A final thought on the HoF .
PT
Top 8s in the modern era are worth less than PT Top 8s from earlier in magic’s
history. This is in spite of the average modern player being much more skilled.
**What I am writing about is an adaptation
of well known theory in investing, Sabremetrics and Poker. For those interested
in a more detailed analysis I suggest Mauboussin and googling the ‘Skill
Paradox.’.
The
Paradox of Skill
We start with the fairly simple assumption
that
Performance = Skill + Luck
We also assume each person’s luck is drawn each tournament from some distribution that is equal to all players. E.g. LSV might have been be luckier in PT Kyoto than Nassif because he opened Nicol Bolas at that specific tournament, however they had equal chances to open it.
Because a person’s skill and luck are
uncorrelated, we arrive at the Paradox of Skill:
Variance of Population Performance =
Variance of Population Performance =
Variance of Skill in population + Variance
of Luck in Population
As the Variance in skill gets smaller, the
variance associated with luck starts to dominate in determining the overall
outcome of tournaments.
Consider the following example:
Consider the following example:
A)
A PT in 1999, where Jon Finkel
is far and away the best player. The 100th best player barely knows
how to draft and the rest of population is somewhere in between.
B)
A PT in 2013 where, the top 100
players are all equal to skill Jon Finkel @1999 skill level.
It should be clear that someone’s final
position in PT A is strongly correlated with skill. In other words we can be
confident that the person in 8th was better than the person in 16th.
In PT B, the opposite would be true. The
only difference between someone who gets 8th and 15th was
the amount of luck they had in that specific tournament.
Assumptions
I am using:
1)
The skill dispersion
(especially at the top of the game) is much lower today than it was historically.
In other words, the top 50 players in the game are much closer today (even if
they are all much better) than they were historically.
And that’s it. Everything I have read from
Kai, Finkel and Kibler on the topic would seem to support the view, but I haven’t
bothered to try and prove the above assumption.
Just to reinforce that this situation isn’t
completely impossible. In a world where the top 50 players attend 3 PTs a year
and each have 10% chance to top8 a PT: we would still expect one person to top
8 two PTs a year. In other words the fact that some players do consistently well isn't enough to disprove assumption 1. If you have ever heard or read about the birthday paradox, the
same principles apply.
Practical
Implications
We are seriously overweighting T8s and wins
in the modern era competitors. Instead we should focus on a looser metric (e.g.
32s/64s etc…). Rate metrics and consistency become much more important. For
older players, top 8s are more likely to imply that they were one of the best 8
players in the tournament. And a top 32 is more likely to imply that they were
NOT one of the top 8.
Recently in his SCG article Reid Duke made
the point we shouldn’t punish anyone for having a few bad initial years on the
PT. And I really wanted this to be true (Because me obv). But if we now know
that luck is the major determinant in people’s short term success rates, things like 3 Yr
medians should mean less for modern competitors. Forgiving a few “bad years”
makes it more likely you select someone who's results are variance driven (as
opposed to skill).
Putting this together for HoF implications I think should go as follows. Suppose someone has 2 PT Top 8s and 6 PT top 16s. In the Modern Age: I
think “Hes unlucky”. If he is old school: I think “he probably wasn’t that good”.
Focusing on results through this lens I
think we could argue:
Underrated (in no particular order):
Underrated (in no particular order):
1)
Shouta Yasooka
2)
Hoaen (do we consider him “modern”?)
3)
Osyp
Overrated
1) Edel.
1) Edel.
2)
Saito (if “Modern”)
3)
Ikeda
4)
Gary
Final
Unrelated HoF
Thoughts:
Stats I used in my previous formula driven HoF Ballot:
Longevity = # of PTs, # of Pts
Longevity = # of PTs, # of Pts
Consistency
= PT Median, 3 Yr Median, Difference in Medians,
T16s, GP Top 8s
Best
in World = 3 Yr Median, POYs
Place
in History = These are indicator variables (e.g.
are you in the top 20%). In other words having 4 PT Top 8s is the same as zero
because 80% of ballotees had 4 or less.
Top 8s, Money List, GP Top 8s, Pro Points.
Skill
= T16s per PT, Median Finish, POYs per years
played.
My Ballot (which I don’t have):
1. LSV
2. Edel + Ikeda
These are the only two who are not top 5
stat wise. I think pioneers in a field deserve credit. I am willing to go
beyond the stats if there is proof they did something truly unique. I feel the
case for Ikeda is weaker than Edel (he has more similar analogues in Fujita,
Oishi etc..). I could be convinced to vote for Osyp (easily the most underrated
candidate on the ballot) instead.
3. Shota Yasooka.
Stats + Skill Paradox already implied he
was one of the best players skill wise on the ballot. Juza’s interview on cfb
was a nice (if unnecessary) confirmation.
4. Saito.
1.
He was (or at least top 3) the
best deckbuilder in the world for a long period of time. Still seems like he
might be.
2.
He is one of the best players I
have seen play. I can sometimes remember individual matches where I was blow
away by the play I saw. Saito in TSP block is amongst those. Ditto San Juan . Most players I have talked to feel that he was easily amongst the best when he played.
3.
He was an angle shooter, but a
lot of people on the PT are. Stalling in particular seems like one of the most
hypocritical things for many players to call someone out on (based on my PT
experience). So while he might be the scummiest of successful players (which I
doubt), other players are close to that level. This might be too much
apologizing for someone who is arguably a cheater (I differentiate between rules lawyers/cheaters/angle shooters), but I don’t believe
(based on 1 and 2) that his results were significantly impacted by his angel
shooting.
The honourable mentions: BenS, Efro, Gary.