Can we all just get on the same page here?

Champions that win a large number of their games 54+% (especially if they tend to win even when played by people who have never played them before, i.e. a 50+% winrate among players with 1-5 games on the champ) are very strong and likely need nerfs.

Champions that lose a large majority of their games <46% (especially if they tend to lose even when played by people with a lot of experience with that champion, i.e. a <50% winrate among players with 50-125 or 125+ games on the champ) are very weak and likely need buffs.

Is this that crazy? Do we really need back pedal some convoluted explanation for why our prejudices about X champion must be true and the statistics must be lying? No.

and mid are clearly too strong. and are clearly too weak. There's no reason for first time Ahris to have higher winrates than Kass players with 125+ Kass games. There's no reason for first time Annies to have higher winrates than Leblanc players with 125+ Leblanc games.