Auto-translated
Let me try to figure it out:
1) The topic is called "Player of the Year 2016." It's logical to assume that this topic is about choosing the best player of 2016, and this is even stated in the initial post. However, several different viewpoints have been expressed in this topic regarding how to determine who is the best:
- The strongest player of the year, according to the subjective opinion of the voters.
- The strongest player based on the results of Tournaments.
- The player who has made the most progress, according to the subjective opinion of the voters.
- The "fan favorite" award, which, in general, is not necessarily related to the results.
In general, these are all different criteria, and most of the current disputes in the topic are related to how different people perceive this nomination.
And precisely because there are no unified standards for evaluation, this diminishes the perceived value of winning this nomination.
2) Frankly, I am very surprised by the method of choosing the best player – by voting. Please excuse me, but so many different factors influence voting that it can easily distort objective reality, for example:
- "because he's a fellow countryman"
- "I don't like this guy"
- "I watched a couple of streams this year, and this guy is incredibly good"
I mean that even if a person wants to be objective (and this is not the entire electorate), they need to understand the form of all players throughout the year, at least observe all Tournaments during the year, which requires a lot of time and effort.
I don't know about you, but I think that voting can only be used for the "fan favorite" nomination.
3) I also disagree with the statement that "there is a rating system to determine the strongest player, and it does its job." In the final of a Tournament, victory is much more valuable than in a fun game afterward. But for the rating, it's all the same. And even assuming that the rating really assesses the player's strength (which is very debatable), it only shows a snapshot at a specific point in time. But the best player of the year is at least 365 different days in a year, and in each of them, there can be a different top 1.
4) I think the discussion would be much more interesting if it went in the following direction: how to try to objectively identify the best. As strange as it may seem, many types of individual sports have been invented in the world, in which Tournaments are held throughout the year: chess, poker, biathlon, tennis, etc. And in them, the best is determined every year – choose a system that is closer.
For example:
a) chess: Candidates Tournament (very similar to the Facebook group) + match for the championship title.
b) tennis: ranking Tournaments are announced. Within each Tournament, a certain number of ranking points are awarded – this is determined at the highest level at the beginning of the year or before the first round based on the representativeness of the participants. For HotA, you can assign 2 fewer ranking points or not assign any at all – but this is determined not by one specific person, but by a vote in the Admin Council or by another method. The distribution of ranking points depending on the place taken can be taken, for example, from poker or biathlon. This, by the way, will also help the developers of HotA themselves; they will have a clearer idea of how ready the project is for Tournaments.
At the end of the year, the ratings are summed up. The one who scores the most is the player of the year.
Objectively? I, like the federations of other sports, believe that yes. Why is voting used in our case? Apparently, it's simply easier. But easier doesn't mean better.