I there any consensus on this? I would say:
7000 Good
6000 Ok (Grandmaster)
5000 Bad (Master 1)
4000 Really Bad (Master 3)
Below 4000: Awful = (Diamond 3)
Platin MMR 3300 = Awful player playing blindfolded.
Gold MMR 2800 = Smashing the keyboard at random
Silver MMR 2300 = Managed to install the game.
Bronze MMR 1700 = Accidentally sat on the keyboard while the game started up
Edit: Updated the post to include even lower MMR.
So 2 players in the world are good and there are 0 great players. Got it.
Well for greatness I do not think you can measure it with MMR.
In SC2 you need to win multiple championships to be a great player. Like Serral/Maru/MVP. MMR alone cannot tell the story.
It is similar to how IQ test can measure if you are very intelligent or not, but it cannot measure if you are a genius.
If you take a 1000 people with 150+ IQ a handful of them might be geniuses due a combination of intelligence, creativity and obsessiveness. The IQ test alone cannot tell this.
best chart i’ve ever seen
Thank you. I guess the consensus in this thread is that I am right.
Sure, Blizzard named the Leagues complete wrong! 
7000 Good
6000 Ok (Grandmaster)
5000 Bad (Master 1)
4000 Really Bad (Master 3)
Below 4000: Awful = (Diamond 3)
Please make some more suggestion for people in:
Platin MMR 3300 = ?
Gold MMR 2800 = ?
Silver MMR 2300 = ?
Bronze MMR 1700 = ?
I think he was being sarcastic.
Depends on what you want for yourself. For me getting master is an achievement. So when I get at that point I feel content and like a good player. Anything beyond that would tax me to much on motivation and time. So basically your point of reference decides. When you want to be like Serral you will always be a bad player. When you want to reach master. You will feel like a good player when you do
Platin: Awful player playing blindfolded.
Gold: Smashing the keyboard at random.
Silver: Managed to install the game.
Bronze: Accidentally sat on the keyboard while the game started up.
All MMR is good. You’re practically better than someone else in any given match up. You are also worse than any player in any given match up. The description of bronze was funny though.
6000+ is good, lower than that ranges from not so good to really bad.
Isn’t MMR supposed to be like a rating in chess? There is no “good”. It’s a matter of how many people are playing. In example, chess grandmasters today are rated around 2800. Chess grandmasters 50 years ago were rated around 2200-2400. Its not that the guys a few years ago were bad but there were less games, less players, and so scoring was less. At the end of the day, the absolute MMR doesn’t matter but more the distribution.
4500 MMR is M3, not 4000.
first try to play ladder games- that woud be good u little special snowflake