Originally posted by Summa
View Post
To provide an illustration, let's say teams follow the statistical breakdown (following a 100-pt scale, and let's make it simple and focus on one variable, skill):
You can have one team (TEAM1) of 5 players A, B, C, D & E.
Player A - 50 skill
B - 50 skill
C - 50 skill
D - 50 skill
E - 100 skill
TEAM1's average skill is: 60 (300/5).
Another team (TEAM2) with players F, G, H, I, & J.
Player F - 60 skill
G - 60 skill
H - 60 skill
I - 60 skill
J - 60 skill
TEAM2's average is also 60.
Just looking at the numbers, you might automatically assume that TEAM1 would destroy TEAM2 because of that one skilled player, the outlier....at the same time, TEAM2 might be better at killing or teaming because all the players are better skilled than 4/5 of the players on TEAM1....
So, things have to be appropriately defined so we're working with one universal definition. What determines one's skills, how do you test for skill, etc. We'd have to factor in consistency too, so we'd have to make this more of a longitudinal study to make sure people's skills are stable...not just one-time deals, etc.
Comment