| 16 August 2010
There was one player missing from my player database until two weeks ago, when he made an appearance at a tournament of which he co-won. That was Ryan "Gootecks" Gutierrez.
As I was watching him play, the everlasting debate of whether getting the first hit continued to play in my brain. Does it matter?
After a few weeks of dipping, the overall average has climbed up steadily. It is now at .587. The average among last four tournaments I've posted, which now in the database, is at .611.
Gootecks was at The Box Arena Team Ranbats 1.5 tournament two weeks ago. In the Top 8, he had a .769 first-hit win percentage, which is above the average. So for him, getting the first hit eventually mattered.
Daigo Umehara, the heralded one, has a .699 first-hit win percentage in more than 130 rounds of tournament play.
Justin Wong was at .761 prior to Saturday's Summer Jam tournament in the Northeast, which he ended up winning.
Does getting the first hit matter? These three guys have successfully turned it in their favor. And I could keep going on and on about the top players, the tournament champs who are above the curve.
There's a lot of statistics out there in competitive games, some which I'm still trying to figure out, others which I have established fairly well to this point. The first-hit debate is something that might last for a while. I mean, it's only .585 right now. Maybe it will forever stay in the .580s. Maybe it rises like it has with the last four tournaments.
For now, does having that extra 8.5 percent matter to someone if they get the first hit? Some people might not care because of various factors (opponent, status of match, etc.). Others might see it as a necessary.
I don't think I, if I started playing competitively tomorrow, could turn away from it. To know that Daigo wins a round every 7 out of 10 times he gets the first hit is huge to me, and I know I can't let him have the early advantage.
Any type of knowledge helps, at least that's how I see it.
