In a recent deep dive into ‘League of Legends’ infamous stat site, LoLalytics, one user brought forth an observation that’s turning heads. The core critique stems from how the site leverages a concept coined as ‘Asymmetric Sampling’ when presenting winrate data, possibly causing misinterpretations amongst ‘League’ community.
Summary
- Asymmetric Sampling looks at games from the perspective of a specific champion being in a quoted elo, not the average elo of the game.
- Misinterpretations may be rampant due to ‘core champion winrate data’ not being understood amidst confounded calculations.
- Winrate calculations do not consider opposing champion ranks, which could lead to skewed data.
- Even ‘nerfed’ champions shown with decreased winrates may see actual rise due to fewer players playing those champions post nerf.
The Winrate Controversy
LoLalytics, a go-to place for LOL stat fanatics, has always been perceived as accurate. However, the revelation that it uses ‘Asymmetric Sampling’ while exhibiting winrate data now questions its validity. For instance, a game is counted as “Emerald+” for Leblanc’s statistics only if it contains a player playing as Emerald or higher Leblanc. This builds upon the basis that data might get skewed severely as it doesn’t consider the rank of Leblanc’s opponents. As a user points out, ‘”more people need to know this so we can stop getting “this champ has 57% wr in diamond nerf!” Posts when in reality it’s about 51% wr’.
Unraveling Matchup Data
Beyond the champion winrates, the contention stretches to matchup data as well, where ‘both sides of a matchup seem to be winning’, which logically isn’t possible. It’s here that it becomes virtually impossible for a layman to infer the data correctly. A user seeking clarification echoes this confusion saying ‘”Yeah, I would like for someone to clarify how to interpret the matchups winrates’.
Nerfed champions – the real picture
Added to the murkiness is the table showcasing winrate drops for nerfed champions. The complexity arises because, in reality, some nerfed champions may gain a slight winrate elevation due to less meta players. So, while champions like Ezreal and Karma, who were nerfed, showed a decrease in winrate, they had actually slightly increased. Here, LoLalytics again misses out by not aligning the current winrate suitably from the last patches’ winrates.
The U.GG Argument
The skepticism towards LoLalytics led users to bring up an alternate site, U.GG, providing apparently more straightforward data. A commenter affirms this stating ‘”That’s why U.GG is much better because it doesn’t use that way of presenting data…’. However, the debate still rages on with some suggesting that LoLalytics isn’t necessarily the issue, but players’ understanding of the data.
No doubt, the allegations have indeed stirred the pot, spurring discussions on stats, and sparking a renewed interest in digging into the details. While LoLalytics might still hold its place as a preferred destination for LOL game stats, users would now dig deeper, armed with a pinch of skepticism and a dollop of knowledge.
