Yeah but time matters. Beating Ken 5 years ago and beating Ken today mean totally different things, even though he has the same Elo and gives the same Elo from beating him.
Is this going to be a problem? Can you please show me some inactive players you think are going to return to tournament action? And you guys are making a huge deal as if Ken was something like 2200. Sheridan said himself that he would doubt Ken could return and place top 5. But you know what? Right now he's rated 1576. That's pretty close to Lunin. I think he'd have a chance to beat Lunin. Or Jace, or Trail. He doesn't have an Elo that would indicate he would place very highly in a national. Lets get some more data in here before we really analyze Ken some more. He's the only example being mentioned and I'm pretty sure he'd be worthy of a 1500 rating.
Anyways, I did some analysis on a couple of recent tournaments. CodeName EPIC, which was the WC qualifier for IMPULSE, the upcoming Canadian National. And Apex 2012. I chose these tournaments because they feature a lot of players with a lot of data already, but they also highlight a couple of things that could be perceived as flaws, albeit with any type of rating system. So here are the results for the top 13 at Codename Epic from 3/3/12:
1. Wobbles (1846)
2. Axe (1743)
3. Eddy Mexico (1687)
4. Fly Amanita (1722)
5. TAI (1507)
5. Westballz (1618)
7. Likewise (1313)
7. Stabbed (1501)
9. baka4moe (1433)
9. Sung666 (1457)
9. ROFL (1416)
9. Bimbo Mexico (1449)
13.Dylion (1262)
13.J666 (1304)
13.Hyprid (1368)
13.festizzio (1279)
Elo is in (). The average rating of the players in each place is this:
1-1846
2-1743
3-1687
4-1722
5-1563
7-1407
9-1439
13-1303
Which for the exception of 4th, and 7th and 9th, is in order. So why are they not all in order? Well for one, a 40 point difference in Elo doens't mean too much, so it's understood and completely acceptable that a player 40 points below another player could place higher. Hopefully nobody is coming in to this expecting every tournament to have results in order of elo. That is simply not possible. Any type of rating system can only track a players most recent results. As far as 7th and 9th goes, one of the players tied for 7th is Likewise...which I'm pretty sure is an alias and it's actually somebody else. That person started the tournament at the base rating of 1200, so he's going to bring down the average for that placement a bit, similar to Javi at Apex 2012. Anyways, if you list the players in order of Elo the only two players outside the order are Fly who was the 3rd highest player and got 4th (and his counterpart Eddy who was 4th highest rated and got 3rd) and Likewise who wasn't rated at the beginning of the tournament. Looks pretty accurate to me.
Ok now for Apex. There's a lot of players and I wanted to point out the depth of Elo so I went with top 64.
1. Armada (2115)
2. Hungrybox (1967)
3. Mango (1942)
4. Javi (1529)
5. Dr Peepee (1839)
5. Kirbykaze (1657)
7. Hax (1736)
7. Shroomed (1847)
9. Lovage (1712)
9. MacD (1655)
9. Wobbles (1846)
9. Unknown522 (1546)
13.VaNz (1580)
13.SFAT (1685)
13.Zhu (1767)
13.Tope (1707)
17.PewPewU (1616)
17.KoreanDJ (1578)
17.DaShizWiz (1646)
17.Mew2King (1828)
17.Darc (1635)
17.Silent Wolf (1690)
17.Chillin (1595)
17.S2J (1737)
25.HBK (1595)
25.Weon-x (1343)
25.Eggm (1583)
25.Jman (1753)
25.Teczero (1519)
25.Bladewise (1484)
25.I.B. (1453)
25.Westballz (1618)
33.Tang (1408)
33.Ice (1628)
33.Kage (1626)
33.Redd (1383)
33.TAI (1507)
33.Sol (1365)
33.Amsah (1811)
33.Druggedfox (1417)
33.Leffen (1665)
33.Axe (1743)
33.ChuDat (1657)
33.Plup (1341)
33.Darrell (1536)
33.StriCNYN3 (1479)
33.th0rn (1540)
33.Reno (1346)
49.Eggz (1523)
49.Mattdotzeb (1292)
49.Swiftbass (1470)
49.Vist (1364)
49.Colbol (1496)
49.Vudujin (1297)
49.PC Chris (1655)
49.Cactuar (1551)
49.Azen (1591)
49.Linguini (1582)
49.Stabbed (1501)
49.Cyrain (1491)
49.Ambix (1324)
49.HugS (1630)
49.Ravenlord (1400)
49.ZoSo (1352)
And here is average rating of the players by finish.
1-2115
2-1967
3-1942
4-1529
5-1748
7-1792
9-1690
13-1685
17-1666
25-1544
33-1528
49-1470
So with this one obviously we see 4th place at only 1529. That was Javi who has only one tournaments worth of data. This is a flaw that would be highlighted in any system. It is a flaw actually that Elo already has an answer for, which is the performance rating formula that would actually eliminate any player from starting at a base rating, and instead give them a performance rating from which to start. If this formula was used, Javi would actually be rated 1712. It would have been 1361 after pools round 1, which is the only round that would have used the formula. He was 100% vs an average field of 1161. I recommend we use a +/- scale of 200 (instead of 400) to prevent new players from beating up on noobs and getting to 1500 easily. That puts him at 1361 and the rest of it uses the same formula we use. Other than that we also see 5th and 7th out of order. And we can attribute that to only having about 50 matches rated for KirbyKaze, who is obviously much better than his Elo. In fact we only have one match rated for him within the last year. Which means with decay he would've dropped down even more than what he was. Any thoughts?
EDIT: I also wanted to share that I would be open to ratings decay if the lack thereof actually does present itself a problem. However it's not something that I would think would be necessary until the backlog of tournaments is complete. Because at this point we obviously can't tell when a players activity starts and stops, since we're missing so much data still. Like KirbyKaze, I really doubt he was inactive for a whole year prior to Apex 2012. Again though, the lack of it needs to be a problem, right? I mean, lets see if there are examples of old school pros coming out of retirement and losing to players that shouldn't gain those elo points.