The problem with this theory is that it is ignoring the fact that everything else is equal. So if one champ has higher win percentage over a large enough sample it can be assumed that everything else being equal one champ is probably a bit stronger than the other. Now this is not perfect obviously, and many other factors should be considered. Still win rate is not meaningless, no matter how much you want to believe it is. There's a reason Urgot permanently dwells at the very bottom of the win rate list, and it's not bad teammates.
Except the problem with that theory is that if we assume it to be true, then lee sin is a weaker champion than both Amumu and Warwick.
We know this to be false, and we know that in reality when high level of play occurs, they actually sit towards the bottom and middle in terms of viability.
Win rate may be an indication, may, but it cannot dictate anything even with a massive sample size simply because of the dynamic nature of the game.
LCS is only one of many factors to be considered in balancing this game, and the truth is that if it is used as the primary factor this game will only get more and more unbalanced. First of all LCS is an extremely small sample size in terms of players. No players, no matter how good they are, are equally good with all champs. So when you use LCS as your primary measuring stick you are including player skill to an extremely heavy degree. An analogy could be made to a sport like basketball where in recent years center play has degraded, therefore shifting emphasis away from centers as anchors for offenses. Does this mean center play is not still able to dominate? No. It means there are few to no centers who can dominate at present. So to assume that a champ is terrible because they are unplayed in LCS is extremely faulty, because you never really know if it's the lack of a player that can play them at a high enough level to be competitive or if they are genuinely bad (until you look at other factors like win rate across various divisions).
Your analogy does not function well because Champions are constant until otherwise changed by Riot. Players in baskeyball vary biologically and physically and so one cannot do such an analogy because of such factors.
While the LCS is a small sample size, we also understand that the choices made is based around the capability and gameplay of each character.
When you evaluate the little gameplay Warwick has seen int he LCS and analyze his tools on top of it, then there is no surprise that Warwick sees little play compared to Lee sin.
The LCS is a very accurate measure of champion capability because at such high levels of play, the skill gap becomes smaller and smaller and the tools your champion possesses become more and more important.
Unlike Basketball where physical differences are existent and thus, while skill may be relatively equal, a physiological difference can create a difference in performance.
Warwick doesn't see play in the LCS because he doesn't possess the same tools necessary to be successful in teamplay. When you consider the changes in each season, the importance of utility for junglers/top laners, this explains Warwick's lack of play. He excels in 1v1 yes, but the game isn't built around it outside of early game. mid game and late game is what matters and that is where Warwick begins to fall off in comparison.
Beyond that not all champs are designed to take advantage of the high skills of pro players. That is by design. They have a lower ceiling and usually a lower floor. Warwick and many others are considered starter champs that are easy to play and succeed with with minimal skill. These champs will never appeal to the pros unless they are outright overpowered because they are limiting to their exemplary play-making abilities.
To summarize, Warwick isn't "good" enough.
He cannot make the plays that Elise, Lee sin, Rengar, and Kha'zix can make.
This was why he was even slated for a revamp because even Riot recognizes that the current environment causes Warwick to be less viable to other junglers.
The mobility creep and itemization changes also compound onto this issue.
You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what correlation means. Correlation is not on it's own something that one can ever draw a decisive conclusion from. It can merely be used as an indicator, and it can be wrong. To use another crime analogy, when a drug kingpin takes over a neighborhood and the murder rate in that neighborhood skyrockets there is a correlation between the two. The correlation indicates that the kingpin is the cause, but further inquiry is necessary to know for sure. Win rates are like this. They do not prove that a champ is overpowered, balanced, or underpowered, but they are a good indicator to start with. Pick rate by the way has an inverse correlative relationship with win rate for various reasons (thus the Lee Sin win rate which is likely very indicative of opponent familiarity and many players not being as skilled with him). That said Warwick is actually pretty popular, and is still rocking a very high win rate.
I understand very well what you are implying by your correlation argument and I am stating that you are wrong. There is no correlation of champion strength towards win rate, and we see many example where a champion will possess a higher win rate than upper tier junglers simply on the basis of opponents being
- Unfamiliar.
- Incapable of coordinating properly (solo queue is a solo warrior fest).
- Popularity.
As such, win rate doesn't present any correlation relevant towards champion capability.
Simply because of the issues that you yourself have also presented.
You're only going to see accuracy for win rate at the extreme ends.
My overall take is that Warwick is quite strong at the moment, especially in solo queue. I do not think he needed a nerf, but the reports regarding the new jungle being so favorable to him may have justified it. Your claim that Warwick was bad before these nerfs on the other hand is based on nothing but a lack of play by the pros, and to be blunt that is not proof of anything on its own other than he may be a liability in terms of advanced team strategies and/or his lack of early game ganking likely has made him unappealing versus the early gankers that dominate the pro scene.
Actually no, Warwick has been played a few times, and we have seen him come out victorious but there were several issues at hand.
The first and foremost was one you mentioned. A lack of early game presence and early game pressure.
The other issue was that in mid-game and late-game, Warwick is incapable of carrying out plays necessary to win the game. Warwick can leap onto an ADC, but you also must consider that any CC will break his ultimate and the ADC will be able to escape.
He cannot kick the ADC out of position like Lee sin, or quickly assassinate them like Rengar and Kha'zix.
A lack of CC also means he has no pickng capability, and if you watch the few LCS games he is present, he largely spends his time in the jugnel and during team fights running back and forth.
You may think he is strong, but this is only in the environment in solo queue where gameplay is less than sufficient for evaluating performance.
Would like to have a word with you on how he is reliant on having an empowered ability ready before every fight. No emp Q, no damage, no emp e, no gank.
