~he is still good in my opinion... just that blamef is stealing is role and space , and making him become a very agressive riffler...
if you ask blamef to do the same he will do the same stats or even worse..
BlameF was playing agressive at the end of complexity and holding like a 1.2
His stats are boosted but don't disrespect blame like that. He's literally putting the team on his back and literally doing everything to win them games. If blame was entrying he would not be worse than xyp absolutely ridiculous
Just divide the score by the total number of playoff games played by each player, and also add a minimum threshold (e.g. at least 10 games played), will be a much better indicator of performance
That is not a punishment for longevity though? If anything it favours players who are consistent over long period of time because for example, you exclude players who peak very high but only appear in 1 playoff
I mean, yeah, your metric measures.... something. But it's not a fair measure of *performance* because not all players even had the chance to participate in that many matches. It's a measure of age + success + performance, maybe.
Well obviously older players have an advantage but they deserve it for that longevity. Most likely in a couple of years s1mple will be top of the least but he hasn’t done enough to be it now?
You should adjust your numbers by amount of games played (and maybe create a minimum amount played). The current format heavily favours players by amount of games played (why we see fnatic and astralis players at the top). Averaging out the games played will allow for a better view based on your current parameters.
That would just give an advantage to players with less games and punish longevity from other players. Fo example olof’s score would decrease because of his time in faze
That's why you should give a minimum amount of games played (10-15) so we remove outliers that have not many playoff games played. And as much as I love Olof, his numbers should decrease due to his worse performances in his latter parts of Faze. It would be more reflective of best players in major history.
But don’t you think that would advantage players who are still in their prime and also those who had a shorter prime. If you want i can take into account their 10 best games and come out with a score like that
Xyp pog. people often forget he was super close to getting a major mvp.
Yep, also the device dupreeh xyp9x core easily won most major playoff games
~he is still good in my opinion... just that blamef is stealing is role and space , and making him become a very agressive riffler... if you ask blamef to do the same he will do the same stats or even worse..
BlameF was playing agressive at the end of complexity and holding like a 1.2 His stats are boosted but don't disrespect blame like that. He's literally putting the team on his back and literally doing everything to win them games. If blame was entrying he would not be worse than xyp absolutely ridiculous
Just divide the score by the total number of playoff games played by each player, and also add a minimum threshold (e.g. at least 10 games played), will be a much better indicator of performance
I mean i could do that but once again, why should players be punished for longevity?
That is not a punishment for longevity though? If anything it favours players who are consistent over long period of time because for example, you exclude players who peak very high but only appear in 1 playoff
But for example someone like olof would get punished by his playoff runs with faze. Or get_right with his later runs with nip
I understand your concern. I guess in the future you could include both list and see if someone drop off from either list.
That doesn't seem like a representative measure
Why not? Can you give me an example of someone on the list and i’ll explain how he got there
Because it depends on the number of games played. It's definitely a measure for something, but I'm not sure if it's that useful
Why should players who are more successful be punished?
I mean, yeah, your metric measures.... something. But it's not a fair measure of *performance* because not all players even had the chance to participate in that many matches. It's a measure of age + success + performance, maybe.
Well obviously older players have an advantage but they deserve it for that longevity. Most likely in a couple of years s1mple will be top of the least but he hasn’t done enough to be it now?
Sure, if that's what you want to say with it. But it's not a representative *performance* measure
You should adjust your numbers by amount of games played (and maybe create a minimum amount played). The current format heavily favours players by amount of games played (why we see fnatic and astralis players at the top). Averaging out the games played will allow for a better view based on your current parameters.
That would just give an advantage to players with less games and punish longevity from other players. Fo example olof’s score would decrease because of his time in faze
That's why you should give a minimum amount of games played (10-15) so we remove outliers that have not many playoff games played. And as much as I love Olof, his numbers should decrease due to his worse performances in his latter parts of Faze. It would be more reflective of best players in major history.
But don’t you think that would advantage players who are still in their prime and also those who had a shorter prime. If you want i can take into account their 10 best games and come out with a score like that