong or giving answers to the questions I ask. It's a discussion about opinion and there's no need to be an ass. I do not know if someone deserves the spot more than Sea. And if there is I do not know who. I do not make top 10 lists on my free time and I don't know enough about statistics to make a good power rank. Now with that set aside let me explain my point: Steve has taken the responsibility to make a power rank and I have not. He is supposed to defend his decisions and he does a great job at it because either he proves them wrong OR they get tired of arguing. I'm not tired yet (I'm sorry) and I don't feel I've been proven wrong and apparentely not Hot_Bid either since you gave up on defending Sea and instead tries to make me make a decision YOU can question instead. But again, I'm not doing this, it's not my job, I don't know enough and the question where the visual and statistical evidence you talk about is still is not answered. Steve, I can't come up with something, but that's not the reason I call you biased. The reason I say you are biased is that YOU can't come up with something. And as a final note. If you require evidence from everyone questioning your decision while using the "he looked great that game" argument you set the standard for evidence very low (and that's a happy smiley not an arrogant one)
Hot_Bid and I have gone through like ten players that were suggested and provided concrete evidence of their less-than-great play. How exactly does coming up with concrete evidence as to why those people don't have Sea's spot, which validates Sea's spot, equate to being unable to come up with something?
Sea's play has been great lately, better than everyone but the eight players above him. I have backed up this thought with Hot_Bid's help, and if you still can't accept it I have no idea what to tell you.
I honestly don't understand what you're talking about. I HAVE come up with something. Many things. You're just saying I haven't like the posts Hot_Bid and I made don't exist? You're saying that the justification that has been given for Sea's positioning hasn't been given, despite several lengthy posts that explicitly state his good play and the lesser play of any other reasonable candidate? I don't get it.
And no, I don't 'require' evidence, but I'd like people who think there are more deserving candidates to say more than 'well this is what I think and you only disagree because you're biased'.
On top of that, Sea isn't on the rank for lack of better candidates, Sea is on the rank because he is playing fucking good.
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
While the responsibility lies on me to create a sensible and accurate Power Rank, it is in fact up to you to provide reasoning behind your disagreements if you choose to voice them so vehemently.
This circular argument where I give reason behind Sea's placement and you say I'm only thinking that way because I'm biased is ignorant and gets us nowhere.
|
On December 05 2007 07:30 joeki wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2007 06:24 neotoss wrote:
Nevertheless, I think regarding PowerRanking you should be able to provide some alternative if you are not satisfied with someone's placement.
Hmm good post, but this last thing I just wonder why? Steve has taken the responsibility to make a credible power rank and I have not. I question his decision as a reader (or voter if it was about politics) who maybe speaks his mind too much, but still... just a reader. I have no obligation to do anything and the only reason Hot_Bid wants me to come up with alternatives is because it's so fucking easy to beat down a player who is not in the top-5-non-debatable-part of the list instead of giving straight answers to my questions. To Hot_Bid: Hot_Bid I would appreciate if you could focus less on trying to make me look like an idiot and more on proving me wrong or giving answers to the questions I ask. It's a discussion about opinion and there's no need to be an ass. I do not know if someone deserves the spot more than Sea. And if there is I do not know who. I do not make top 10 lists on my free time and I don't know enough about statistics to make a good power rank. Now with that set aside let me explain my point: Steve has taken the responsibility to make a power rank and I have not. He is supposed to defend his decisions and he does a great job at it because either he proves them wrong OR they get tired of arguing. I'm not tired yet (I'm sorry) and I don't feel I've been proven wrong and apparentely not Hot_Bid either since you gave up on defending Sea and instead tries to make me make a decision YOU can question instead. But again, I'm not doing this, it's not my job, I don't know enough and the question where the visual and statistical evidence you talk about is still is not answered. Steve, I can't come up with something, but that's not the reason I call you biased. The reason I say you are biased is that YOU can't come up with something. And as a final note. If you require evidence from everyone questioning your decision while using the "he looked great that game" argument you set the standard for evidence very low (and that's a happy smiley not an arrogant one)
I'm not a big fan of jumping into other people's arguments but there seems to be a bit of a misunderstanding on your part.
First, you've taken it upon yourself to question Steves rankings. Good, one of the points of the PR is to stimulate interactions between members over the choices that the PR creator (that would be steve) has offered. Keep in mind that ALTHOUGH IT IS STEVE's OPINION and far from being completely objective with legitimate statistical tests backing it up, it is based on his own observations, which is a LOT. That in itself should give credence to his opinions.
The problem is this: youve openly criticized him and called his OPINIONS biased. No shit? It probably is; its his PowerRank after all, and unfortunately by saying that youre only stating the obvious (which, amazingly, many people STILL dont understand about the PR). But then again, hes also backed up his words with in depth analysis of WHY he's chosen who he wants in, in this case Sea.
Hot_Bid asking you to name someone more deserving of a ranking than Sea is valid for the sake of your argument with him. Sure its Steves job. But at the same time you haven't contributed at ALL to the discussion, except for the very loose insult of calling his OPINIONS biased. Consider it before you type out a post and calling bullshit. People here read what you write and criticize harshly if you cant back your opinion up. Steve's done it. Maybe you should too.
|
Well you guys suck.
At least when I claimed I was gonna punch Steve's teeth out, I put out GGplay as an alternative.
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
I'll let you punch me if you'll kiss my gums better ;X
|
the powerrank curse has just made much go 0-2.
gj fakesteve, nice write up :D
and to say GGPlay has potential is to say boxer has potential to be a progamer, or soemthing like that, GGplay has already porven hes good and won an OSL, then called out bisu, we already know he's good, and he's hit the top of the scene. The point you must make is that right now he's hot, and he's dominating, which he isn't. He's good but not top 10, much and sea just kind of dominate proleague atm, making them good candidates. GGplay is good, but i think much being on that 10 streak tear and sea being up there aswel (I don't follow Sea really) All i know about Sea is that he's really solid in all match ups and just got tooled by gorush in the MSL last season.
|
|
|
You know, I never actually looked at Sea's TLPD page until just now when I clicked on MoNKeYSpanKeR's link, but jesus christ, 65% in all matchups? That's fucking disgusting.
|
I think Savior's big mistake in game 2 was being overly aggressive.
He definitely had an advantage after taking out Bisu's rear nat, but instead of securing his eco, supply and taking the map, he decided to go for the kill with the hydras Bisu's main. He then had no eco, no units, no supply and Bisu stomped him.
Third game was just pure art by Bisu. Savior didn't play bad and Bisu was just really strong.
Just my view =O
|
Once again, look who he is playing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
