*Hypothetical situation: *
Say four teams play, and two destroy the nexus and win.
Who is the better of the two winners? Would you say the Team with the highest KDA? the fastest time destroying the nexus? highest levels achieved? etc.
Thanks!
Whichever team demonstrated better control over the game is who I tend to see as more skilled. Generally this can be best guessed by the faster win, but sometimes a team comp is built around late game and strong rotations so they wouldn't necessarily win faster. A good example being certain Poke Comps, if executed perfectly they can have an extremely low KDR, mediocre CS, and end the game later than say a siege comp. But it is extremely impressive to see how they play out. I have seen a 60 minute game that had 5 kills total, but one team just executed the poke and lane rotations with such perfection they slowly just strangled the map and won with only losing 2 towers but had claimed 6 dragons and 2 barons and taken every single structure of the enemy team. I say that takes far more skill than a generalized comp that just wins a team fight and pushes objectives afterwards.
Which team is better?
There's really to many factors involved to say. Which is why we just toss the 2 winners at each-other to tell.
High KDA and overall win times can be just as much an indicator of being skilled as it is your opponent's being unskilled, as will any level vs. level, gold vs. gold, kills vs. kills comparisons.
Certain team compositions will also dramatically effect KDA, game time, and highest levels achieved.
Levels and gold themselves are more a metric of how long the game lasted over any measure of skill.
There's also chance involved in a single game - you could have an otherwise better team loose to a slightly less-skilled team from making 1 wrong call in regards to Fog of War when both just need to go with their gut. Or taking 1 unusually cooperative Brand/Kat/Fiddle/Ryze bounce or crit-train from lady luck.
Anyways - none of the factors you listed really tell anything about future battles. a bronze vs. gold team could lead to a +20 kill bonus, +3 average max level bonus, a +11k global gold bonus, +4 structures destroyed bonus, and +100 team CS bonus over the winner of 2 challenger teams. All the metrics you provided would indicate the gold team would be better than the challenger team in this scenario, but it's quite likely the gold team would get schooled pretty hard by the challenger team once that match started.
Overall I'd probably compare Elo - though that doesn't really work between regions, where you'd just need to study each team from a lot of replays before getting a solid grasp on their comparable skill levels.
The amount of wards each team places might give you a good idea outside of that though, that's one of the few metrics that does tend to grow along with Elo - along with wards killed.
There are... a lot of things
Was it a dominating or close win? How good was the other team? Did they make big mistakes? How many towers did they lose? How decisive were they? What were teamfights like? How was the teamwork (i.e. was it 11-4 where the mid went 9-0-0 or was it 20-5 where everybody had 10+ assists and the player with most kills still went like 10-5-5) Was there one fight that turned the game around (a team with 10 towers down and an epic backdoor is not as good as a team with 2 towers down and 11 killed) How was ward coverage? Which objective trades did they take?
If you want to look at levels, gold, or cs, it is all about which game was longer. As for towers most LCS teams have 9-11 towers anyway (average I would say for a win is about 10.75, almost always 11)
