Psion [#69]
Fnatic had the core of Alfajer-boaster-derke at copenhagen 2022, so why wouldn't it be considered the same derke-boaster-alfajer core in 2023?
KRU have made it to every international event besides 1, they also got ok or decent placements(top 8) at masters berlin and copenhagen (top 12) which are events liqud didn't even qualify for(this doesn't mention the 2023 events liquid couldn't make because they didn't exist). At events both liquid and Kru made, Liquid are + 52, Kru have made it to 4 other events and are +79.75 at those events
Liquid and EG are basically equal so you are really nitpicking there its half a point difference
also a team being newer doesn't mean anything, this isn't power rankings where how good or recent a team is matters
First off, criticisms aside, I like what you're trying to build, and it's good that you're open to debate.
There is no knit picking going on. Based on your reply to my other comment above, I'm left trying to ascertain what your objective is in building this list. You've called it a top teams of all time list, but there are some big problems and inconsistencies with the logic you're using which makes the whole thing fall flat.
- Cores: What is a team? as we know, teams keep changing. You have a more than 1 iterations of some teams (fnatic) that have undergone changes and only 1 of others that have also undergone changes in the same time period. Like drx, like kru. Very inconsistent and throws the list out of whack because the current edition of fnatic if based on results should be top 2 if we look at their performance Vs other teams at international events. But you've lumped them with the Enzo / mystic era just because the core is the same. As you've done with drx and kru who also had changes but kept the same core. Can you not see the problem with this?
What would make more sense if you treated each team as absolute / married to the org, and account for all their performances. Because obviously no one can be bothered to create an interstion of every single team.
-
Your weighting on longevity is arbitrary and has nothing to do with teams performance Vs each other. It would be better if you get rid of it and use a proportional approach that looks at performance or points per match played, subject to a reasonable minimum. This deals with any issues around new teams like 2023 EG not ranking high enough despite their performance and stats showing otherwise.
-
If the emphasis is on performance at these events. Kru qualifying to most shouldn't have them anywhere near liquid as they have qualified in from a worse region and performed worse at every international event, RELATIVE TO THE NUMBER OF ROUNDS / MATCHES played. When it comes to champs 21, as they both came 4th, that should be impetus to add a head to head weighting, if this is really going to be a comprehensive list.
Again, You mentioned it's not about how good a team is or a power ranking, what is it exactly? No need to reinvent the wheel on what a ranking system for a sport should be based on dude. Wins and losses relative to the matches they've played should be the driving force, but you seem too focused on placements, which is a bit silly because we have teams placing top 8 at LANs even though they won 0 games, at the international tournaments that you say you're only counting.
I could go on..
Discord