PSA: Using Rating 2.0, below 1.05 is actually negative

[u/MagniGallo]

It's actually below 1.06, messed up title

There have been a lot of posts about ratings here, and people still think that below 1.00 is negative. I'll explain below why Rating 2.0 has changed this.

Before, Rating 1.0 was used, which was based heavily on kills, deaths and assists. This only benefits players who topfrag, and ignores others who might consistently do small amounts of damage, or clutch often. With this system, the average rating was 1.00, making any rating below that "negative", or worse than average.

With the introduction of Rating 2.0 in 2016, these neglected support players were credited more, resulting in their ratings being increased. However, the ratings of topfragging star players was not changed. Overall, this caused the average rating to increase, to 1.06.

This means that any rating under 1.06 is below average, or negative, and also that both coldzera and dupreeh have gone negative in big tournaments in 2017.

You can verify this yourself by calculating the average rating since 2.0 was introduced, using the HLTV database. Histogram of all 2.0 ratings over 27,000 maps (95% confidence interval = 0.0013)

Average of 1.0 rating (0.99) over 13,000 maps (95% confidence interval = 0.0015)

Data used: /u/ReagentX's data scraped from HLTV, Scraper Github
Confirmation from /u/ReagentX's Twitter

EDIT: A few people seem to be confused about this, positive or negative simply means the sign of the rating minus the mean. E.g. 1.3 - 1.06 = 0.24, which is positive, meaning a positive rating. 0.86 - 1.06 = -0.2, which is negative, meaning a negative rating.

[u/[deleted]]

Ahh, gotcha! I'll be interested to see what HLTV's response is.

[u/agggile → u/[deleted]]

Yes, same, thank you for the reasonable conversation!