This invite season kinda sucks, so I was wondering what the best possible season could be in terms of competition.
I came up with this:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/11FpQsGu7tyZn4qKJM1jS5U5EkM6y8AUoB0l0cF1PN1w/edit
This is mostly from recent memory. I also tried to think of the most dominant season/lan they were at. There was some overlap of players from each team as well.
This invite season kinda sucks, so I was wondering what the best possible season could be in terms of competition.
I came up with this:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/11FpQsGu7tyZn4qKJM1jS5U5EkM6y8AUoB0l0cF1PN1w/edit
This is mostly from recent memory. I also tried to think of the most dominant season/lan they were at. There was some overlap of players from each team as well.
MAL has happycool and kev scout. please revamp the list
MAL has happycool and kev scout. please revamp the list
[img]https://i.ibb.co/cJ00cZy/image.png[/img]
[img]https://i.ibb.co/3TzSPHT/image.png[/img]
was curious what season has had the overall most competitive invite playoffs lineup, so i did a little stats research spreadsheet (sheet in 2nd tab at the bottom)
Show Content
the main factors considered are win differentials both per map and per series, the percentage of rounds won by series-losing teams, how many series went to decider maps, and whether teams made comeback runs in losers bracket
the methodology is definitely faulty but it was the simplest way to reasonably estimate parity. there's definitely lots of other hard-to-measure factors that go into what makes an exciting season (were the games closer than the score indicated? did a low-seeded team do better than expected? did banny lose?)
for reference, it registers seasons 6, 8-11, 16, 19, 24, and 27 of ESEA, and seasons 7, 10, and 11 of RGL as what i would consider high parity, while seasons 30-31 of ESEA, and seasons 1, 4, 8, and 12 of RGL register noticeably lowly
again, i dont think this quite matches up with what most people would consider a good playoffs lineup (notably S8, one of the strongest playoffs lineups in history, registers low on parity), but it does (imo correctly) show the peaks during the earlier ESEA seasons, and the valley around the dawn of RGL
also would like to note that no team has won after losing their opening match since ESEA S6, and that for 10 seasons straight (ESEA S27-RGL S5) no team made a comeback run at all
was curious what season has had the overall most competitive invite playoffs lineup, so i did a little [url=https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1xjgm5J9Ktf2vA9hFqrjGrYgKm_hq9T98T2H97JGVUOE/edit?usp=sharing]stats research spreadsheet[/url] (sheet in 2nd tab at the bottom)
[spoiler][img]https://i.imgur.com/j50aBb0.png[/img][/spoiler]
the main factors considered are win differentials both per map and per series, the percentage of rounds won by series-losing teams, how many series went to decider maps, and whether teams made comeback runs in losers bracket
the methodology is definitely faulty but it was the simplest way to reasonably estimate parity. there's definitely lots of other hard-to-measure factors that go into what makes an exciting season (were the games closer than the score indicated? did a low-seeded team do better than expected? did banny lose?)
for reference, it registers seasons 6, 8-11, 16, 19, 24, and 27 of ESEA, and seasons 7, 10, and 11 of RGL as what i would consider high parity, while seasons 30-31 of ESEA, and seasons 1, 4, 8, and 12 of RGL register noticeably lowly
again, i dont think this quite matches up with what most people would consider a good playoffs lineup (notably S8, one of the strongest playoffs lineups in history, registers low on parity), but it does (imo correctly) show the peaks during the earlier ESEA seasons, and the valley around the dawn of RGL
also would like to note that no team has won after losing their opening match since ESEA S6, and that for 10 seasons straight (ESEA S27-RGL S5) no team made a comeback run at all
I don't remember what season it was, but the season before i46 i think was the best season of NA 6vs6. The top four teams after the regular season was LG(the team that went to i46, with Dave_AC instead of mackey), Classic mixup, Srsly Br0 and FLOW. Every team could take maps and best of 3s of each others. The stakes for ESEA lan was high as this was the last NA lan before I46. I can't remember another season where all teams in playoffs had a good chance of winning.
I don't remember what season it was, but the season before i46 i think was the best season of NA 6vs6. The top four teams after the regular season was LG(the team that went to i46, with Dave_AC instead of mackey), Classic mixup, Srsly Br0 and FLOW. Every team could take maps and best of 3s of each others. The stakes for ESEA lan was high as this was the last NA lan before I46. I can't remember another season where all teams in playoffs had a good chance of winning.
Watch this at lan would have been cool
Watch this at lan would have been cool
brodywas curious what season has had the overall most competitive invite playoffs lineup, so i did a little stats research spreadsheet (sheet in 2nd tab at the bottom)
Show Content
the main factors considered are win differentials both per map and per series, the percentage of rounds won by series-losing teams, how many series went to decider maps, and whether teams made comeback runs in losers bracket
the methodology is definitely faulty but it was the simplest way to reasonably estimate parity. there's definitely lots of other hard-to-measure factors that go into what makes an exciting season (were the games closer than the score indicated? did a low-seeded team do better than expected? did banny lose?)
for reference, it registers seasons 6, 8-11, 16, 19, 24, and 27 of ESEA, and seasons 7, 10, and 11 of RGL as what i would consider high parity, while seasons 30-31 of ESEA, and seasons 1, 4, 8, and 12 of RGL register noticeably lowly
again, i dont think this quite matches up with what most people would consider a good playoffs lineup (notably S8, one of the strongest playoffs lineups in history, registers low on parity), but it does (imo correctly) show the peaks during the earlier ESEA seasons, and the valley around the dawn of RGL
also would like to note that no team has won after losing their opening match since ESEA S6, and that for 10 seasons straight (ESEA S27-RGL S5) no team made a comeback run at all
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F65PUbQWYAA7uSc?format=jpg&name=medium
[quote=brody]was curious what season has had the overall most competitive invite playoffs lineup, so i did a little [url=https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1xjgm5J9Ktf2vA9hFqrjGrYgKm_hq9T98T2H97JGVUOE/edit?usp=sharing]stats research spreadsheet[/url] (sheet in 2nd tab at the bottom)
[spoiler][img]https://i.imgur.com/j50aBb0.png[/img][/spoiler]
the main factors considered are win differentials both per map and per series, the percentage of rounds won by series-losing teams, how many series went to decider maps, and whether teams made comeback runs in losers bracket
the methodology is definitely faulty but it was the simplest way to reasonably estimate parity. there's definitely lots of other hard-to-measure factors that go into what makes an exciting season (were the games closer than the score indicated? did a low-seeded team do better than expected? did banny lose?)
for reference, it registers seasons 6, 8-11, 16, 19, 24, and 27 of ESEA, and seasons 7, 10, and 11 of RGL as what i would consider high parity, while seasons 30-31 of ESEA, and seasons 1, 4, 8, and 12 of RGL register noticeably lowly
again, i dont think this quite matches up with what most people would consider a good playoffs lineup (notably S8, one of the strongest playoffs lineups in history, registers low on parity), but it does (imo correctly) show the peaks during the earlier ESEA seasons, and the valley around the dawn of RGL
also would like to note that no team has won after losing their opening match since ESEA S6, and that for 10 seasons straight (ESEA S27-RGL S5) no team made a comeback run at all[/quote]
[img]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F65PUbQWYAA7uSc?format=jpg&name=medium[/img]
I think that if carter (sometimes known around these parts as Ash) came back, then the season would be saved. It's clear in recent history that Grant relied heavily on Carter during the i50s era, and he was the backbone (NOT clockwork). ever since he left the scene, tf2 has never fully recovered.
I think that if carter (sometimes known around these parts as Ash) came back, then the season would be saved. It's clear in recent history that Grant relied heavily on Carter during the i50s era, and he was the backbone (NOT clockwork). ever since he left the scene, tf2 has never fully recovered.
alex80I think that if carter (sometimes known around these parts as Ash) came back, then the season would be saved. It's clear in recent history that Grant relied heavily on Carter during the i50s era, and he was the backbone (NOT clockwork). ever since he left the scene, tf2 has never fully recovered.
True
[quote=alex80]I think that if carter (sometimes known around these parts as Ash) came back, then the season would be saved. It's clear in recent history that Grant relied heavily on Carter during the i50s era, and he was the backbone (NOT clockwork). ever since he left the scene, tf2 has never fully recovered.[/quote]
True