-
Check out the relaunch of our general collection, with classic designs and new ones by our very own Pissog!
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Serious Official Smogon Rankings
- Thread starter Lord Moet
- Start date
But that's just like, your opinion man
I personally don't see why this has to be called a terrible idea. My view of ranking players is that it's something you can't get upset about because all it tells is the impression every user has left on others, it goes without saying this is desirable information to have. We all have a good idea where we stand if all our pokelife experiences were downloaded to the list maker, but we can't do that and we can't just expect them to believe us if we told them. I'd very much appreciate more statistical / subjective analysis out there because some important tournament formats are very lacking (looking at you single elimination OST); it has gotten to the point where single battles are widely accepted to be meaningful to a player's status and it would be a step forward to get more people thinking about how they want to determine the best players.
these lists are usually limited due to list framers... the list is entirely limited by the perspective of people making the list
and thats ok...so long as the list's framers are clearly stated
If I were to make a list, I wouldn't use Mcmeghan's spreadsheet as anything more than a basis however; absolute number of tournament wins is not the complete indicator of skill.
It of course is one indicator but if you win 8 tournaments out of 200 joined, and someone else wins 5 out of 20 joined, you have to account for the disparity in efficiency
Honestly, I'd probably just use Mcmeghan's as a base point for various arbitrarily decided levels in a list like this...
For example, everyone who won a single tournament (I would just accept certain questionable tournament wins like metronome and randbat) would qualify to be on the list, then everyone who has performed well in official tournaments (well can be defined as at least 1 win, including weekly tours, or some arbitrary percentage level for wins) would be bumped from "eligible to be on the list" to "eligible to be on the good portion of the list."
Then I'd just use huge broad strokes to mostly subjectively tier the players based on some notions of skill I value highly...like skills across generations AND tiers, unique team building ability, potential to choke, etc.
tl;dr - the list might not be comprehensive or even based on what most people believe is an acceptable set of standards to determine what it wants to, but it isn't that bad. it's just a few individuals' collective perspectives on battlers in the past 5 or so years (there is an obvious lack of emphasis on adv or previous era players, so lets go with 5ish years)
and thats ok...so long as the list's framers are clearly stated
If I were to make a list, I wouldn't use Mcmeghan's spreadsheet as anything more than a basis however; absolute number of tournament wins is not the complete indicator of skill.
It of course is one indicator but if you win 8 tournaments out of 200 joined, and someone else wins 5 out of 20 joined, you have to account for the disparity in efficiency
Honestly, I'd probably just use Mcmeghan's as a base point for various arbitrarily decided levels in a list like this...
For example, everyone who won a single tournament (I would just accept certain questionable tournament wins like metronome and randbat) would qualify to be on the list, then everyone who has performed well in official tournaments (well can be defined as at least 1 win, including weekly tours, or some arbitrary percentage level for wins) would be bumped from "eligible to be on the list" to "eligible to be on the good portion of the list."
Then I'd just use huge broad strokes to mostly subjectively tier the players based on some notions of skill I value highly...like skills across generations AND tiers, unique team building ability, potential to choke, etc.
tl;dr - the list might not be comprehensive or even based on what most people believe is an acceptable set of standards to determine what it wants to, but it isn't that bad. it's just a few individuals' collective perspectives on battlers in the past 5 or so years (there is an obvious lack of emphasis on adv or previous era players, so lets go with 5ish years)