amf7410 - Winning percentage =/= better winner. It just means they had easier opponents, which mades them less impressive in my opinion. When you beat the best, I think that makes you the best.
BlueBarracuda that isnt necessarily true at all. The more votes you get at the end, the more people think you played the best game. Part of stars is audience perception. If you can pull the votes in your favor, then you do deserve it and played the best game, because the audience votes and not the cast. But according to you if you get the highest percentage in a finals, you werent the best. Which isnt true at all. Theres no way of saying who is the best. that argument could be made for any finals- that the winner just had easier opponents. Which isnt true at all.
If you pit the USA olympic team against Qatar and Sierra Leone, we're gonna totally demolish them. Pit us against China and the UK, we're not going to have as much medals. You're missing the point of which I'm saying in that high percentage doesn't automatically make you a more deserving winner. It CAN indicate that, but you have to factor who the opponents are as well. And sometimes, all 3 finalist played great, but equal games. There is no clear formula to determine who is best, so klutch19's idea will never happen, unless you did polls, which are only popularity contests that would be biased towards more recent players, due to proximity bias. Audience perception is part of stars, yes. But if you're able to beat 2 people that are perceived as popular, rather than demolish two people everyone hates, I'd say the former is more impressive, that's just me. And then again, instead of looking at percentages, you should look at individual gameplay and past history, and create some rationale for "the best" players.
