Menu
By:
Filters
What's new

MKi Rankings - SCR Update

KingHippo

KingHippo

Alternative-Fact Checker
One issue I think is that with this ranking is that Crimson is not putting this into perspective...

This is a starting point based upon the data that can be collected. This is not where players really currently are, it's just where this list puts them based on the complete data that Crimson can find. Crimson should remind top players to stifle their flow because this is not where they are, it's just where they start based on this starting point. He also needs to remind all the trolls that this doesn't mean that your favorite guys to hate on are where this list puts them. The community is treating this like "Wow, FINALLY we can see where players exactly stand! No more debating!", but this isn't where they actually stand, it's where they start based on the limited versus data found.

As it is this system would be like...let's take Tom Brady (The NFL quarterback, not fuckin Billy the kid). He is 7-7 in his last 14 post season games. If the last 14 post season games was the only complete data Crimson could find, then Tom Brady looks like a mediocre playoff QB. What about his 3 Superbowl wins? Crimson says "Oh, well I couldn't get the complete versus data for those seasons!".

Even worse, Brady could say "Also, I am 17-7 and that's the most wins all time!" Crimson says "Sorry, I didn't rank your 3 Superbowl wins when you started out 9-0 because I can't get the complete season data so I didn't count the initial 9-0." Do you see the problem?
 
CrimsonShadow

CrimsonShadow

Administrator and Community Engineer
Administrator
KingHippo said:
As it is this system would be like taking the real QB Tom Brady. He is 7-7 in his last 14 post season games. If the last 14 post season games was the only complete data Crimson could find, then Tom Brady looks like a mediocre playoff QB. What about his 3 Superbowl wins? Crimson says "Oh, well I couldn't get the complete versus data for those seasons!". Do you see the problem?
Click to expand...
The Patriots are currently a mediocre playoff team.. What they've done in the past can't change that.

I'm saying this as a Patriots fan -- and it illustrates the reason why you can't assume that people are the same now as they were 3 years ago.
 
KingHippo

KingHippo

Alternative-Fact Checker
CrimsonShadow said:
The Patriots are currently a mediocre playoff team.. What they've done in the past can't change that.

I'm saying this as a Patriots fan -- and it illustrates the reason why you can't assume that people are the same now as they were 3 years ago.
Click to expand...
Wait wait, they fuckin went to the Superbowl LAST YEAR and got to the AFC Championship this year. How is that mediocre?

I mean, does Joe Montana get counted as a mediocre quarterback because of his time with the Chiefs? C'mon man.
 
CrimsonShadow

CrimsonShadow

Administrator and Community Engineer
Administrator
KingHippo said:
Wait wait, they fuckin went to the Superbowl LAST YEAR and got to the AFC Championship this year. How is that mediocre?

I mean, does Joe Montana get counted as a mediocre asshole because of his great body of work with the Chiefs? C'mon man.
Click to expand...
Every year it's a tossup when they meet a good team in the playoffs. They barely got by Baltimore last year, and were gifted a lucky break.. And I'm saying this as a fan. Nowdays even when they make the bowl, I don't have confidence as a fan that they're going to pull it off.

I love the Pats.. But I'm also honest :D
 
KingHippo

KingHippo

Alternative-Fact Checker
CrimsonShadow said:
Every year it's a tossup when they meet a good team in the playoffs. And nowdays even when they make the bowl, I don't have confidence as a fan that they're going to pull it off.

I love the Pats.. But I'm also honest.
Click to expand...
So unless CrimsonShadow has confidence the Pats will do good in the playoffs, they're mediocre?
 
CrimsonShadow

CrimsonShadow

Administrator and Community Engineer
Administrator
KingHippo said:
So unless CrimsonShadow has confidence the Pats will do good in the playoffs, they're mediocre?
Click to expand...
Am I the reason they lost? :confused: Now I'm confused. If you go based on what's been happening, it shouldn't have been a surprise to anyone.
 
KingHippo

KingHippo

Alternative-Fact Checker
CrimsonShadow said:
Am I the reason they lost? :confused: Now I'm confused. If you go based on what's been happening, it shouldn't have been a surprise to anyone.
Click to expand...
No, of course not. If you go based on what's happening, they have been in the final 2 to 4 teams left in the past 3 years...and that makes them mediocre? So the fact that you're not surprised when they make it to the Superbowl and lose does not make them a mediocre team

The fact is that if you look beyond the 7-7 record in the last 14 postseason games, at the season as a whole, they are in the final four NFL teams left, making it to the AFC Championship. Last year, they were in the top 2 teams and in the Superbowl.

If you don't take into account where they FINISHED, and just at the 7-7 in the last 14 postseason games, they are mediocre. You are separating everything out and putting only the 7-7 in a vaccum, and not the whole body of work, which creates skewed results.
 
CrimsonShadow

CrimsonShadow

Administrator and Community Engineer
Administrator
KingHippo said:
No, of course not. If you go based on what's happening, they have been in the final 2 to 4 teams left in the past 3 years...and that makes them mediocre? So the fact that you're not surprised when they make it to the Superbowl and lose does not make them a mediocre team

The fact is that if you look beyond the 7-7 season, at the season as a whole, they are in the final four NFL teams left, making it to the AFC Championship. Last year, they were in the top 2 teams and in the Superbowl.

If you don't take into account where they FINISHED, and just at the 7-7, they are mediocre. You are separating everything out and putting only the wins/losses of tournaments in a vaccum, and not the whole body of work, which creates skewed results.
Click to expand...
They are one of the most talented and well-coached teams in football. But if you cannot see that they are not the same now at playoff time as they were during the first half of the 2000s, then your old memories of them are clouding the facts.
 
KingHippo

KingHippo

Alternative-Fact Checker
STB TakeAChance said:
The problem is, you have to start somewhere. I figure the start of 2013 is a good point...
Click to expand...
If you start with 2013, then it would be fine because then it wouldn't be a definite list, it's just a starting point so we can figure it out. The problem is Crimson is saying that it IS a definitive list. That's the issue.
 
Dizzy

Dizzy

False Information Police Officer
Premium Supporter
NetherRealm Studios
To preface this I will say that no one hates rankings lists like NFG and this more than me. If you spend any extended amount of time with the likes of 16 bit you will understand this well. Even considering this, I have read through the the thread now (and the about section :p) and will give my opinion, not that I think it should matter greatly, just for the hell of it.

I am not exactly sure what the purpose of this list is. You have said it is for seeding, yet I do not think it would be satisfactory for this. One of my main concerns is this appears to be neither a historical list attempting to be a compendium (for 2012 to go into 2013) nor an attempting to be a "current list" that only lists placing from a certain time frame (for example, 6 months).

Also, while it is valid that you cannot be expected to add tournaments to your rankings that you do not have access to full information, this compromises it's ability to actually be used as a seeding tool. This also has to do with the above point, as the tournaments lists are more of a mish-mash of whatever happens to work out.

In addition to this, I am curious as if there will be pre-requisites on size (whether it is a "major") or some other restriction on how tournaments are added, like if is a yearly recurring tournament or otherwise. This is more of an afterthought on the longevity of the system, and less of a current problem.

Basically, I am just saying that in it's current state, the data fits no role of being historical or current for tournament results. By the sound of your posts you wish for it to be more of a "current state" of the tournament scene, in which working in a time restriction before tournaments are no longer counted should be implemented then. But if so, having tournaments that have happened in that timeframe that are not counted may present issues as well, specifically if its to be used for seeding.

We all know how you are an amazing supporter of the community Crimson, so don't take anything as an attack on your system, I probably wouldn't like it anyways even if you made the changes I requested :p I just felt like voicing my opinions on what I felt were it's issues as I literally could not escape a discussion about it with 16 bit, and then figured I would rely my thoughts here as well.
 
CrimsonShadow

CrimsonShadow

Administrator and Community Engineer
Administrator
Hey GGA Dizzy thanks. The thing is, it's hard to argue certain points unless you understand how these systems work. I'll give you an example:

One common comment is 'well how do you account for how well people are doing now?' The thing is, the points of people that are winning tend to trend upward as a group over time; what that means is that, without me explicitly removing tournaments, there's still an emphasis toward more current results.

But it's also necessary to keep a certain amount of past data; because it helps the rating make more sense. For example, because REO's reached 1800, beating him means a heck of a lot. If I throw out REO's previous results, and he's 1500 again, what you get for beating him won't make nearly as much sense or reflect that fact that he's on a tear and is by far the top player in the world.

So it's a balance; and no system is 100% perfect. But it is HEAPS better than someone saying 'Well I think Maxter isn't as good as PL right now because PL won EVO'.

Nothing can every be completely perfect, but compared to the way that people are subjectively ranking players in their heads, this is a night and day difference. And as more tournaments are added it will continue to evolve.
 
BS3OOO

BS3OOO

Noob
Tournaments will be added as long as they have a bracket and is not a local. I'm sure CS will work with the TO's to get the information
 
CrimsonShadow

CrimsonShadow

Administrator and Community Engineer
Administrator
The second thing is, as far as seeding is concerned, lets consider the alternatives:

1) NFG -- flawed. Compare the results and that becomes evident right away.
2) "This is who I think the best players are" -- tricky. Not everyone has the same level of knowledge, people have impressions of who's best stuck in their head from months ago, players go under the radar.
3) MLG - style 'we only count these tournaments'. You can't argue with it, because it's based in results. However, they only count MLGs. I'm fine with that; but if MKi is bad for seeding, then MLG's should be twice as bad since they don't count as many tournaments.
4) Road to EVO -- there's a lot of mystery math in there.. I like the MLG method better, but EVO happens once a year, so they have to count other tourneys. But wait -- MLG wasn't on the Road to EVO.. Lots of things aren't on the road to EVO.

I think it's fine that MLG and EVO do their own thing; but although no system is perfect, I think you have to agree that the other standards used for ranking/seeding people now are far LESS perfect if you hold them to the same standard of "every event, every result".

So I'll continue to work on getting as many events in as I can -- but lets be honest about what else is out there.
 
KingHippo

KingHippo

Alternative-Fact Checker
CrimsonShadow said:
They are one of the most talented and well-coached teams in football. But if you cannot see that they are not the same now at playoff time as they were during the first half of the 2000s, then your old memories of them are clouding the facts.
Click to expand...

My memories of them are making it to the AFC Championship and the Superbowl last year. HOW is that mediocre?


STB TakeAChance said:
It WILL be the definitive list if it is kept.
Click to expand...

It won't be because then Crimson has to guarantee that he will count every single tourney of 2013, otherwise it won't be a definitive list. He also needs to count where they finish because otherwise someone could go to a 150 man tourney, get top 8, and because Crimson says he didn't beat anybody to get there he won't get points.

The NONSENSE is that who you play is at the mercy of the TO, but if we use this system it will work itself out...BUT WE DON'T. Right now, no tourney is using this system to seed a bracket, so who you beat to get where you got is at a TO's mercy.#25 is playing #17 to get to top 8, and he's getting shit all for points because o that.
 
CrimsonShadow

CrimsonShadow

Administrator and Community Engineer
Administrator
KingHippo said:
It won't be because then Crimson has to guarantee that he will count every single tourney of 2013, otherwise it won't be a definitive list. He also needs to count where they finish because otherwise someone could go to a 150 man tourney, get top 8, and because Crimson says he didn't beat anybody to get there he won't get points.
Click to expand...
Well then EVO and MLG must be useless, since they use less tourney's than MKi to seed.. And also every TO who can't remember every single win or loss at every tournament in MK9 is also useless by your measuring stick.

So what are we left with?

You can't have it both ways.. Use this same form of criticism and apply it to other systems, and you'll see why this matters.

Show me a better and more complete list and I'll use it. Until then, I'm going to add as many majors as I can.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.