Science Players

[Newton and Leibniz]

Here's a subjective ordering of science players by skill, intended to foster some discussion.

Top Tier: With these players on your team, you're guaranteed to have good control over the science points in any given round. That's not to say that these players are unstoppable juggernauts in absolute terms (especially against each other), but they're probably the closest quizbowl equivalents.

1. Eric Mukherjee

N: I've seen Eric power a lot of physics questions despite playing on a team with noted physicist Jerry. Eric has a strong base in biology and chemistry, particularly the former, and has expanded into the other sciences more completely than I've seen in anyone. He thrives on multiple kinds of questions; he has the best canon and clue sense of any science player in the game, so he knows how to buzz on named things, but he also understands REAL SCIENCE, so he'll get questions written in that style, too. Wrote a great science tournament. Powered every science tossup in the finals of Minnesota Open 2009.

L: Eric has a pretty solid command of most science categories, and will power at least one or two science tossups in most packets, like clockwork. Steals physics from physicists and mathematics from mathematicians with some frequency, probably more so than physicists will steal biology and chemistry from him. He'll falter on occasion, however, but is also likely to nail four powers, as N has noted, especially in easier tournaments.


2. Seth Teitler

N: Seth has a lock on earth science and astro like few players do over a category. Fun fact: I got a tossup on moraines off him at ACF Nationals '09. We'll pretend that it wasn't because my childhood featured vacations to Lake Arthur, which is in Moraine State Park and in the question. Seth is also excellent at physics. It's difficult (for me, at least) to judge his bio and chem knowledge since I've only once played him without Selene and/or Susan.

L: Both N and I have some difficulty sorting the trio of strong physicist-generalists apart from each other; Seth's command of, and background in, Earth Science, Astronomy and Math makes him the favorite. And if you're not careful he'll take bio and chem from you too. His commanding performance at Lederberg (almost 90 ppg while playing with two decent teammates) is a testament to his abilities.


3. Mike Sorice

N: Mike is too real for your tossups. This can hurt him frequently and lead to negs. It's safe to say, I think, that Mike does the most to reach outside of physics of any physics-first science player, having acquired a great deal of real biology and chemistry knowledge. Doesn't eclipse Seth (despite a strong argument for greater science-generalist ability) in large part because of the possibility for negs.

L: Mike has intense real knowledge of both (physical) chemistry and physics. Its hard to judge his level of bio or chem knowledge relative to Seth, since the latter plays with Selene, but its safe to say its considerable. Also has a solid command of mathematics, and great knowledge of science topics outside the traditional canon (atmospheric science, numerical methods, engineering, etc).


4. Jerry Vinokurov

N: Jerry is just as good at physics and mathematics as Mike and Seth are; if you told me he was the best or worst of those three I'd readily believe you. Mike and Seth have done more to reach out of their primary category than Jerry (understandable; Jerry got to play with Eric for years, after all), and Jerry will easily get beaten to tossups outside his specialties. Can get thrown off his game; when he's on (see: ACF Nationals '09 playoffs) he can be unstoppable.

L: Using Lederberg to judge Jerry's science abilities is probably unfair, given the subject skew of that tournament, but its still somewhat telling that of the major physicist-generalists he scored the lowest at 30ppg. Jerry has solid command of physics and mathematics, which he will split down the middle with Mike and Seth, and great canon knowledge in most of the "other sciences". His relative weakness in biology and chemistry moves him down, however, though that's undoubtedly a product of the company he keeps/kept.


5. Selene Koo

N: I've only played Selene a few times, and she never struck me as being as fast on tossups as Eric was; that said, it's not like I beat her to a tossup in bio or chem more than once or twice. Very strong at those subjects, but it's impossible to give her a stronger ranking without more data about her physics and other science knowledge (particularly when the players above her have a lot of evidence for their cross-category dominance).

L: Selene obviously has excellent knowledge of both chemistry and biology, and is very hard to beat on those categories at any level. Probably one of the best biology and chemistry players to ever play the game. Presumably has a decent command of physics and other science categories as well, though since she's always playing with Seth that's hard to tell. Ever since I was a sophomore my role in the invariable match against Chicago was to act as Selene's foil; I'm going to miss those showdowns.


Honorable Mention: These players are solid scientists, no exceptions, but are generally a notch below the above players. They generally can operate as thirds or fourths on teams with wide quizbowl knowledge, usually guaranteeing you a solid core of science points against most teams.


Andy Watkins

N: Can buzz on biology stock clues and little else. Knows physics from the classroom, usually mixes up physics things he knows only through quizbowl (for at least a semester, mysterious Raman/Mossbauer negs; now, mysterious Casimir/Meissner negs). Gets the chemistry tossup and thirties the bonus unless the third part is dumb.

L: The man who's spearheading the reformation of the chemistry canon. Almost impossible to beat to organic chemistry tossups, somewhat weaker elsewhere. His numerous writing efforts will propel him higher, and there's no question he deserves his spot on this list.


Gautam Kandlikar

N: Gautam will, as a proper Minnesotan, thirty bio and chem bonuses regularly. He won't buzz as early on tossups; that may arise due to his REAL SCIENCE training dominating over canon knowledge.

L: Noted Target of Rapamycin fan, and overall excellent command of biology and chemistry, with good knowledge outside of those categories. Has excellent canon knowledge, but he doesn't pack the overall punch of the above players.


Daniel Klein

N: I'll say that Daniel Klein isn't the best mathematics player I've seen, contra L (Asaf Reich, current Brandeis sophomore) but "in quizbowl" may cinch it for Dan. Dan has a lot of niche knowledge in different areas (I've seen him get fantastic buzzes on SDS-PAGE and HPLC, for example; he's also not known things I'd have expected him to given those buzzes). That mercurial dominance is precisely the kind of knowledge that Brown A needed in past years (having insane knowledge of a dozen subjects is more useful than having fourth-clue knowledge of a hundred when you're playing with Eric and Jerry); this year he'll have to expand.

L: The fact that Dan regularly gets science across the board on Brown A is a testament to his abilities. Possibly the best mathematics player in quizbowl, and also has a good, but not amazing, command of biology, managing to beat Selene to it at ACF Nationals 2009 and beating Eric to it on more than one occasion.


Dwight Wynne

N: Dwight defines the type of mercurial that is a characteristic of Dan's game. Good command of all science; spotty ability within any given science. Can be beaten to tossups in each of those areas.

L: You get the feeling that most of Dwight's knowledge lies well outside canonical science subjects, but that doesn't stop him from putting up good tossup and bonus numbers in most games. Also wrote an enjoyable, if somewhat idiosyncratic, science tournament, as well as editing science for several packet-sub events.


Arnav Moudgil

N: I've only played Arnav twice, at ICT and ACF. The chem tossup went dead in the latter; the former featured some weird stuff (I don't remember any science save a tossup on either "two" or "three" and one on "critical points"). I can't comment much here.

L: Pretty good biology and chemistry player, but doesn't yet but up big numbers. Hopefully he'll show up to more things in the future.

Stevejon Guth

N: Has a lot of confidence and buzzes really well (thinking back, at the very least, to the Emergency and to a couple of Penn Bowls). Stevejon has a lot of ability on tossups, but perhaps a little bit less for covering bonuses.

L: Severely underrated currently since he's really new, but has solid knowledge in math and physics especially. Looking forward to seeing him get better.

Mehdi Razvi

N: I don't think I've ever played Mehdi; he writes good questions, though.

L: With more time, Mehdi could become the next great science player, and he'll regularly have very early buzzes across the board, especially in biology and chemistry. Only time will tell how far he develops, however.


Historical Mention: This category is intended to foster discussion. As both N and L are somewhat new to quizbowl, we're interested to see how other people see/saw these players


Sudheer Potru

N: I've no Sudheer contact save through old tournament results, alas.

L: Osteopathy? Really? Just kidding, Sudheer. In any case, I've heard he's a solid player.


Andrew Ullsperger

N: I played Andrew once at this past year's CO; he nailed the shit out of a chem tossup (I think there were two chem tossups in that packet; I am uncertain--this was not on hydrogen bonds, but something else, and it was in that packet--perhaps it was biology?).

L: His entry on the A-Z Definitive Greatest Players List mentions his well-known
"icy efficiency", and anecdotally his command of the science canon was unparalleled in his time.


Joon Pahk

N: I've heard the name before.

L: I've heard good things.


Jason Paik

N: Has clear knowledge of biology; more, I can't say for sure.

L: Heard good things about him too. His commentary seems to indicate his knowledge is great, but his playing career ended long before I showed up.


Susan Ferrari

N: I've played Susan before, and I've seen her play more times. Clearly a killer biology player (and more so in the past). Looking forward to ACF Nationals with her on the editing team.

L: Excellent on biology, even on a team with Selene on it, but its hard to tell if she has any deep knowledge outside of that category. Also, cookies!


Matt Keller

N: I haven't played Matt much, but his editing for NAQT (and CO 2008) has been top-notch; that generally betrays some pretty solid knowledge. Seems like the opposite of Dwight or Dan's mercuriality, but I'm extrapolating from very little data.

L: Biomedical engineer with good knowledge across all of the big 3 categories. Writes some of the best science questions I've ever had the pleasure of playing. The few times I've had the opportunity to play against him I've been generally impressed by his depth and breath on the subject, and I'll certainly miss both his writing and the opportunity to play against him.

[Mike Bentley]

I'd probably include Brian Lindquist on this list. He has very solid science knowledge, possibly more so than Arnav.

[Susan]

Matt Reece and Peter Onyisi should be on the historical section of that list, as should Matt Lafer (and probably tons of other people I'm forgetting at the moment). As for me, if there's any sort of title to be awarded for the biggest drop-off between bio/chem knowledge and physics/math knowledge, I probably win it.

[grapesmoker]

Calling my weakness in bio/chem "relative" is being too generous. I'm terrible at anything that I haven't heard come up before and can't fraud my way into. I can hold my own against most anyone in physics, and math, am moderately capable at both astronomy and CS, but outside of those categories I'm weaksauce.

Also, Eric is really good at science.

[Steve Watchorn]

Yes to both Peter and Matt, as Susan mentioned. Before Peter showed up at Chicago, even with Andrew there, we could always count on a hundred or so points playing them based on stealing physics, at least (then we'd only lose 655 - 200). That ended with Peter's arrival. And in the 2003 Chicago Open singles tournament, Matt put together the best overall science performance I have ever seen at one tournament (I have not been able to see Eric M. in an overall tournament, though I have moderated some of his matches). I had the unfortunate situation of being in his room during the seeding rounds, and having him steal all the physics from me, while being in the same room as Andrew Y. and Nathan Freeburg (in "on" mode) who took everything else. I didn't even make the top bracket.