I know I've been MIA a lot since COVID, but thanks to everyone. I wish there was another tournament to see everyone before it ended, and maybe there will be (there won't be), so thanks again for the discussions here! As @Brunas said, it's really hard to achieve real discussion on anonymous boards, so this was really cool, and I really appreciated it!

Aggregate data is more important than one person's performance. That's 5 data points - so no. You still just take the top 16/32 of those 5 tournaments and look at the slice. Because (and this isnt the case here, but it could be, is the point), the slice could reveal in the top 5x16, that list only shows up 5 times. And yes, it may have won all 5 times, but there are actually a lot of random factors involved, such as matchups (and dodging matchups), closeness of individual games, etc. So, Again, and it's worth stressing - no, taking 5 top wins and putting them together just gives you 5 data points, and I will always note you could have just grabbed the top 16 from all 5 of those tournaments and given us a larger slice/context. And (arguably weirder here) - the nantex argument would still pop up if you did that, so I'm really confused why you keep using the 'top 1' data points. I'm not defending them, but i'm pushing back against the extreme (to me) claims levied here. The list is dominant by most metrics. There's no reason to try and create new ones. A simple meta analysis of the top 16/32 combined tournaments will reveal it has a disproportionate share of the cut, and alternative it's overall winrate is vastly higher than the other cut lists. /end We have seen this before. It is not, however, some insane proportion or ratio approaching 1.0 levels. This seems like feelings. Additionally, online play has functionally little to do with the data portion of this. These tournaments are approximately the same size as most large tournaments. Further, it's arguable that people are more apt to play a swarm when system auto-move ships for them (that's a hypothesis). Regardless, the online nature seems pretty moot to the above assertions. Lastly, and this probably should have been at the front: it's literally okay to simply have feelings about a list, and not have data for it. People are allowed to simply not like nantexes, or swarms (or aces, or beef, etc). It's perfectly allowed, for any reason. But once you start making testable claims... well, people will test them. That's not really aimed at you - it's a broad statement to the animus that's broadly aimed at nantexes this season around. I'm just noting that people are weirdly extra angry here, and we literally have seen this before.

Basically, this There are no X-wing credentials Again, it's worth noting "what won" isn't how data works, and works against the point you're trying to make. Further, comparing it to 1.0 basically detracts from it as well. If the point is that nantexans are dominant - I (we?) agree, and the data supports it (which, you should include the top 16/32 data, not 'top 1'). But the other comparisons are... weird? Vultures had a similar win rate, but here we are, tearing the world down now? I think it's partially because the world itself sucks, but I still feel compelled to defend data analysis. That's not the same as defending nantexans, but the peripheral, almost histrionic statements appended to them. The top 16/32 data alone is enough to state that something is wrong with the list - it's clearly dominant. No reason to go with further extremes, which can digress or distract from the main thesis.