Laertes
06-12-2010, 01:54 PM
When we examine the statistics for tournaments, we are approaching the match result of “draw” in a wrong way. The current system is allowing slower designs to show deceptively good results by showing a draw as half a win.
First, intentional draw or actual draw? That information is probably not provided for Jared Sylva, Stephen Menendian, or the rest of us. No matter. If someone is X – going into the last round, or X-0 going into the last two round of a tournament with more than 6 rounds , it should be assumed that it is an intentional draw and match results should be ignored.
Second, a drawn match is worth only 1 point and a win is worth 3. Therefore, if a drawn match is ‘played’, using the criteria above, should result in 33% of a win. If it is left out of the win%, then stats are not reflecting how well the deck performs at a tournament. In a tournament, a draw is much closer to a loss than a win, especially when you are more likely to play down against an opponent with a worse record once you have a draw.
Third, if draws count as less than 50% win, then most decks for a tournament will show less than 50% win percentage – which is just fine as long as you know why: most deck win less than half the time due to draws.
% of matches that were draws from Jared Sylva’s SCG breakdown
Countertop 10.3%
Zoo 6.1
Merfolk 1.4
Reanimator 3.4
Ad Nauseum 3.4
New Horizons 4.2
Goblins 5.2
Blue Lands 15.4
Charbelcher 1.8 ( how the hell did charbelcher draw if there weren’t any in the T8?)
Stax 8.8
Dredge 6.1
Faeries 10
Landstill 6.9
Burn 0 ( now that’s what it should be!)
Elves 0
Eva Green 5
G/W/B Rock 0
Mono Blue Cntrl. 10
I think that any deck that any deck with more than 4 or 5% of the matches as draws, has artificially inflated “Win % no mirrors.”
I suspect that some of the Zoo and Goblin draws are due to Price of Progresses to avoid losses instead of time restrictions.
I appreciate all the time put in by Jared, Steve, and others for battling the fierce amount of numbers. We all owe you for your work.
First, intentional draw or actual draw? That information is probably not provided for Jared Sylva, Stephen Menendian, or the rest of us. No matter. If someone is X – going into the last round, or X-0 going into the last two round of a tournament with more than 6 rounds , it should be assumed that it is an intentional draw and match results should be ignored.
Second, a drawn match is worth only 1 point and a win is worth 3. Therefore, if a drawn match is ‘played’, using the criteria above, should result in 33% of a win. If it is left out of the win%, then stats are not reflecting how well the deck performs at a tournament. In a tournament, a draw is much closer to a loss than a win, especially when you are more likely to play down against an opponent with a worse record once you have a draw.
Third, if draws count as less than 50% win, then most decks for a tournament will show less than 50% win percentage – which is just fine as long as you know why: most deck win less than half the time due to draws.
% of matches that were draws from Jared Sylva’s SCG breakdown
Countertop 10.3%
Zoo 6.1
Merfolk 1.4
Reanimator 3.4
Ad Nauseum 3.4
New Horizons 4.2
Goblins 5.2
Blue Lands 15.4
Charbelcher 1.8 ( how the hell did charbelcher draw if there weren’t any in the T8?)
Stax 8.8
Dredge 6.1
Faeries 10
Landstill 6.9
Burn 0 ( now that’s what it should be!)
Elves 0
Eva Green 5
G/W/B Rock 0
Mono Blue Cntrl. 10
I think that any deck that any deck with more than 4 or 5% of the matches as draws, has artificially inflated “Win % no mirrors.”
I suspect that some of the Zoo and Goblin draws are due to Price of Progresses to avoid losses instead of time restrictions.
I appreciate all the time put in by Jared, Steve, and others for battling the fierce amount of numbers. We all owe you for your work.