LtSpaceDucK

"But there's no evidence in this series to suggest that they would. If we are in agreement that the early game was weak from G2 in every game. And if we agree that in each game, G2's draft would outscale, then it should make sense that if G2 fails to get an early lead with a comp that is eventually outscaled, the likelihood of them winning is now very much lower, right?"

But the evidence that SKT has a better early game than G2 is flawed the only way we could claim that is if both G2 and SKT picked for the early game, that didn't happen so it does not make sense saying SKT has a better early game because it can just be a by product of the strengths of their compositions.

G2 being better than SKT late game could also be attributed to them having drafts better suited for late game which would be a fair statement.

One thing there is plenty of evidence of is SKT inability to push leads and utilize baron properly.

I would say there is more bases to support a claim that SKT has a worse late game than G2 than there is of G2 having a worse early game than SKT.

It's then a matter of opinion if you value more how bad SKT is in the late game or how bad G2 is in the early game, in my opinion SKT being bad in the late game is more egregious than G2 being bad in the early game, both teams drafted around their strengths and their weaknesses were very evident and in the end G2 managed to win.

"This may very well be true, but it doesn't absolve them of the poor plays they made earlier. As I mentioned in my above example, teams don't just give up a number of barons and say "Yep, that was all part of the plan." Their drafts were GOOD, and if they intentionally did this as a specific to how SKT typically play, then props to them, but as mentioned above this doesn't just mean we can ignore all the things they did wrong."

I'm not saying their mistakes should be glossed over I fully agree with you on that I just think it's unfair to claim SKT played better based on those mistakes, because they happened in a specific context and might not happen in a different one.

I don't agree with the logic that G2 made mistakes that would still happen if for example drafting was different because them or any other team will play differently based on their draft.

"What's important to me is that you can understand where I draw the conclusion from even if you disagree with it. I'm not here to buy everyone's alignment, I'm just here to provide more context and explanation behind my reasoning."

I said in another thread that I get the logic and arguments I just don't agree with them, I think analysts are focusing too much on very specific aspects of this series and are missing the bigger picture.

Btw it's nice of you to be open for discussion, it gets boring when analysts treat people from this sub reddit like "plebs" that are incapable of having a single coherent thought because there are one or two comments ttacking them and the majority of them are just discussing a specific topic with valid arguments, analysts seem to forget that they were in the same position has most of us in the past.

But the evidence that SKT has a better early game than G2 is flawed the only way we could claim that is if both G2 and SKT picked for the early game, that didn't happen so it does not make sense saying SKT has a better early game because it can just be a by product of the strengths of their compositions.

But then we come back to the original discussion of "I do not believe SKT picked for early game." I also think in every game, G2 had early game options that they failed to utilize. The closest the came was in game 3 when Jankos not only successfully played through bot but also saved his top side. If you now look at my arguments with that in mind, does this make more sense?

I would say there is more bases to support a claim that SKT has a worse late game than G2 than there is of G2 having a worse early game than SKT.

Perhaps, my biggest counter argument to this is game 2, which perhaps clouds my judgement, but the whole team played poorly and just handed kill after kill to SKT. ...

LtSpaceDucK

G2 showed a weak early game with late game compositions if they picked early game like SKT they would probably have a good early game as well.

Why is SKT having a good early game with a early game composition and a bad late game a positive and a sign they played better, but G2 having a bad early but a good late game while playing a late game composition not perceive as equal, it's exactly the same scenario.

But it seems you don't think they had strong early game composition when they had renekton almost everygame, elise, lee sin, le blanc picks that are amazing in lane and perfect to be played around.

G2 showed a weak early game with late game compositions if they picked early game like SKT they would probably have a good early game as well.

But as I said, I think they outscaled, that doesn't mean their early game is garbage. Every game, they had lanes that they could gain advantages through. Just because a comp outscales, doesn't mean it's only win condition is late game, it just means when you reach a certain point your champs are stronger than your opponents for whatever reason. Every game, G2 had an early game option where they could gain advantages yet they never found them because of poor execution. While in some games, one could argue SKT had fewer ways to gain early game advantages yet they were able to find them. Therefore, using this series as data, I am making the assumption that if the roles were reversed, SKT are more likely to execute better.

But it seems you don't think they had strong early game composition when they had renekton almost everygame, elise, lee si...

brother-trick

The point of that comparison was to show a team can play better and still lose. The other important thing to note is how I defined what playing better league was, which is fine to debate. Kobe made a great argument which is the gravity of decisions at different points weigh more, and the problem with my initial statement was that it was an over simplification of what I actually meant.

So would you agree that in 2017. worlds EDG played better League than SKT? They snowballed every game early, but then lost late to SKT with some ridiculous advantages.

Potentially, I don't remember the games so I cant really say certainty.

The important takeaway is I'm not just saying "A team that gets advantages in the early game is the better team." I'm saying, based on the options that teams have to get leads, and how they execute around them, and how often they do it is a good indicator of how well a team is playing. And I think G2, given the options they had, did not do a great job. Even outside of the early game. I gave some examples in a different comment.

MoxZenyte

I get that you're saying that SKT didn't give themselves enough options to punish G2 early before getting outscaled.

I guess game 3 is the game where I'm most inclined to agree (even thought they also made their own early games mistakes, such as Khan getting Wunder back into the game by unnecessarily dying), but I feel like for game 4 SKT had good ways to win the game. If they had punished Caps better, which to me seems very possible from the draft, or if Teddy/Effort didn't fall that far behind early, then they would have won that game, in my opinion. But both teams made early game mistakes, then G2 made less late game mistakes, and we have a G2 victory.

And then in game 1 I disagree that G2 played worse earlier on, and in game 2, the gold was very even 22 minutes in, and it was actually later game plays from SKT that won them the game. Idk, it just feels like saying SKT outplayed G2 left and right in the earlygame was a bit overblown.

I guess overall we just disagree on how much room the drafts gave SKT to succeed.

And that's cool! Remember that I'm not ONLY looking at the early game, I'm looking at a wide array of things, the early game is just what a lot of people are tunneling on. I think the biggest mistakes from G2 were the greedy plays they made. Caps giving up that baron because he overextended bot was really poor and didn't need to happen. Things like this happened a lot throughout the series.

I appreciate you taking the time to have this conversation with me.

Insab

So what you're saying is that G2 had better early and late game comps. Mid game was better for SKT but if G2 had executed early properly, SKT wouldn't have a chance to utilize their mid game strength. However, the window for SKT was so narrow, even though they could grow their mid game lead, it was hard for them to close. However they executed the mid game better than G2 executed the early (SKT played better). If the comps were switched, you would expect that SKT to have done better early and G2 to have done worse in the mid game so either SKT would have never given G2 a chance due to a strong early game or would have outscaled and won.

Is that a correct interpretation of your argument?

That's a pretty good summary, yeah!

Observing_Everything

Vedius m8. Remember that when you don't give the summary, some people will complain about you not giving a tl;dr at the end of your analysis which makes the video "really hard to watch".

In the end, being a colourcaster for a game like league of legends is such a curse and a blessing i imagine. Because people play the same game as you and because the community is so heavily revolved around the internet, every word you say is interpreted by millions of people in different ways. The blessing is however, that you can actually commit to discussion with fans so easy as the distance between a caster and their audience is much smaller then for instance in traditional sports which us really engaging for the fanbase.

However. The standard you set in this comment is really unrealistic. Leaving things open for interpetation will always happen. I mean look at real life communication(for instance with friends or with a spouse). Even with facial expressions added for clarity, you will always get some sort of misinterpretation in a discussion. Imagine trying to explain something detailed to millions of different people from different backgrounds without leaving something up for interpretation. Good luck trying that.

So that will always happen. At one point, it is not up to you to make things more clear because the more via words, but for other people to broaden their perspective.

This whole debate about G2 playing "worse" then SKT is so overblown in my opinion because a lot of western fans see it as an attack on "their" team. Make this debate about IG vs FPX and the discussion would not be so viral as it is now.

So you do you m8. You are doing an amazing job, just like LS and other analyst. The amount of depth you guys can reach is really something and has only improven over the years.

I much appreciate the comment my friend and thanks for chiming in!

MietschVulka

so, their baron play is bad. and you say they played better then G2 often times, while securing advantages (Baron) that they can't use properly, while G2 does not go for those advantages, but secures advantages (map pressure) that they actually can use very well.

how is SKT better securing useless stuff then G2 getting what they need to then finish games? they did make mistakes, many, but so did SKT. the problem is, Baron, small gold leads, all this doesn't matter because this series was never about that. G2 forced that series into a game of pure map pressure and won under the conditions they set up on their own.

Well, I felt as though G2 were forced to make these map pressure plays because of the situations that they put themselves in. If they had played parts of the game better, these situations wouldn't have been forced, but to their credit they found creative ways of getting out of these situations.

G2 forced that series into a game of pure map pressure and won under the conditions they set up on their own.

I also don't think this is really true. They won so many late game fights that they didn't actually start, they just outplayed SKT. Which is great, I'm not trying to take anything away from G2 here, it just goes to show how mechanically proficient they are and how good their coordination is. It was just a lot of things leading up to these points were either G2 making a lot of mistakes or SKT doing a lot of good things. The basics of it are, there were more moments throughout the series of SKT doing good things than there were of G2, but the good things that G2 did were WAY MORE imp...

brother-trick

As for game 4, you have Vlad with free lane on top and Qiyana/Elise as a mid/jg duo. G2 still outscales here all things equal and their comp is easier to execute, but again - SKT's comp had many advantages in the early game.

From the fact that before level 6 they should have fairly easy bot lane, stronger mid/jg duo and fairly free laning phase for Vlad on top.

Yes, I think game 4 is an example of SKT going for more of an "early game comp" that had strong mid to late game tools but would eventually get outscaled. In this case, I believe it would've been expected to have G2 fall behind.

georgioz

My issue with the current narrative is that fans seem to think that G2 played perfectly and it was all part of their plan

No. The issue of fans is that G2 outplays SKT and you say SKT plays better.

Now this doesn't just excuse SKT. They also did dumb stuff. Their ability to use baron was awful, they played so many teamfights really poorly and they have no idea how to use weak side of the map.

Exactly. SKT made a lot of mistakes and had some fundamental problems with their understanding of some of the most important concepts in the game. But SKT still "played better" according to what you say despite all these glaring flaws. What can we know.

If I take what you say at face value we just witnessed a clown fiesta and the bigger clown of G2 lucked out or just drafted more funny costume and just won. Oh, also obligatory "not to take anything away from G2".

No. The issue of fans is that G2 outplays SKT and you say SKT plays better.

G2 outplayed SKT in very specific situations after often putting themselves in this position in the first place when they didn't have to.

SKT made a lot of mistakes and had some fundamental problems with their understanding of some of the most important concepts in the game. But SKT still "played better" according to what you say despite all these glaring flaws. What can we know.

Because the context on how I said it means that, on average, SKT were making better decisions and fewer mistakes throughout the series. G2 however, played better when it mattered most and that's why I call them a better team.

This is why this is more of an argument around semantics more than anything else. If I had simply said, G2 made more mistakes than SKT in my opinion, but it didn't matter because they played better when it mattered most, would you be as frustrated with my comments?

brother-trick

I do not disagree with you on game 1. I also think that in game 2 G2 had a better draft. But games 3 and 4, its SKT all the way in my opinion.

If you cannot utilize advantage that Renekton, Rek'sai, Ryze bring - I do not care what enemy drafted and how it works in the late game - you do not deserve worlds finals because you have absolutely every tool to smash enemy team before 25:00.

Well, in Game 3 I think G2's Camille outscales everyone on a side lane. I also think Ryze loses to Ori early so you can't exactly build advantages early unless you roam. And in game 4, I think it's closer but I still think it's easier for G2 to execute teamfights, I think the Yasuo is going to offer more later than the Varus and I think Qiyana get's hard to play unless you play around certain areas of the map.

I mean, I agree with you that SKT don't deserve to be in the world final, but I don't think I've said that either.

HighLikeKites

What makes you think if the drafts were swapped SKT would be able to accumulate the same early game leads and G2 would make the same early game mistakes when the comps and winconditions would be different? That doesn't make any sense.

I gave this context in a few other replies, I would encourage you to check them out and join in on the discussions.

brother-trick

Well, if you want to talk about game 1 - I'd agree there isn't a snowballing advantage to SKT, but also there isn't any scaling advantage to G2. The tradeoff here is Ryze as a realiable splitpusher on G2 vs slightly better teamfighting comp for SKT.

In the end, SKT dared G2 and lost the teamfight. SKT has won historically dozens of times by being only better at that one, lategame teamfight and I've never heard that an analysis that would point at SKT winning because of drafts or because the enemy team made mistakes.

Overall, drafts in game 1 are evenly matched and I do not see how SKT would win this game if drafts were reversed. It came down to execution.

The only game where I feel G2 had a clearly better draft is game 2. And they lost that one.

But I believe G2 also outscale SKT in the teamfight because of how hard it is for them to actually win those fights. For SKT to win, they need to land a good Neeko ult, for that to happen you need flashes to be gone, Banshees to be procced on Ryze, Xayah's ult to be on Cooldown, etc. It's also difficult for Teddy to get good damage down in these fights. If Teddy dives in, he's more likely going to put himself in danger because the only other person that can reliably follow that dive is Leona, and even that's a bit sketchy. This means that Teddy has to play front to back until Renekton is in a position where Teddy can follow, and I believe G2's front to back is just stronger because feathers go through a whole team and so does the Ryze E-Q damage. Ontop of the fact that Kled is a more obnoxious frontline than Renekton is later into the game.

Therefore, in my opinion at least, SKT were outscaled on a side lane and outscaled in teamfights. Their best option was to find some great flank,...

Hannig4n

This is a really insightful comment, thank you. Do you think that there was a similar issue for SKT with their game 4 draft? I was surprised to see them throw a lead like that.

I think in game 4 SKT didn't properly use Qiyana. You want to fight with her in narrow choke points or around objectives where she has access to all of her elements and her ult can be used effectively. They rarely did this and when it came down to siegeing onto G2s base, Qiyana was basically non-existent because there was no way for her to be used effectively inside G2s base.

LtSpaceDucK

I'm not ignoring their mistakes.

The discussion around their draft revolves around the idea that if G2 picked similar compositions to what SKT did, and SKT picked similar compositions to what G2 did, G2 would lose the series because they would make more mistakes than SKT.

Based on what is this assertion correct, , G2 almost always makes mistakes early game and they manage to stabilize the game and start playing smart in the mid game.

G2 is a lot better than SKT at pushing their advantages, utilizing baron and closing out games, G2 is a lot better than SKT at playing the compositions SKT picked, so I think the notion that G2 would lose with a role reversal is not fair at all.

How can anyone know how SKT or G2 would have played with different drafts.

I'm pretty sure G2 opted for these late game compositions because they recognise the inability of SKT to push their leads and utilize baron, I think I remember Grabbz and G2 members discussing this matter that they feel no rpessure playing SKT.

The drafts were tailored for SKT, if it was another team they would probably pick differently like they did versus Damwon and they will probably do in the finals versus FPX.

I think discussing and making so many claims based on a specific draft of a team capable of playing so many styles is inconsequential.

G2 is a lot better than SKT at pushing their advantages, utilizing baron and closing out games, G2 is a lot better than SKT at playing the compositions SKT picked, so I think the notion that G2 would lose with a role reversal is fair at all.

But there's no evidence in this series to suggest that they would. If we are in agreement that the early game was weak from G2 in every game. And if we agree that in each game, G2's draft would outscale, then it should make sense that if G2 fails to get an early lead with a comp that is eventually outscaled, the likelihood of them winning is now very much lower, right?

I'm pretty sure G2 opted for these late game compositions because they recognise the inability of SKT to push their leads and utilize baron, I think I remember Grabbz and G2 members discussing this matter that they feel no rpessure playing SKT.

This may very well be true, but it doesn't absolve them of the poor plays they made earlier. As I mentioned in my above example, team...

ragtagofgoons

I just wanted to stop by and say it's awesome that you are taking the time to type out such in-depth responses to each of these comments and on top of that engaging in discussion. You're a cool dude.

Much appreciated.

brother-trick

You do realize that SKT had champs that were better suited to win early game? Maybe with those champs G2 would actually snowball properly which SKT failed to do.

Not sure how much SKT in LCK you watched, but I always claimed from their regular season that SKT is not that great. At their best - and yes, this was their best - they are a really good statcheck team. G2 is just able to surpass that in most of the games, therefore 8-3 this season.

GRF and DWG are generally much more dangerous teams for G2, but with big bo5 problems.

I disagree with your initial argument. If we take game 1 as an example, I do not consider Neeko and Kaisa to be champions that spike in the early to mid game. Perhaps I am wrong in my understanding, but I don't think it would be any easier for G2 to snowball this comp than it was for SKT. Continuing with my example, I think what SKT failed to do was use baron. Multiple times we saw them secure the objective yet fail to push that lead. This is a little more specific than "snowballing with your comp" for sure and if G2 were put in the same mid to late game positions that SKT were in, I have way more faith in G2s ability to actually close out those games.

I watched a fair amount of LCK, but I think saying SKT are "not that great" doesn't really tell you much about what they are good and bad at. I think G2 found creative ways of staying close after falling into early deficits, largely off their own mistakes, while also taking advantage of the fact that SKT couldn't use baron properly.

MoxZenyte

Granted I haven't analyzed the games for seven hours, but does having pushing lanes necessarily mean they are supposed to have an early advantage? For example in game 4, even if Syndra can get priority on Qiyana with waveclear, would you not agree a cleanseless Syndra should get punished much more heavily by a Qiyana/Elise duo? You have guaranteed stun with Qiyana if you flash, and then Rappel/Cocoon/burst followup. I also don't buy that Yasuo/Gragas is supposed to win lane vs Varus/Nautilus early, considering whenever Perkz plays against Yasuo bot smashes the lane, but G2 managed to put Varus significantly behind. Similarly, in game two Ryze has push on Leblanc, but can you really push and roam when Leblanc and Lee can just blow you up? I think you also said on the podcast that LB+Lee should give SKT a pressure advantage. In game three do you really think G2 have a significant push advantages? I feel like in that game Ryze was the one pushing and moving, and Ori was just sitting in lane (could be misremembering though)

Again, this is from a Reddit analyst, but I would be curious to hear your thoughts. Personally I think that some advantages SKT had were heavily influenced by draft. Sure there were some instances were SKT got early leads where maybe they shouldn't have, but I think the same can be said for G2 (notably the game 4 Yasuo lane)

We get quite granular having this conversation, so I want to try and shift your way of thinking.

Let's take game 3 for example. Renekton, Rek'sai, Ryze, Kaisa, Leona vs Camille, Elise, Orianna, Xayah, Naut. I think we can both agree that Ryze and Kaisa should not be considered early game champions. However, against G2's comp, they probably get outscaled. Why? Well, diving onto a Xayah is hard for Renekton and Kaisa because of the Naut cc + Xayah ult. Orianna also provides mroe teamfight value than a Ryze does. Also, Camille's damage in the late game will be too strong for anyone on SKT to be able to 1v1. She'll also do more damage in teamfights than a Renekton will. With all this in mind, SKT are now aware they are on a clock, so have to win before G2 can get to their late game state. They have a pushing top lane they can play through, Ryze struggles vs Orianna so that's not the easiest lane to play through and bot is pretty neutral, but past 6 it gets harder for SKT (Again, cause of...

lifeisfullofbadrng

It does make sense. Overall, I could agree that SKT could've beat G2 if they had better drafts. Or that they could've beat G2 if not for some of the mistakes.

I could even go as far as to say that SKT probably played better League of Legends.

The whole thing that's kind of annoying when you meet this analytical angle is that, firstly, there's a lot of ifs and ifs suck, because they are anything between "this would look better IF not for that one missclick on R" to "my hardstuck gold ass could replace Uma Jan IF I played a bit better" and secondly, it feels as if drafting, team flexibility and very out of book patterns that G2 brings to the table are being dismissed and not counted as part of team's strength (even though Doinb's dark technologies are considered a major advantage of FPX).

TL;DR great analysis, would put it in another words maybe, not surprised people are angery, it's a tense week before finals.

I agree, better words should be used and I too am not surprised that people are angry, which is why I'm here answering questions. Also, I try not to dismiss what G2 did, as I've mentioned a few times in various places, G2 do some amazing things and that's a large part of why I predicted them to win. I believe they can win the finals and have the talent to do so. I did not intend to take anything away from the great things that they did.

0re0n

If G2 had SKTs comp, and were in a position where they were going to get outscaled so they had to be more proactive in the early game, then they played like they did in a lot of these games, they would've lost in my opinion. Does that make sense?

Why would any team have different team comp but for some reason play the same? It doesn't make any sense for me.

So G2 drafted better scaling comp and lost early game but if SKT drafter scaling comp G2 would also lose early game? There is literally no foundation for this conclusion.

I gave more context in a different reply, but basically the only information I have is that I believe G2 played poorly in the early game for most if not the entire series. Because of this, I can argue that their early game performance would be poor regardless of the comp, which is the basis for the argument.

I obviously can't guarantee it, but I base my opinion on recent data, so that's what my opinion would use. It might be wrong, which is fine, but when we're talking hypotheticals I need to base it off of something.

Additional_Geese

but I believe that if the comps were swapped and G2 made the same early game mistakes that they did

Vedius I love your casting and content, and am totally against the way people just ignore the arguments and attack the statement (especially when most people don't understand the game at all), but this is a really strange position to take.

If comps are swapped G2 have a stronger early/mid spike, there's nothing to suggest they would make 'the same mistakes'. There's nothing to even suggest they would approach the game in the same way,

I also think the phrase 'played better' is silly and just creates an entire argument based largely on semantics. You put more emphasis on certain parts of the game than others, maybe you're right to do so maybe you're not, but to claim a team played better because if you moved around a ton of variables it would look different is, well, ridiculous.

It's my biggest problem with League analysis in general: there's some people who know a lot about League of Legends (like yourself) but don't seem to be very good at the actual act of analysis.

I've replied to a bunch of different people, so I would encourage you to go read some of those replies as it will give context to your question.

Regarding semantics, I agree. I made an oversimplifcation at the end of a long VOD stream and it got turned into something that needed a lot more context to make sense. If I could do all of this over, I wouldn't have done any summary. I would've gone away, thought about the key talking points and presented those instead of a generalisation, as that would provide more clarity and give more face value context.

I disagree that people don't know how to do actual analysis, I just thing being able to communicate what you want to say is a skill that not all analysts have mastered. If there's something open to interpretation, you probably haven't done a great job of explaining your point, which is where I think the learning is here.