Yoricks Winrate... Dafuq?

Raoul·Feb 18, 2016·54 votes·6,957 views

http://i.imgur.com/ozsBlD3.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/6VJkuSR.jpg

98 Comments

Z StatisticFeb 18, 201654 votes

If you look at the other statistics, this suggests that in the 1070 matches played this patch about 10-15 of them are played by die-hard yorick mains who are extremely proficient at him. So out of 10-15 matches, these guys have won 9-12 of them.

It's just an artifact of sample size really.

ChargeItDownMidFeb 18, 20162 votes

[deleted]

CanidaeFeb 19, 20164 votes

There are, in-fact, enough games. It's roughly the percentage of winning 18 out of 21 games or 85.71% (the discrepancy can probably be attributed to statistical error)

ChargeItDownMidFeb 19, 20161 votes

[deleted]

CanidaeFeb 19, 20167 votes

a discrepancy of .1% doesn't warrant the conclusion that the entire website is broken

when I said "statistical error," I mean that the site might have made minor errors like floating numbers while using other data to calculate the percentage. A website that handles data like LoL games isn't expected to use such small sample sizes like the one being discussed.

take the 1070 games and 1.96% of players with 125+ games of Yorik if U divided those numbers you get the decimal value of 20.972 (and not the 21 that I rounded to for the sake of simplicity) if U calculate the winrate using that floating number instead (18/20.972) U get a winrate of 85.82% instead

You could pointlessly argue that the number's still wrong cause it's off by .02%, but I'm frankly done trying to explain this.

AND BEFORE YOU EVEN 18 DIVIDED BY THE ROUNDED 20.97 GETS YOU 85.837% or 85.84% WHEN YOUR ROUND

spavinedFeb 19, 20162 votes

the 1070 games are this patch the graph is the years 2014-2015

CanidaeFeb 19, 20166 votes

The years 2014-2015 are being used to determine what experience level the Yorick players being analyzed have. It's not analyzing Yorick games from that time period.

spavinedFeb 19, 20161 votes

the percentages would be impossible if the number of matches was not different

CanidaeFeb 19, 20167 votes

The chart literally says 2014-2015 ranked experience not sure how else to explain it.

Think logic: why would a website display a champion's win-rate from last year?

spavinedFeb 19, 20161 votes

the reason i think this way is that it doesnt specify including 2016 so the graph if it is based on this patch only is ignoring current year data even though that it is using current patch data of course if it just wasn't updated that would make sense as well.

CanidaeFeb 19, 20161 votes

There's a pie chart right below it that sorts players by games played during the 2014-2015 season.

http://champion.gg/champion/Yorick

MhihnjFeb 19, 20161 votes

Also, People aren't generally used to fighting Yorick so they don't know how to properly counter him except Nasus

disregardableFeb 18, 201648 votes

I think that confirms only one guy has ever played more than 125 games of Yorick.

Jungle Lux GodFeb 19, 201616 votes

This winrate is actually less surprising than the fact that there are people who have actually played more than 125 games on Yorick.

Athenes LuluFeb 18, 201615 votes

I mean, unpopular =/= underpowered.

And you know, smaller sample size.

Dominick DestineFeb 18, 20161 votes

[{quoted}](name=Cancerous Lulu,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=KY8RAwuq,comment-id=0005,timestamp=2016-02-18T22:50:35.672+0000)

I mean, unpopular =/= underpowered.

And you know, smaller sample size.

Actually that's exactly what it means.

You are basing your argument on outliers rather than statistical significance and therefore, you are automatically wrong.

Athenes LuluFeb 18, 201614 votes

[{quoted}](name=Dominick Destine,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=KY8RAwuq,comment-id=00050000,timestamp=2016-02-18T22:53:27.297+0000)

Actually that's exactly what it means.

You are basing your argument on outliers rather than statistical significance and therefore, you are automatically wrong.

Just because most people don't know how to play a certain thing doesn't necessarily determine something is UP.

This is also the information such statistics may tell us.

Dominick DestineFeb 18, 20161 votes

[{quoted}](name=Cancerous Lulu,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=KY8RAwuq,comment-id=000500000000,timestamp=2016-02-18T22:57:36.281+0000)

because most people don't know how to play a certain thing

Subjective arguments have zero value.

doesn't necessarily determine something is UP.

On the other hand, statistics are a valid way and Yorick is pure garbage as statistics constantly tell us.

Your outlier argument is nonsense.

Shroom JunkieFeb 18, 20167 votes

Yes, you can tell he's extremely garbage by his main's winrates.

Ever heard of a skill floor? Yeah, Yorick has a big-ass floor and if you reach the ceiling he can be pretty OP.

Dominick DestineFeb 18, 20161 votes

Terms like "skill floor" are nonsense.

Champion gg takes from plat and above, everything below is not worth considering... at plat levels everyone knows what they are doing compared to lower levels.

mogonkFeb 19, 201617 votes

[{quoted}](name=Dominick Destine,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=KY8RAwuq,comment-id=000500000000000000000000,timestamp=2016-02-18T23:09:03.584+0000)

Terms like "skill floor" are nonsense.

I know this is going to shatter your worldview, but not everything you don't understand is nonsense.

RendarkanFeb 19, 20163 votes

I'm waiting for him to say that that is nonsense and counter argue why his nonsense is the better sense making nonsense.

Itadaki SeiekiFeb 19, 20167 votes

[{quoted}](name=Dominick Destine,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=KY8RAwuq,comment-id=000500000000000000000000,timestamp=2016-02-18T23:09:03.584+0000)

Terms like "skill floor" are nonsense.

at plat levels everyone knows what they are doing compared to lower levels.

Right.

So when I beat Plat players/Diamond players as S4, that's totally them knowing better?

Rank doesn't mean crap, it's a false sense of " I know what I'm doing "

Sure there are differences between them ( Plat knowing how to CS/ Bronze not knowing etc. )

However rank is nothing more than a " Whose dick is larger " competition.

Dominick DestineFeb 19, 20161 votes

[{quoted}](name=Bard and Soul,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=KY8RAwuq,comment-id=0005000000000000000000000001,timestamp=2016-02-19T03:51:11.117+0000)

So when I

Instantly wrong.

Anecdotal evidence has zero value.

AnidanFeb 19, 20163 votes

So.. since you've so far discredited every view that exists in an argument presented thus far (or at least tried, anyway), what exactly does have value in an argument according to you?

10TicklerFeb 19, 20163 votes

When it agrees with his opinion and supports his elitist positions

[slayer-pantheon-popcorn]

RendarkanFeb 19, 20163 votes

Should we refer to Stonewall008 Video? I think we should.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itVTcUztFMU

If you skip ahead to about 6:40... it speaks for itself.

Athenes LuluFeb 19, 20162 votes

Sounds more like a revelation on the entire community (especially boards), but it is definitely related.

+1 because the vid was great.

Z StatisticFeb 18, 201635 votes

you are automatically wrong.

This is called a fallacy fallacy.

Dominick DestineFeb 18, 20161 votes

[{quoted}](name=Menea Calais,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=KY8RAwuq,comment-id=000500000001,timestamp=2016-02-18T23:12:36.317+0000)

This is called a fallacy fallacy.

Ironically, what I said was not. Yours was a fallacy fallacy, not mine.... the irony is off the charts man.

The reason for mine not being a fallacy is because I based my premise on statistical significance, not on randomly identifying a real / not real fallacy for the purposes of otherwise refuting him on that basis.

TallyZrgFeb 19, 201621 votes

That moment when you are asking yourself how can this person be so ignorant? Then realize that you've asked yourself this same question about the same person on almost every thread.

I will wait patiently for your modus operandi response about my rank, how superior you are about fluctuating between platinum and diamond, and different googled "fallacies".

Dominick DestineFeb 19, 20161 votes

{quoted}

That moment when you are asking yourself how can this person be so ignorant? Then realize that you've asked yourself this same question about the same person on almost every thread. I will wait patiently for your modus operandi response about my rank, how superior you are about fluctuating between platinum and diamond, and different googled "fallacies".

Your "Hurt Feelings" are not an argument.

Here's a crazy idea, refute my arguments rather than going for personal attacks. Of course you cannot so it ends here.

TallyZrgFeb 19, 201622 votes

Less of an argument, more of a statement.

Now for my ultimate attack "You were wrong"

Thanks for playing.

AnidanFeb 19, 20162 votes

I love you.

That is all.

Rinky DinkyFeb 19, 20162 votes

Just dropping in to say, you the real mvp

AkeydelFeb 19, 20164 votes

Have not laughed so hard at a comment stream in a long time, i sincerely hope Dom here is joking.

BladeSteelFeb 19, 20162 votes

He never is.

Bouncemaster ZacFeb 20, 20162 votes

{quoted}

Have not laughed so hard at a comment stream in a long time, i sincerely hope Dom here is joking.

He isn't. He's in Rito-knows-how-many Gameplay threads spouting fallacy-this and facts-that and "you're wrong because i said i'm right" and generally trying to sound like an intellectual, but just coming off as an idiot trying to copy the actual intellectuals who spend their time mocking people like him on tumblr.

TeCoolMageFeb 19, 20162 votes

I don't think I can refute that.

Z StatisticFeb 19, 201612 votes

If you want to go down this road, fine by me.

Take three body builders and record their number of reps with 50 pounds in two minutes. Now do the same with three fat women. The bodybuilders come up with 153, 121, and 136. The three women come up with 20, 15, and 22. The person states that the from these data, we can conclude that men are stronger than women on average. You then come in and say that this person is wrong purely because they took an unrepresentative sample comparison.

The proper conclusion is 'we cannot conclude a statement based on this evidence.' Failing to conclude something is not the same as concluding the complement, which you have done. Making a conclusion based on a faulty premise is called an invalid argument. However, an invalid argument does not beget a false conclusion. This is because an argument is based on a conditional: 'if the argument is valid, then the conclusion is true.' This statement remains true if the argument is invalid but the conclusion is still true.'

Assuming that committing a logical fallacy begets a false conclusion is a fallacy fallacy.

Dominick DestineFeb 19, 20161 votes

[{quoted}](name=Menea Calais,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=KY8RAwuq,comment-id=00050000000100000001,timestamp=2016-02-19T00:34:45.028+0000)

Take three body builders and record their number of reps with 50 pounds in two minutes. Now do the same with three fat women. The bodybuilders come up with 153, 121, and 136. The three women come up with 20, 15, and 22. The person states that the from these data, we can conclude that men are stronger than women on average.

Ironic that you would follow with;

You then come in and say that this person is wrong purely because they took an unrepresentative sample comparison.

Because that's almost exactly what you are doing except now you are adding a caveat (Purely) but even with that added condition, it is still not incorrect.... and even if it were incorrect; "Unrepresentative sample comparison" is not what I argued to begin with so good strawman argument/strawman parallel attempt.

Stay with me here; You are arguing outliers as the norm in both scenarios. Your example was half-way accurate, your conclusion was wrong.

The proper conclusion is 'we cannot conclude a statement based on this evidence.'

That would be absolving the person making the fallacious argument (I.e. you).

Assuming that committing a logical fallacy begets a false conclusion is a fallacy fallacy.

Correct... and yet that is not what I argued, but good strawman argument yet again.

Once again stay with me; Arguing outliers as the norm or as the core premise for a statistical argument is automatically wrong.

Your argument; 5000 women fall off of a cliff in Singapore in 2022. 1 of these women survived. Therefore falling off of a cliff does not result in death. LOGIC!

My argument; Regardless of the very rare outliers, the statement Falling off of (X) cliff is fatal and we should protect all women from this calamity is statistically significant and the correct conclusion rather than your conclusion which would have been "No way, falling off of (X) cliff is NOT fatal and we need to do nothing!!".

Arguing outliers as the core premise for a statistical argument/statement is automatically wrong. It's really not that complicated.... Yorick sucks.

Or in very very very simple terms; 1000 guys are fat 999 of these fat guys cannot run a marathon 1 of these guys can run a marathon Therefore fat guys can run a marathon. (Terrible conclusion)

Z StatisticFeb 19, 201610 votes

This is your statement:

you are automatically wrong.

When someone is wrong, that means the complement of their statement is true.

This is the statement you are arguing against:

I mean, unpopular =/= underpowered.

If this statement is wrong, then that means 'unpopular = underpowered' is correct as this is not an open-ended statement with several possible outcomes. That complement is now your statement. You are basing 'unpopular = underpowered' on:

You are basing your argument on outliers rather than statistical significance

You cannot conclude this from such a sample. Actually, it doesn't follow at all. 'Some is true because sample size is too small' doesn't make sense.

Dominick DestineFeb 19, 20161 votes

[{quoted}](name=Menea Calais,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=KY8RAwuq,comment-id=0005000000010000000100000000,timestamp=2016-02-19T01:23:49.366+0000)

'unpopular = underpowered' is correct

Correct.

You are basing 'unpopular = underpowered' on the basis that the sample size is too small.

That is literally the reverse of what I am talking about. Maybe read the thread again instead of launching into strawman arguments.

Statistical significance does not take sides.

Z StatisticFeb 19, 201612 votes

Correct.

No.

Pick rate has very little to do with actual power but as perceived power. We see this in Season 2 (or was it season 3? idk) when Ezreal was very powerful in Korea, China, and EU but was perceived weak in NA. When he received Pulsefire Ezreal and had a surge in popularity (no balance change whatsoever mind you), people finally saw how powerful he was.

Another example is a classic one where Vlad's speed boost on his W was removed and his pick and winrate plummeted immediately. Except it never was and simply a mistake in the patch notes. The placebo effect is strong in League.

While actual power probably does play a part in pick rate, perceived power is a larger factor

Also, yes, statistical significance does take sides. In fact, it almost always takes two-sided tests. /rimshot

Dominick DestineFeb 19, 20162 votes

[{quoted}](name=Menea Calais,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=KY8RAwuq,comment-id=000500000001000000010000000000000000,timestamp=2016-02-19T01:37:15.660+0000)

Pick rate has very little to do with actual power but as perceived power.

WRONG. Udyr became overpowered and his pickrate has skyrocketed.

This correlation can be observed with literally every character that becomes overpowered by virtue of others being nerfed or them being buffed directly (Ex: Lux/Kog'Maw/etc.)

Z StatisticFeb 19, 20169 votes

Well, unless pickrate immediately shot up the second the patch went live, then no, that's not a valid conclusion

Quite frankly, I'm pretty sure Udyr skyrocketed only after youtubers like Pants are Dragon and Phylol started publicizing the new strategy and how easy it was to adopt. But I guess since neither of us can run a survey to identify these factors (though Riot has, and this is where I got the pick rate factor statement), we can do a thought experiment.

Teemo has a 100% winrate this patch. Everyone thinks he actually has a 0% winrate. No one knows the true winrate this patch. If you are saying that actual power is more of a factor than perceived power in pick rates, then Teemo should be picked 100% of the time even though everyone believes he has a 0% winrate.

ltmetalFeb 18, 20169 votes

[{quoted}](name=Menea Calais,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=KY8RAwuq,comment-id=000500000001,timestamp=2016-02-18T23:12:36.317+0000)

This is called a fallacy fallacy.

Genius. I couldn't upvote fast enough.

EfficientDynamoFeb 19, 20161 votes

I wouldn't bother feeding the troll. This Dominick Destine guy floats around the boards trying to bait and goad people, so not really worth your time to respond to.

Athenes LuluFeb 20, 20161 votes

But sometimes it's fun when you troll the troll, especially when you add actual logic.

They fall for shit just as easily and fast. Playing dumb also works, too.

[slayer-pantheon-thumbs]