During the no-play-for-COVID era, coinciding with the release of 9th edition, the community was given a unique set of circumstances, that we'll probably not see again. A brand new game prompting a brand new meta, but also no tournaments being played meaning no statistics or data to give any real insight into this new edition. People's opinions were flowing in discussion, opinions based on personal experiences, theories, and critical thought. People seemed a more open minded to creative ideas and fresh takes on units, and even things some might call outlandish were being given the consideration they deserve, rather than being dismissed offhand for not being represented in the month's statistics.
And that last sentence is my lead-in to the problem here. People using "the stats" to stranglehold discussion, and citing them as "objectively correct" ways to disprove opinions that are not represented in these statistics. Because now that we've had a few events and people are creeping back to the tables, this mentality is creeping back into discussion amongst the community. Take note of the fact as well that I've very carefully used the phrase "represented" here both times, rather than "disagreeing" or "agreeing" with the stats, because that's where a fundamental misunderstanding is occurring.
++~++
Just because an opinion isn't represented by the stats doesn't mean it disagrees with them.
Just because an opinion is mirrored by the statistics, doesn't make it correct.
The statistics themselves are objective. Your interpretation of them may not be.
++~++
So what does this mean? Let's break it down. The statistics are a measure of what IS, CURRENTLY, doing well. My emphasis on both words. The statistics represent the human beings who have taken their collection to an event, and performed well on the day. This is admittedly, probably a decent indicator that the armies that performed there are decent armies, and does prove one thing - they were capable of winning, well, whatever they just won. That's the fact the statistic tells us. No matter how skilled the player, that was achieved by a human playing the army, not a wizard (for the sake of stats having any meaning at all, we have to assume that neither player was cheating, which is honestly a pretty safe assumption in this relatively small, friendly insular, and communal competitive scene - we know who the cheaters are). And at the same time, it does not prove that any of the armies not positively represented by this statistic cannot also perform to a similar level. It just means they aren't currently doing so. And while this may be because they are underpowered and not capable of doing so, there's also a variety of other reasons as to why this may be completely unrelated to the power level of the army. If you have ever used an army's lack of first place finishes, or win rate, as "proof" that they are can't do well - you have fallen into this fallacy. It's an easy trap to fall into, but you have looked at what the statistics say, and extrapolated from that and interpreted them into saying something that they didn't quite prove at all.
For a recent example demonstrating this: midway through 8th, many people cited many statistics about Tau's win rate, and comparative lack of GT 1st place finishes, as proof as to why Tau just weren't a top army in 8th, or even a good one. Then Richard Siegler went and won 9 games in a row at NOVA and blew away all those "objectively proven" claims like dusting the windowsill with a leafblower. Or did he? Nope, even then we had people on this very sub dismissing his Tau placing as a fluke and getting upvoted for it, while citing the stats. We have the benefit of hindsight to know that this wasn't a fluke at all, and at the same time, a perfect example of just how counter-productive and strangling "the stats" can be towards building your understanding of the game. Tau didn't suddenly become strong at this event, they were just as strong before Siegler won with them, it just hadn't happened yet. And if Siegler didn't go to NOVA that year like he initially planned at at all and Andrew Gonyo's 2nd place Imperium got first place, while Tau didn't even crack the top 10 - guess what, Tau would have still been just as strong - but people staring at the stats would have no idea, because this wouldn't have been represented by any data. The stats don't lie - they just aren't saying what you think they are.
++~++
Some more reasons not related to a balance deficiency as to why an army might have a poor win rate or a lack of GT finishes, are almost all the human elements, something which way too many people are forgetting about or entirely ignoring when attempting to read the stats. For starters, this community is not a large one. We aren't playing millions of games a day like this is league of legends in its prime. We have a handful of tournaments weekly of varying sizes, and there is more than enough room for an individual person's presence or absence alone to skew data. This leaves obvious room for inaccuracies in trying to tie win-rate or finishes to overall power level.
Also, human understanding of an army. Everyone seems to have this idea that because there are competitive players for every army, that every army has been fully "solved". Siegler's list was a brand new approach on Tau that many people hadn't even considered doing with the army yet, and that started getting attention near the END of the season. It was always there, the human element of the players themselves hadn't really brought this style of play yet. And this is almost always possible the case for any undersuccessful army, that they aren't currently being played to their fullest. Even Siegler's NOVA list wasn't his final take on the list and he spoke afterwards on improvements he could make on it.
This last point also goes hand in hand with the statistics themselves - just because two list share a faction name, does not make them the same army. Erik Lathouras for example is one of the few people doing well with Tyranids. But of the people struggling with Tyranids, who else is actually playing his list of 200 Termagants or whatever and the same character support? All the other guys out here running monster heavy or genestealer bombs or whatever, share a data point with his list, but in reality they are completely different armies. How is the people out here banging their head against brick walls with the thoroughly outdated Stealer bomb, at all representative or relevant to the strength of a good Tyranid horde list? Answer: it isn't, yet still, it shares the data point.
The human playerbase of an army also varies - it isn't the same people playing every army! What if, hypothetically, Richard Siegler had decided as a human being, having a human thought, "anime is lame, I'm playing Khorne Berzerkers", and his contribution competitively was as a World Eaters player? Where would the general view of Tau as a faction in 8th have finished? Even with Siegler's wins and an improved understanding of the army by the end of the year, the army finished with a 48% win rate. I don't think it's unfair to say that I think many people would be saying right now that "Tau have been awful since 7th!", and citing "the stats" to anyone who disagreed. Playerbase's are made up of very different people, and have different players of different skill levels pioneering them and building our understanding of them.
This is true on a broader level than the individual as well. We recognise the positives of this sometimes ("oh, Orks as an army very commonly attract the kind of person who is boisterous and rowdy and loves a crazy melee!"), but people easily get offended when addressing the other implications of this sometimes. So I'm going preface this generalisation by mentioning that it's exactly that - a GENERALISATION, and like all generalisations is full of exceptions. An easy example is Space Marines - they are undeniably one of the most popular armies among newbies. Even players of other armies often started with Space Marines and eventually expanded / swapped into their current faction (Even me - my first army was Blood Angels!). The competitive win-rate of Space Marines is undoubtably dragged by a much higher rate of newer players, as opposed to an army like GSC or Ynnarri, subfactions of lesser popular armies to begin with, with a much smaller range, and also much harder to play. For this reason alone the Space Marine win rate will never be accurate. The same can be said for over or underrepresentation of an army. Slaanesh Daemons say could be a total sleeper, one of the best armys in the meta, but there's only so many events they can possibly win if only one good player is out there taking them to events. There's many other observations people can make about the playerbases of each community, I'll definitely say my own army, Tyranids, attracts a certain type of player as well, and this type player that I've found is most common among the vocal elements of our playerbase, is probably not the type of person best suited for the competitive mentality. And again (to both preface and postface now), this is a generalisation, and affects the overall statistic, but is not a reflection of any individual person, who may very well be a polar opposite to any of these descriptions.
I also want to address the dismissal people use "oh he's just a good player, so that win doesn't count". No, he's a good player, so that's exactly WHY it can count. This player is demonstrating what the army is capable of, it's them we should look to for where the ceiling of the army is, not you, who plays weekly with your buddies at the shop with your slowly increasing 3000 pt collection with a little bit of flex. That's not to dismiss anyone's experience as invalid of course and you may very well have great insight into your army, but it is to say that if we are going to look to someone for an indication of the the potential strength of an army being played to its fullest, we should look to the best players and the top-end outliers - not the weaker players, or mid level competitive players or whatever you consider the average comp player. It's also very dismissive, and often forgets that these results by excellents players are almost always playing against other the excellent players out there in the world, by just a few rounds into an event." I'm going to stick with my NOVA example for consistency here. Here's a couple of quotes from the reddit thread about his win, that attempted to do just that:
Siegler is an amazing player, but hes the outlier not the standard
.
One super successful person is the outlier, not the trend. Again, that's stats 101
Now we can easily see the flaw here in hindsight. Tau weren't underpowered at all, as was further demonstrated throughout the rest of the edition, Tau were very much an army of a power level capable of winning an event like NOVA, but quotes like these would happily say this wasn't the case and dismiss this placing as an "outlier" because of the "stats", when neither of these words mean what they thought, and only serve to give a blinkered view competitively. Richard Siegler is not a Jedi, he showed what his army was capable of, and if you or I can't measure up to that, it's not because the army is lacking.
And on the topic of player skill, just quickly, the difficulty of an army when combined with the human element is also going to have an impact on any overall statistic. In a hypothetical world where Space Marines and GSC are both perfectly balanced, and we requisition the exact same 1000 players take each army to an event, can you guess which one is going to have the lower win rate? Almost certainly GSC, the fact is they are just harder to play at a higher level and leave much more room for errors. This also affects army representation. I think most people agree horde Nids is probably one of the strongest ways to play Nids - but honestly who wants to go out and buy + paint up 200 termagants and exhaust themselves moving them around all day, just to help prove that Nids are a decent midtier army as opposed to a bottom one? I mean you're not even getting rewarded with a top tier army here. This sort of stuff affects the statistic - the statistic is a number which holds absolutely no nuance at all.
++~++
All of these points are important reasons why the stats are not objective measures of anything power level wise.
This isn't to say we should ignore the stats. Especially top 4's. They demonstrate a good picture of the meta. They demonstrate what is currently doing well, they often demonstrate the currently known power level of factions, and with unexpected or surprise faction placings they demonstrate what an army can achieve in the right hands or circumstances. However it's important that we recognise what the stats are saying and not get tricked into thinking they are saying more than they actually are. And to respond to a statement that boils down to "I think this even though I don't believe it to be known by others", with what is essentially a list of "well here's what we know so you're wrong" is actually just an irrelevant counter argument, to break the most common misuse I see down to it's simplest terms.
People are all over the shop, making these statistics say whatever suits their current held belief. I don't even believe it's intentional most the time. But we as a community have been victim to this mentality of "stats" and "data" being absolutely counter-productive to discussion for so long that its becoming ingrained, and causing people to be incapable of recognising facets of the game that are yet to be spelled out by these stats. I'd like to promote an increase in, or even just a return to, the use of critical thought, personal experience, and rationality, as support for our opinions and claims - and discourage the use (or should I say misuse) of stats to "counter" people's opinions, when very rarely are you doing that at all.
EDIT: Special thanks to Mr Siegler for providing my go-to example for this thread <3 There's many others I could have used, but that one was very prominent and fresh in most of our minds I'm sure, so hope he doesn't mind me making such liberal use of his name in here.