Analysis of performance of blue decks in Legacy [Archive]

View Full Version : Analysis of performance of blue decks in Legacy

lordofthepit

12-24-2015, 09:14 PM

I have available data for tournaments from the Pacific Northwest, Arizona, and Sweden. These tournaments range from late August 2014 until now and range in size from 43 to 70 players. I thought it would be interesting to use them to quantify how much of an advantage blue decks have over non-blue decks.

A few notes on methodology:

I don't have access to every single deck list, so I classify each deck based on whether or not it normally runs Brainstorm or Force of Will. For decks for which this is quite variable (mainly Aluren, Nic Fit BUG Pod, or Manaless Dredge in the case of Force of Will), this should be noted. Hypothetically, this means my tally doesn't account for the weirdo who decides to play Brainstorm in Death and Taxes.
Intentional draws, byes, and match losses (due to late registration) are excluded in the analysis. Matches losses due to multiple game losses or disqualifications and matches influenced by one or more game losses are included in the analysis because I have no way of identifying these.
For the purposes of calculating the performance of any specific card (e.g. Brainstorm), the matchups only consider the results of matches between two decks if one deck includes that card and the second deck does not. That is to say, the results of RUG Delver vs. ANT or Death and Taxes vs. GWb Maverick would not affect the record displayed for Brainstorm, but the matchup between Shardless BUG and Burn would.
For the purposes of calculating the performance of any specific deck, only the results of mirror matches are excluded.

EventDate# Players# BrainstormBrainstorm MW%# Force of WillForce of Will MW%
Dark Tower Legacy Open (Aug 2014)08/24/20145226 (50.00%)39-26-1 (59.85%)26 (50.00%)35-27-1 (56.35%)
AZMagicPlayers.com Championship (Sep 2014)09/06/20145026 (52.00%)38-23-1 (62.10%)25 (50.00%)38-23-1 (62.10%)
Card Kingdom PTQ Legacy (Nov 2014)11/08/20145943 (72.88%)31-26-1 (54.31%)40 (67.80%)37-25-2 (59.38%)
Card Kingdom PTQ Legacy (Jan 2015)01/03/20154331 (72.09%)21-13-1 (61.43%)26 (60.47%)23-17-1 (57.32%)
Mirkwood Legacy for Duals (Jun 2015)06/14/20157046 (65.71%)43-34-0 (55.84%)45 (64.29%)42-34-0 (55.26%)
Card Kingdom GPT (Aug 2015)08/16/20155029 (58.00%)35-26-0 (57.38%)28 (56.00%)37-23-0 (61.67%)
Card Kingdom GPT (Oct 2015)10/24/20156434 (53.12%)36-44-1 (45.06%)33 (51.56%)33-43-1 (43.51%)
Viken Legacy Championship (Dec 2015)12/05/20155637 (66.07%)25-38-2 (40.00%)31 (55.36%)37-39-2 (48.72%)
Mox Boarding House Legacy $1K (Dec 2015)12/19/20155936 (61.02%)28-26-5 (51.69%)35 (59.32%)30-27-5 (52.42%)
Card Kingdom $1K (Jan 2016)01/09/20166747 (70.15%)44-37-2 (54.22%)37 (55.22%)52-46-4 (52.94%)
AZMagicPlayers.com Championship (Jan 2016)01/09/20166431 (48.44%)38-37-0 (50.67%)26 (40.62%)41-35-0 (53.95%)
Overall (Dig Legal)324201 (62.04%)207-148-4 (58.22%)190 (58.64%)212-149-5 (58.61%)
Overall (Dig Banned)310185 (59.68%)171-182-10 (48.48%)162 (52.26%)193-190-12 (50.38%)

So far, it looks like blue decks have an advantage, but not as much as I would have expected, and this is most pronounced during the Treasure Cruise/Dig Through Time era (9/26/2014 to 9/28/2015). Since the banning of those cards, non-blue decks have actually performed slightly better against the field, although this is limited.

I intend to continue to provide more information on this as I get more data. The wonderful organizers at Card Kingdom and Mox Boarding House have told me they will provide this for their new regular series, so I am optimistic I will have a greater sample size to draw from in the future!

By archetype, pre-Dig:

Archetype# Players% FieldPerformance
Miracles3410.49%84-65-6 (56.13%)
Death and Taxes226.79%49-52-2 (48.54%)
Reanimator164.94%48-40-1 (54.49%)
Omniscience154.63%37-41-0 (47.44%)
UR Delver144.32%32-25-0 (56.14%)
RUG Delver134.01%36-26-1 (57.94%)
ANT123.70%33-28-1 (54.03%)
Burn113.40%25-32-0 (43.86%)
Jund113.40%27-25-1 (51.89%)
Sneak and Show92.78%16-24-0 (40.00%)
UWR Delver92.78%27-21-3 (55.88%)
BUG Delver82.47%23-20-0 (53.49%)
Infect82.47%21-18-1 (53.75%)
Elves72.16%18-16-1 (52.86%)
Merfolk72.16%16-16-0 (50.00%)
Shardless BUG72.16%19-16-0 (54.29%)
Dredge61.85%15-15-0 (50.00%)
Grixis Control61.85%14-13-0 (51.85%)
Junk Depths61.85%16-18-2 (47.22%)
UWR Stoneblade61.85%20-14-0 (58.82%)
MUD51.54%10-15-0 (40.00%)
Maverick51.54%5-13-3 (30.95%)
Affinity41.23%7-15-0 (31.82%)
Deathblade41.23%12-10-0 (54.55%)
Gold Digger41.23%11-10-2 (52.17%)
Imperial Painter41.23%10-9-0 (52.63%)
TES41.23%3-10-0 (23.08%)
4c Delver30.93%10-8-0 (55.56%)
Big Red30.93%14-7-0 (66.67%)
Death's Shadow30.93%12-5-1 (69.44%)
Grixis Delver30.93%11-7-0 (61.11%)
High Tide30.93%0-10-1 (4.55%)
Manaless Dredge30.93%5-8-1 (39.29%)
Nic Fit30.93%6-9-1 (40.62%)
Zombardment30.93%3-10-0 (23.08%)
4c Loam20.62%2-6-0 (25.00%)
Esper Stoneblade20.62%4-5-0 (44.44%)
Goblin Stompy20.62%3-5-0 (37.50%)
Goblins20.62%3-6-0 (33.33%)
Junk20.62%8-2-0 (80.00%)
RG Lands20.62%1-7-0 (12.50%)
Tin Fins20.62%3-6-0 (33.33%)
UR Pyromancer20.62%8-4-0 (66.67%)
12-Post10.31%7-0-1 (93.75%)
Belcher10.31%3-3-0 (50.00%)
Bird Tribal10.31%1-4-0 (20.00%)
Deadguy Ale10.31%1-2-0 (33.33%)
Esper Mentor10.31%1-2-0 (33.33%)
Food Chain10.31%2-4-0 (33.33%)
Grixis Painter10.31%2-2-0 (50.00%)
Grixis Pyromancer10.31%2-2-0 (50.00%)
Harpies10.31%3-3-0 (50.00%)
Lands10.31%2-4-0 (33.33%)
Landstill10.31%2-2-0 (50.00%)
Living End10.31%1-2-0 (33.33%)
Mono-Blue Tempo10.31%2-2-1 (50.00%)
Mono-White Hatebears10.31%2-2-0 (50.00%)
Monoblack Aggro10.31%0-3-0 (0.00%)
Pox10.31%0-2-0 (0.00%)
RUG Depths10.31%4-3-0 (57.14%)
Rebels10.31%0-3-0 (0.00%)
Scepter/Chant10.31%0-3-0 (0.00%)
Shardless Bant10.31%2-4-0 (33.33%)
Shardless Deathblade10.31%4-2-0 (66.67%)
Stax10.31%1-3-0 (25.00%)
Sylvan Plug10.31%1-2-0 (33.33%)
Tezzeret10.31%3-3-0 (50.00%)
UW Tempo10.31%3-3-0 (50.00%)
UWR Mentor10.31%0-2-0 (0.00%)
Vial Maverick10.31%5-2-0 (71.43%)

By archetype, post-Dig:

Archetype# Players% FieldPerformance
Miracles3511.29%84-71-12 (53.89%)
Death and Taxes216.77%51-44-2 (53.61%)
ANT196.13%46-44-2 (51.09%)
Burn165.16%46-47-0 (49.46%)
Shardless BUG165.16%40-35-0 (53.33%)
Infect154.84%24-40-2 (37.88%)
Grixis Delver134.19%40-29-1 (57.86%)
4c Loam113.55%35-23-2 (60.00%)
BUG Delver103.23%20-29-0 (40.82%)
Deathblade92.90%30-23-1 (56.48%)
Jund92.90%22-19-1 (53.57%)
RUG Delver92.90%25-21-1 (54.26%)
Reanimator92.90%21-22-0 (48.84%)
Elves72.26%23-18-0 (56.10%)
RG Lands72.26%15-17-2 (47.06%)
Sneak and Show72.26%16-17-0 (48.48%)
Goblins61.94%10-17-0 (37.04%)
Grixis Pyromancer51.61%18-12-0 (60.00%)
Merfolk51.61%13-13-0 (50.00%)
TES51.61%7-16-0 (30.43%)
4c Delver41.29%13-12-1 (51.92%)
Imperial Painter41.29%14-8-0 (63.64%)
Maverick41.29%11-13-0 (45.83%)
Nic Fit41.29%11-10-0 (52.38%)
12-Post30.97%5-8-1 (39.29%)
Aluren30.97%6-10-0 (37.50%)
Bant30.97%10-8-0 (55.56%)
Dredge30.97%9-9-0 (50.00%)
Lands30.97%10-7-1 (58.33%)
Pox30.97%3-12-1 (21.88%)
Tin Fins30.97%6-9-0 (40.00%)
UWR Stoneblade30.97%6-9-0 (40.00%)
All Spells20.65%7-6-0 (53.85%)
Enchantress20.65%2-6-0 (25.00%)
MUD20.65%8-4-0 (66.67%)
NetherLands20.65%4-4-1 (50.00%)
Omniscience20.65%2-6-0 (25.00%)
Painter20.65%5-5-0 (50.00%)
BUG Thopters10.32%3-3-0 (50.00%)
Brave Sir Robin10.32%2-2-2 (50.00%)
Deadguy Ale10.32%2-3-0 (40.00%)
Doomsday10.32%2-4-0 (33.33%)
Esper Stoneblade10.32%0-3-1 (12.50%)
Food Chain10.32%0-2-0 (0.00%)
Goblin Stompy10.32%3-3-0 (50.00%)
Human Stompy10.32%4-2-0 (66.67%)
Humility10.32%3-3-0 (50.00%)
Hypergenesis10.32%4-3-0 (57.14%)
Jund Smallpox10.32%2-2-1 (50.00%)
Junk Depths10.32%4-3-0 (57.14%)
Landstill10.32%3-2-0 (60.00%)
Manaless Dredge10.32%2-4-0 (33.33%)
Mono-Black Devotion10.32%2-4-0 (33.33%)
NO BUG10.32%0-4-0 (0.00%)
Ooze Reanimator10.32%1-2-0 (33.33%)
R/W Stompy10.32%1-5-0 (16.67%)
Slivers10.32%0-3-0 (0.00%)
Spanish Inquisition10.32%2-4-0 (33.33%)
UR Delver10.32%4-1-1 (75.00%)
UW Stoneblade10.32%3-3-0 (50.00%)
Vial Maverick10.32%4-2-0 (66.67%)
Zombardment10.32%3-2-0 (60.00%)

jrsthethird

12-26-2015, 12:33 PM

There is one Living End deck for the Dark Tower Legacy Open for which I do not have the full decklist, and I have no idea whether or not it plays Brainstorm or Force of Will. This is excluded in the analysis, and the denominator for the number of players used in calculating representation of each deck is 51 instead of 52.

There's no way this deck plays Brainstorm (1cmc), but it most certainly runs FOW. There's enough blue cards to support it in the cascade/cycling mechanics and how else can that deck even expect to have a chance without a counterspell that doesn't cost them mana? I'd bet he's running a couple Misdirection too.

death

12-26-2015, 02:28 PM

You bet. But the thing is, he can't run Force or MisD. Same reason he can't run Show and Tell, Progenitus (blue card), Omniscience and shit.

Deck is called Living End for a reason, modern version of Living Death. And I bet it doesn't resemble anything close to Hypergenesis, which plays more like Eureka-Tell.

lordofthepit

12-26-2015, 02:38 PM

Thanks, guys. I know nothing about this deck other than the namesake card.

KobeBryan

12-26-2015, 09:00 PM

Thanks, guys. I know nothing about this deck other than the namesake card.

You need to consider one more thing. How many people are playing blue decks. I think thats important to gauge who is going up against who whether its a blue deck vs a blue deck or not

jrsthethird

12-27-2015, 02:23 AM

You bet. But the thing is, he can't run Force or MisD. Same reason he can't run Show and Tell, Progenitus (blue card), Omniscience and shit.

Not really. You can support Force/MisD with

4x Glassdust Hulk
4x Architects of Will
4x Shardless Agent
4x Ardent Plea
4-8x Force of Will/Misdirection

And that's without digging out any non-Modern legal blue cyclers. Drifting Djinn, Primoc Escapee, and Shoreline Ranger provide large evasive bodies and aren't legal in Modern.

death

12-27-2015, 06:41 AM

4x Glassdust Hulk
4x Architects of Will
4x Shardless Agent
4x Ardent Plea
4-8x Force of Will/Misdirection

And that's without digging out any non-Modern legal blue cyclers. Drifting Djinn, Primoc Escapee, and Shoreline Ranger provide large evasive bodies and aren't legal in Modern.

Demonic Dread/Violent Outburst are more focused (than Ardent Plea/Shardless Agent) towards Living End's end goal. Why should anyone waste blue duals, Force, and entry fee to register a crappier build like that over a real Hypergenesis deck, or an optimized Living End deck if under a budget?

Crimhead

12-27-2015, 09:09 AM

I'm not sure what it is you are trying to establish. Is your goal to determine whether blue decks have an advantage vs non-blue decks (and to what extent)? If so, here are some problems:

Your data includes weak decks as an uncontrolled variable. How a tier two deck like High Tide or Tezzerat performs against a tier one deck like Elves or D&T is not very significant. In our current meta their are more tier one options that include blue than do not. If (for example) half the nonblue decks in your sample are tier one, but two thirds of the blue decks are tier one, then this is not a fair contest. All the fuss about Living End is a good example.
Your categories are far to broad! If it turns out blue decks as a whole average better than blueless decks, how does that help you to specifically decide if, eg, D&T is better positioned than Canadian Thresh?
You are ignoring important MUs. If I want to compare decks, I want to know how they fare against each and every deck in the meta - including other decks which also do (or do not) run blue cards!
Personally I can't see this data as being useful at all. Suppose I am trying to decide between playing Lands or playing Infect. Do I really care that Storm is good against Jund, or that Miracles is good against Elves? I don't know why that should affect my decision at all. But those irrelevant MUs are going to shape your conclusion. Meanwhile, all your data which actually relates to one of the decks I am condidering will be against a set of archetypes for which you have no data relating to the other deck! Totally useless!

Imagine using this same method of analysis to compare fair decks vs combo decks; or creature decks vs creatureless decks. Would you put any stock into the results of such an investigation?

This looks to me like an excuse to justify hating on blue - and an attempt to back it up with (meaningless) data.

jrsthethird

12-27-2015, 09:11 AM

Demonic Dread/Violent Outburst are more focused (than Ardent Plea/Shardless Agent) towards Living End's end goal. Why should anyone waste blue duals, Force, and entry fee to register a crappier build like that over a real Hypergenesis deck, or an optimized Living End deck if under a budget?

I don't understand your reasoning. Outburst is awesome because of Instant speed, but Dread is terrible. Requiring a creature to target to be able to cast it makes it dead in some matchups. It sees play in Modern is because of the colors and the smaller amount of cheap cascade cards. Plea is a stretch, but if you're going to add FOW it makes sense to include it. Shardless is the best cascade card in Legacy; in the deck it's a Living End with an extra 2/2 body attached, which Outburst and Dread are Living End with nothing else. Plea is admittedly bad, but the blue makes it considerable IF you want to jam Force in the deck. There's also the fringe benefit of not being able to pick away Shardless with Duress. If I were building the deck in Legacy, I would play Temur instead of Jund, and add 2x BBE for more redundancy.

I'm pretty sure any build of Living End is terrible in Legacy, which makes all the more sense to jam FOW if you want to try it. If you're going to cascade, play Hypergenesis. There's a reason one of them is banned in Modern. It's probably true that some scrub brought his Modern deck to the tournament for shits and giggles, but we have no proof. My point is, if someone IS wasting an entry fee to play it, and has the cards to support it, why would they NOT run FOW? It fits the deck's CMC restriction, and there are enough blue cards in the realm of cascaders + cyclers to support running it.

death

12-27-2015, 10:15 AM

Shardless is the best cascade card in Legacy; in the deck it's a Living End with an extra 2/2 body attached

You would dispose of the 2/2 body after cascading into Living End. RTFC.

A Living End deck would be really terrible with those blue vanilla creatures since they have zero utility and their only function in the deck is what, pitch to Force of Will? Your deck building philosophy that 'FoW is mandatory' in this deck is flawed.

My point is, if someone IS wasting an entry fee to play it, and has the cards to support it, why would they NOT run FOW?

Because forcing Force in the deck makes you miss out on bigger and better non-blue creatures more suitable to be in a Living End deck.

maharis

12-27-2015, 10:39 AM

You would dispose of the 2/2 body after cascading into Living End. RTFC.

Living end resolves before the spell that cascaded into it. The graveyard switcheroo happens before agent hits the field.

death

12-27-2015, 11:11 AM

Thank you.

Here's the timing for cascade:
1) You cast a spell with cascade.
2) The cascade ability triggers and goes on the stack on top of the original spell.
3) The cascade ability resolves. If you find an applicable card that you'd like to cast, you do so.
4) The spell you cast as a result of the cascade ability resolves.
5) The original spell resolves.

Mr Miagi

12-27-2015, 11:16 AM

lordofthepit

12-27-2015, 01:50 PM

<stuff>

I've always thought that the dominance of Brainstorm and Force of Will in Legacy was overstated, and I had indicated for a while that I would try to provide actual numbers when I had the data available and got around to it.

You can find the performance of different decks elsewhere, but this is the first time I've tried to actually compute the performance of Brainstorm/Force of Will decks on a whole. My job is to provide the statistics, not to editorialize or manipulate numbers one way or another by dismissing decks as Tier 2 or Tier 3. It sounds like we both agree that Brainstorm/Force of Will shouldn't be banned, but I'm not going to introduce subjective ways to fudge the data just to support this preference.

The conclusion I would make is that the blue shell was much better during the Treasure Cruise era but that on the whole, there is no significant advantage to playing Brainstorm or Force of Will.

Crimhead

12-27-2015, 04:07 PM

This is fair - and I guess I misread your motivations.

There is still the problem that it is also relevant how a BS/FOW deck does against other blue decks. Obviously you can't account for that, because overall blue decks are break even against each other.

This ought to illustrate the flaw with the overly broad dichotomy. Blue deck and blueless decks comprise a wide range of archetypes which each have their own strengths, weaknesses, and overall effectiveness in the meta.

I think its wholly silly to divide all Legacy decks into just two categories and try to compare those categories. You wouldn't conclude that Aggro Loam is better positioned than Elves on the grounds that combo vs non-combo matches overall favour non-combo.

Knock yourself out, of course. But I don't see how your conclusions will be practically applicable in terms of deck selection.

Stryfo

12-27-2015, 04:51 PM

The point is pretty clearly not to help with deck selection. The point of the analysis is to find out whether or not the claim that one must play a blue deck in legacy to be successful has any ground in reality. Once the data set is large enough, effects from things like tier1 vs. tier2 decks etc. will not affect the averages.

The OP is separating the decks of the format into two categories because that's how the "ban brainstorm" camp paints the argument: Either you play blue (therefore brainstorm) or you are at a disadvantage. The analysis doesn't seem to point towards that conclusion in recent tournaments, though it was clearly the case in the cruise era.

There is no problem about BS/FOW decks fighting against eachother, this data is irrelevant to the point of the analysis.

tescrin

12-27-2015, 06:38 PM

I think its wholly silly to divide all Legacy decks into just two categories and try to compare those categories. You wouldn't conclude that Aggro Loam is better positioned than Elves on the grounds that combo vs non-combo matches overall favour non-combo.

But that would say that playing Combo is bad in general, and thusly you may conclude that a non-combo deck is better than Elves; not necessarily Aggro Loam. Certainly you could break it down further, but the point of this is to show whether there is blue dominance or not; not by Top 8's only, but by more broad comparison.

If, for example, Blue* is 70% of the field, you expect 6-7 entries in the top 8. This means you need to normalize the data by doing what Lord of the Pit has done in some fashion. Normalization tells us that during the TC and DTT eras, Blue* decks were more dominant by a lot.

*Blue being an odd categorization as I'm sure Lemnear will eventually chime in.

Lord's services have potentially rendered the B&R discussion somewhat m00t in terms of the perpetual Brainstorm discussions. If decks running Brainstorm aren't dominating the field after normalization, it is very arguable that Blue is back in balance with the others.

Yeah.. 52/48 is a little something extra to line your pockets with, but it says that we're at a good balance point again. (or at least, seems to suggest that.) I think given that the data would fit our preconcieved notions (that it's less dominant after TC ban, and even less after the DTT ban) it looks valid on the surface.

EDIT: Also, his timing and data point to what I would believe to be an unbiased data set. It follows our intuitions and says we've entered a point of reasonable equilibrium (at least if it continues.)

One could easily argue that since 52/48 is so small, it can be that more skilled players tend to play blue just because it offers more outs; or some argument similar to that. If it were 60/40 or 65/35, it starts becoming an underwhelming argument.

Finn

12-27-2015, 11:23 PM

I am one of those people who was unhappy with the stupid things Cruise and Dig did to Legacy. I am also one of the people who said that Brainstorm was the actual culprit. But I have actually been quite pleased with the shape of the format since the second ban. I think tescrin is correct.

lordofthepit

12-28-2015, 12:34 AM

<truncated>

One could easily argue that since 52/48 is so small, it can be that more skilled players tend to play blue just because it offers more outs; or some argument similar to that. If it were 60/40 or 65/35, it starts becoming an underwhelming argument.

Thanks for explaining the data more clearly.

I'd also like to point out that since Dig Through Time got banned, there have been two data points in my analysis, and on a whole, the blue decks have done worse. I'm wondering if this will still hold up as I get more data.

jrsthethird

12-28-2015, 01:02 AM

A Living End deck would be really terrible with those blue vanilla creatures since they have zero utility and their only function in the deck is what, pitch to Force of Will? Your deck building philosophy that 'FoW is mandatory' in this deck is flawed.

Because forcing Force in the deck makes you miss out on bigger and better non-blue creatures more suitable to be in a Living End deck.

Glassdust Hulk is pretty bad, but Architects of Will's library manipulation isn't terrible. I also quoted 3 blue flyers that fit right into the deck (3/4, 4/4, and 5/5), giving evasion that's missing from Modern builds. Who cares about a Jungle Weaver when your opponent can come back with Pyromancer and make chump tokens every turn.

Maybe it is not mandatory in the deck. It is certainly possible though.

bruizar

12-28-2015, 03:13 AM

All these threads are a never ending stream of opinions vs opinions. Use proper statistical methods to infer solid conclusions, e.g. dimensionality reduction to define archetypes statistically, or clustering techniques to derive actual segments.

I appreciate your attempt to provide insights from descriptive analysis, but you can't take it for much more than face value.

The conclusions to be drawn from this analysis don't go much further than "Blue is a popular choice in legacy tournaments" or "Brainstorm and Force of Will are ubiquitous cards in Legacy" which unfortunately is not a very novel idea / revolutionary insight.

bruizar

12-28-2015, 03:21 AM

One could easily argue that since 52/48 is so small, it can be that more skilled players tend to play blue just because it offers more outs; or some argument similar to that. If it were 60/40 or 65/35, it starts becoming an underwhelming argument.

By stating that more skilled players tend to play blue, you assume that blue players are better at playing non-blue decks than players committed to playing non-blue decks. You then assume this is because blue offers more outs (Might just as well be that blue simply has more powerful cards, the way Lightning Bolt is more powerful than Shock). My point being, your analysis rests on 2 assumptions for which you provide no evidence. Before you know it, this thread will be as long as the B/R thread and while I wouldn't be surprised that the OP would like this, we're not going to find conclusive answers when the blind is leading the blind here.

GundamGuy

12-28-2015, 03:42 AM

But that would say that playing Combo is bad in general, and thusly you may conclude that a non-combo deck is better than Elves; not necessarily Aggro Loam. Certainly you could break it down further, but the point of this is to show whether there is blue dominance or not; not by Top 8's only, but by more broad comparison.

If, for example, Blue* is 70% of the field, you expect 6-7 entries in the top 8. This means you need to normalize the data by doing what Lord of the Pit has done in some fashion. Normalization tells us that during the TC and DTT eras, Blue* decks were more dominant by a lot.

*Blue being an odd categorization as I'm sure Lemnear will eventually chime in.

Lord's services have potentially rendered the B&R discussion somewhat m00t in terms of the perpetual Brainstorm discussions. If decks running Brainstorm aren't dominating the field after normalization, it is very arguable that Blue is back in balance with the others.

Yeah.. 52/48 is a little something extra to line your pockets with, but it says that we're at a good balance point again. (or at least, seems to suggest that.) I think given that the data would fit our preconcieved notions (that it's less dominant after TC ban, and even less after the DTT ban) it looks valid on the surface.

EDIT: Also, his timing and data point to what I would believe to be an unbiased data set. It follows our intuitions and says we've entered a point of reasonable equilibrium (at least if it continues.)

One could easily argue that since 52/48 is so small, it can be that more skilled players tend to play blue just because it offers more outs; or some argument similar to that. If it were 60/40 or 65/35, it starts becoming an underwhelming argument.

I'm not really sure where you are getting 52% from, when I calculated the average Win% across the various tournaments. I got 54.2% for Brainstorm, and 54.4% for FOW (if you consider a tie equivalent to a loss, if you remove ties entirely you get 55.3% and 55.6% for strict W to L)

That said I think your points are right on.

The conclusion I would make is that the blue shell was much better during the Treasure Cruise era but that on the whole, there is no significant advantage to playing Brainstorm or Force of Will.

I agree that it's much better, but I don't know that I'm willing to consider a 4.2% / 4.4% higher win percentage "not significant."

When there are people who actually suggest that they should fetch before they draw for the turn when they need to find there one out to "improve the odds" (A fraction of a percent play) playing cards that net you a 4.2% higher win percentage seems like a no-brainier...

bruizar

12-28-2015, 04:05 AM

I agree that it's much better, but I don't know that I'm willing to consider a 4.2% / 4.4% higher win percentage "not significant."

Significance != impact
http://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/79687/how-would-you-explain-statistical-significance-to-people-with-no-statistical-bac

lordofthepit

12-28-2015, 04:49 AM

I agree that it's much better, but I don't know that I'm willing to consider a 4.2% / 4.4% higher win percentage "not significant."

When there are people who actually suggest that they should fetch before they draw for the turn when they need to find there one out to "improve the odds" (A fraction of a percent play) playing cards that net you a 4.2% higher win percentage seems like a no-brainier...

In the post-Dig era, the Brainstorm/Force of Will decks are actually under 50%.

I'm not using "significant" in the statistically significant sense, but rather, using it to suggest that the advantage isn't banworthy.

Crimhead

12-28-2015, 08:51 AM

But that would say that playing Combo is bad in general, and thusly you may conclude that a non-combo deck is better than Elves; not necessarily Aggro Loam.This is not true at all!

Hypothetically, Elves could be the hands down strongest deck in a hypothetical meta. But if the other combo decks are sufficiently bad, fair decks could overall still average better than 50/50 vs combo as a whole.

This is why its ridiculous to lump decks into such broad categories for comparative purposes and any conclusions will be useless.

Here is a hypothetical meta with four decks - two blue and two green (GD1, GD2, UD1, UD2).
Here are the stats:

Gd1 vs ud1 - 55/45
Gd1 vs ud2 - 55/45
Gd2 vs ud1 - 35/65
Gd2 vs ud2 - 51/49
Ud1 vs ud2 - 40/60
Gd1 vs gd2 - 60/40

Clearly gd1 is hands down the best choice, with the highest average win rate and no unfavourable MUs. But this ill conceived method of analysis produces the irrelevant tidbit that blue decks overall are 51/49 against non-blue decks. :rolleyes: Does this prove that you are at a disadvantage if you opt to pilot gd1?

This methodology is dismally flawed and does not work because your categories are arbitrary and the strengtn and performance of one deck has zero relevance to the other decks foolishly lumped into the same grouping. And I've now shown this with real math.

GundamGuy

12-28-2015, 08:54 AM

Significance != impact
http://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/79687/how-would-you-explain-statistical-significance-to-people-with-no-statistical-bac

Yep. That's why I pushed back against the idea of calling it "insignificant" or not significant based on few data points and no statistical tests of significance...

Also turns out not everyone has a Stats background like you and I do, so when they say the word significant they might just actually mean the common tongue word significant... like...

In the post-Dig era, the Brainstorm/Force of Will decks are actually under 50%.

I'm not using "significant" in the statistically significant sense, but rather, using it to suggest that the advantage isn't banworthy.

... the OP...

I see, I read the dates wrong... and assumed all this data was post Banning. I just assumed no one would attempt to empirically prove how good (or not good) "Blue" is based on the results of 2 (count them 2 whole tournaments) each with less then 70 players... :rolleyes:

Edit:
Now that I understand the Data better here are the W% I get.

Pre-Ban Brainstorm 57.5% FOW 59.4%.
Post Ban Brainstorm 45.7% FOW 45.3%

Assumes Draw = Loss.

Again though, I question the validity of comparing 6 mid size events vs 2 mid size events. I also question the ability to infer larger meta information from mid size events.

tescrin

12-29-2015, 02:55 PM

@bruizar
To be fair, I'm just attempting to explain the mild statistical difference. It could be variance, it could be player skill, or similar. The data is there for us to discuss.

That said, there are no assumptions on my part:
* Because firstly, I'm not making that argument. I'm just saying that the 52/48 split (or w/e) is small enough to possibly explain with some cultural explanation. That split is well within the 95% confidence interval; regardless if he applied it in his analysis.

* There is no "assumption" in "Blue having more outs." Why? Because it has more card selection. I'm fine if we're just disagreeing on what the word "outs" means, but when you can run a 2-of and it feels like a 3-4 of because of cantrips you have "more" outs in the sense that you have the ability to find the right card in the right situation and swap bad cards for good.

@crimhead
If Elves was the hands down best deck in said meta, people would play it and it would bring up the combo-game stats. You're assuming people don't already look for decks that have good MUs, but rather play only what they want to despite being measured high-level tournament statistics. People don't take Cheeri0s that often to an SCG. Why? Because it sucks. They bring the "combo" or the "Blue" decks that will perform against the expected meta.

Since his analysis mostly contains players who are serious about metagaming and serious about winning, they are unlikely to be running pure garbage and hurting the statistics. I'll admit, this is an assumption; but it should self-evident when you have like.. 20+% of people running Shardless, 20% running Miracles, and 20% or more running Delver, and similar. People are running Brainstorm Force of Will decks that they think will perform against the field.

It's not like it's made up of 47% of players running 12 copies of Cancel equivalents and running Master of Waves as a 4-of. We're analyzing people who have meta-gamed while choosing/learning previously successful decks and are mostly well-versed players.

Koby

12-29-2015, 04:14 PM

@lordofthepit,
I suggest you also reference additional data points from Knightware tournaments. Lori puts in a good post-event wrap up that includes all archetypes played at the event.

Examples:
Knight Ware Inc, Dec 6, 2015 (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?30157-Los-Angeles-CA-Knight-Ware-Inc-Sunday-December-6-2015-20-25-Sea-Trop-FOW-Goyf&p=920046&viewfull=1#post920046)
Knight Ware Inc, Nov 8, 2015 (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?30046-Los-Angeles-CA-Knight-Ware-Inc-Sunday-November-8-2015-10-entry-100-store-credit&p=915011&viewfull=1#post915011)
Knight Ware Inc, Oct 11, 2015 (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?29968-Los-Angeles-CA-10-11-2015-Knight-Ware-GPT-for-Seattle-3-of-3-Sea-Tundra-FOW-JTMS&p=909229&viewfull=1#post909229)
Knight Ware Inc, Sep 13, 2015 (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?29845-Los-Angeles-CA-9-13-2015-Knight-Ware-GPT-for-Seattle-2-of-3-Sea-Tundra-Volc-Trop&p=903926&viewfull=1#post903926)
Knight Ware Inc, Aug 16, 2015 (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?29769-Los-Angeles-CA-8-16-2015-Knight-Ware-GPT-for-Seattle-1-of-3-Sea-Tundra-Goyf&p=899171&viewfull=1#post899171)
Knight Ware Inc, July 12, 2015 (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?29668-Los-Angeles-CA-Knight-Ware-Inc-Sunday-July-12-2015-10-entry-100-store-credit&p=894549&viewfull=1#post894549)
Knight Ware Inc, June 14, 2015 (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?29541-Los-Angeles-CA-06-14-2015-Knight-Ware-Sea-Tundra-GPT-for-Lille-20-25&p=887516&viewfull=1#post887516)
and so on

These provide stable points in a relatively stable metagame (Southern California) with consistent attendance >32.

lordofthepit

12-29-2015, 06:08 PM

Crimhead

12-30-2015, 06:34 AM

You're assuming people don't already look for decks that have good MUs, but rather play only what they want to despite being measured high-level tournament statistics. People don't take Cheeri0s that often to an SCG. Why? Because it sucks. They bring the "combo" or the "Blue" decks that will perform against the expected meta. Sorry but no! The whole point of this anaysis is to determine with data whether those decks indeed perform well or not. If we assume all the decks are in fact sound choices for the meta, then we've already reached a conclusion.

Since his analysis mostly contains players who are serious about metagaming and serious about winning, they are unlikely to be running pure garbage and hurting the statistics.Okay, nobody said anything about total garbage. I'm assuming the blueless decks being tested are the likes of Lands, D&T, Elves, Dredge, Painter, Jund, Aggro Loam, Maverick, MUD/Post, plus maybe the odd other deck. This is an approximate list.

What if it turns out that a few (or several) of these decks are in fact at a disadvantage against the field (or the blue decks), but a couple of them are very strong? What if those weaker decks drag down the average? Are we to then jump to the conclusion about every single deck in that group? Can we say correctly that every deck in that list is at s disadvantage, and that you are handicapping yourself regardless of which deck in that list you actually play? I'm sorry, but if Maverick happens to suck against blue decks, that has zero bearing on whether or not Elves is bad vs blue decks. But in this experiment, they share the same fate.

The very premise is silly and flawed. It's not like I have to choose blue or not blue and then be handed a random deck! If that were the case, this would be a very useful experiment!

@crimhead
If Elves was the hands down best deck in said meta, people would play it and it would bring up the combo-game stats... But not necessarily up above the 50% mark! I tried to explain this logically to no avail, so a couple post up I've provided an airtight mathematical counterexample. You can't argue against the facts of math my friend!

iatee

12-30-2015, 10:53 AM

The dominance of Brainstorm/FoW can be seen not in these numbers but by looking at the decklists of the top non-blue decks. It's not surprising that decks that play Thalia, Chalice, Abrupt Decay or mainboard Red Elemental Blasts would have good matchups against blue decks - the decks are designed to have good matchups against blue decks. This comes at a price of being weaker against random non-blue decks. And most of them - outside of those that can t1 Chalice - are weak to fast combo because they can't play FoW.

Elves kinda deserves its own category within non-blue, because with its draw engines and tutors it sees even more of its deck than a 12 cantrip blue deck - so it doesn't suffer from the non-blue 'I don't get to play Brainstorm' problem, just the 'I don't get to play FoW' problem. You don't need to play Brainstorm when you can draw more than 3 cards and put none back. Likewise lands is also very consistent with 8 tutors and Loam as a draw engine, though it has to play a deck with a lot of limitations in order to get those effects.

Crimhead

01-03-2016, 07:57 AM

Elves kinda deserves its own category within non-blue, because with its draw engines and tutors it sees even more of its deck than a 12 cantrip blue deck - so it doesn't suffer from the non-blue 'I don't get to play Brainstorm' problem, just the 'I don't get to play FoW' problem. You don't need to play Brainstorm when you can draw more than 3 cards and put none back. Likewise lands is also very consistent with 8 tutors and Loam as a draw engine, though it has to play a deck with a lot of limitations in order to get those effects.This.

What if decks like Elves, Aggro Loam, and Lands are good against blue decks, but fair creature decks like Maverick, Jund, Goblins, Dead Guy, etc are suckng hind tit?

The point of the analysis is to find out whether or not the claim that one must play a blue deck in legacy to be successful has any ground in reality.Most people who make that claim will concede it doesn't apply to lands or other blue-less DTBs of the day. The issue is all about creature based fair decks. Some folks seem to think a diverse pool of competetive midrange decks is the fundemental building block of any healthy meta.

GundamGuy

01-03-2016, 10:58 AM

This.

What if decks like Elves, Aggro Loam, and Lands are good against blue decks, but fair creature decks like Maverick, Jund, Goblins, Dead Guy, etc are suckng hind tit?

Most people who make that claim will concede it doesn't apply to lands or other blue-less DTBs of the day. The issue is all about creature based fair decks. Some folks seem to think a diverse pool of competetive midrange decks is the fundemental building block of any healthy meta.

I think you over use the word mid-range personally, and always want to apply qualifiers to control decks that aren't Miracles to say they aren't "dedicated control" decks because... IDK.

The common thread between these Non-Blue decks is that they abuse some crazy CA engine that saw the printing years ago before Wizards decided other non-blue colors shouldn't be given CA engines... or given CA engines extremely rarely.

rufus

01-03-2016, 11:24 AM

...
The common thread between these Non-Blue decks is that they abuse some crazy CA engine that saw the printing years ago before Wizards decided other non-blue colors shouldn't be given CA engines... or given CA engines extremely rarely.

They print CA and cantrips in the other colors - stuff like Collected Company, Abzan Charm, various planeswalkers, Ancient Stirrings, Tassigur (can be used in BG), Kolaghan's Command,Painful Truths, and Demonic Pact are in standard.

Blue legacy decks abuse old cards as much as the other colors do. (If not more.)

GundamGuy

01-03-2016, 12:07 PM

Blue legacy decks abuse old cards as much as the other colors do. (If not more.)

Not denying that.

They print CA and cantrips in the other colors - stuff like Collected Company, Abzan Charm, various planeswalkers, Ancient Stirrings, Tassigur (can be used in BG), Kolaghan's Command,Painful Truths, and Demonic Pact are in standard.

I meant in the context of legacy, since you know we are in the Legacy Format Discussion forum.

I guess I should have said Wizards rarely prints a non-blue CA engine that is legacy playable... since it wasn't clear.
Tassigur and Kolaghan's Command are fringe playable, but the rest are not really.

Crimhead

01-03-2016, 03:23 PM

The common thread between these Non-Blue decks is that they abuse some crazy CA engine that saw the printing years ago before Wizards decided other non-blue colors shouldn't be given CA engines... or given CA engines extremely rarely.It's a combination of card selection and card advantage. Elves runs Glimpse and Symbiot + Visionary for CA, but GSZ and NO are card selection tools. Lands gets huge CA from Loam, but relies on CR and Gamble as card selection tools.

I think what's worth noting is that these decks are very synergistic and specialised, attacking the game from less common angle. This is why they can get away with narrow engines like Loam and Glimpse; as well as tutors which incur -ve CA like Gamble, NO, and CR. Even MUD and Post decks (my pet theory being that the held down by unpopularity) are specialised to run CotV (virtual CA), and also approach the game very differently.

The issue is pretty much confined to fair decks. If you want to build a fair creature based decks built around individual card quality instead of specific synergies, it seems like no amount of Bobs, GSZs, Hymns, KotRs, etc can compete with the superior card selection (and access to FoW) that you get with blue cantrips*. These are the types of decks which I think people are talking about when they say you are handicapping yourself if you don't play blue. So I agree with iatee that lumping all non-blue decks together won't provide a very meaningful conclusion.

*Aggro Loam is another deck I think suffers from lack of player support - I think CotV main simply doesn't appeal to the demographic which wants to play fair decks. Even D&T isn't considered "fair" by a lot of people, probably because of the strong prison element. But even if we agree these decks are both competitive and fair; it's still very narrow compared to your competitive options for a fair deck if you include blue.

I think you over use the word mid-range personally, and always want to apply qualifiers to control decks that aren't Miracles to say they aren't "dedicated control" decks because... IDK.This is a bit off topic, but that's probably my fault.

I certainly use 'midrange' as a wide category for all (non-tempo) decks with a good mix of aggression and disruption.

What I call dedicated control has been slowly disappearing from MTG - due in part to a power-creep on creatures, but also probably a reduction of player interest. Old decks like Stacks, Pox, MUC have goon to shit because they can't keep up anymore. Legacy Miracles is becoming more aggressive with Mentor. Even in Vintage MUD decks have become more aggressive with the advent of Lodestone Golem. Even Mana Drain decks are less common than in the past.

So by today's standards, Deathblade and Shardless actually look like control decks, but few will deny that they are accurately describable as midrange.

Do you think the category is too broad, and yo0u would like to distinguish between more aggressive midrange decks vs more controlling midrange decks. That's fair. But by the same logic I want to distinguish between control decks which are more aggressive vs control decks which are more dedicated to the answers and disruption with very little in the way of potential aggression. I simply don't understand your reluctance to acknowledge what is a very fair and widely recognised distinction. distinction.

jrsthethird

01-03-2016, 11:36 PM

I guess I should have said Wizards rarely prints a non-blue CA engine that is legacy playable... since it wasn't clear.
Tassigur and Kolaghan's Command are fringe playable, but the rest are not really.

Have you even played with Painful Truths?

At Tales of Adventure this weekend I saw at least 5 different people cast that card, in both blue and non-blue decks. It's still too early to tell what impact it will have on the format, but that's over 10 percent of the field and 5 more people than I saw casting Kolaghan's or Tasigur. Gurmag sees more play in Legacy, because the ability to break a Goyf standoff and the inability to be countered by Counterbalance are worth the extra mana.

The issue is pretty much confined to fair decks. If you want to build a fair creature based decks built around individual card quality instead of specific synergies, it seems like no amount of Bobs, GSZs, Hymns, KotRs, etc can compete with the superior card selection (and access to FoW) that you get with blue cantrips*. These are the types of decks which I think people are talking about when they say you are handicapping yourself if you don't play blue. So I agree with iatee that lumping all non-blue decks together won't provide a very meaningful conclusion.

I Top 4'd the second Source tournament with an Abzan deck that oozed card advantage. Bob, SFM, Souls, Bitterblossom, Library, Truths, etc. There were long games that I had less cards in my library than my blue cantripping opponents.

GundamGuy

01-04-2016, 12:53 AM

It's a combination of card selection and card advantage. Elves runs Glimpse and Symbiot + Visionary for CA, but GSZ and NO are card selection tools. Lands gets huge CA from Loam, but relies on CR and Gamble as card selection tools.

I think what's worth noting is that these decks are very synergistic and specialised, attacking the game from less common angle. This is why they can get away with narrow engines like Loam and Glimpse; as well as tutors which incur -ve CA like Gamble, NO, and CR. Even MUD and Post decks (my pet theory being that the held down by unpopularity) are specialised to run CotV (virtual CA), and also approach the game very differently.

The issue is pretty much confined to fair decks. If you want to build a fair creature based decks built around individual card quality instead of specific synergies, it seems like no amount of Bobs, GSZs, Hymns, KotRs, etc can compete with the superior card selection (and access to FoW) that you get with blue cantrips*. These are the types of decks which I think people are talking about when they say you are handicapping yourself if you don't play blue. So I agree with iatee that lumping all non-blue decks together won't provide a very meaningful conclusion.

*Aggro Loam is another deck I think suffers from lack of player support - I think CotV main simply doesn't appeal to the demographic which wants to play fair decks. Even D&T isn't considered "fair" by a lot of people, probably because of the strong prison element. But even if we agree these decks are both competitive and fair; it's still very narrow compared to your competitive options for a fair deck if you include blue.

I think your pretty much spot on on this assessment. Can't find much to disagree with, the only thing I'll say is that I think Post and to some extent MUD decks are held back here by the existence of Wasteland and Bloodmoon (& to a lesser degree Magus of the Moon). This is just my pet theory though.

This is a bit off topic, but that's probably my fault.

I certainly use 'midrange' as a wide category for all (non-tempo) decks with a good mix of aggression and disruption.

What I call dedicated control has been slowly disappearing from MTG - due in part to a power-creep on creatures, but also probably a reduction of player interest. Old decks like Stacks, Pox, MUC have goon to shit because they can't keep up anymore. Legacy Miracles is becoming more aggressive with Mentor. Even in Vintage MUD decks have become more aggressive with the advent of Lodestone Golem. Even Mana Drain decks are less common than in the past.

So by today's standards, Deathblade and Shardless actually look like control decks, but few will deny that they are accurately describable as midrange.

Do you think the category is too broad, and yo0u would like to distinguish between more aggressive midrange decks vs more controlling midrange decks. That's fair. But by the same logic I want to distinguish between control decks which are more aggressive vs control decks which are more dedicated to the answers and disruption with very little in the way of potential aggression. I simply don't understand your reluctance to acknowledge what is a very fair and widely recognised distinction.

Really this is just a philosophical difference about what control and aggro means. IMO control and aggression aren't the opposite ends of a spectrum. Who's the Beat down and all that Jazz.

I personally find pretty meaningless to split hairs in this way, the difference between a more aggressive and more controlling mid-range deck is often minor and pretty fluid, and can rapidly change with a few sideboard cards. The real truth to magic is that you need to know your role in the match... even if you are playing burn you aren't always the aggressive deck.

I know this isn't all that helpful, but IMO magic players split hairs to much about what decks are... and get too hung up on that... and forget that the role you play changes from match to match. I've stolen a handful of matches from Burn when they didn't realize they were actually the control deck, and I've stolen a handful of matches from Miracles when they didn't realize they were actually the aggro deck.

Crimhead

01-08-2016, 10:39 AM

Really this is just a philosophical difference about what control and aggro means. IMO control and aggression aren't the opposite ends of a spectrum. Who's the Beat down and all that Jazz. I think that's one of my two favourite articles on MTG strategy (along side Tempo and Card Advantage). But the point of that article is not that control/aggro labels are meaningless or useless. Rather that it's a mistake to take those labels as ironclad guides for playing those decks.

We call a deck aggro or control for two reasons:

In the meta, the deck expects to take on a particular role (control or beatdown) the majority of it's MUs.
The deck is designed to play that side of a MU. When forced to take the opposite role, the deck is going "against the grain".
An example!e is Burn. Burn is almost always on the beat down plan in almost every MU. When Burn is forced to play control (using creatures to block and/or spells to kill threats), this usually is bad news for the Burn player.

Similarly, in a meta with little or no dedicetd control your most controlling aggro/control decks will almost always take the control side of a MU, and hence people start to think of them as simply being control decks.i

I personally find pretty meaningless to split hairs in this way, the difference between a more aggressive and more controlling mid-range deck is often minor and pretty fluid, and can rapidly change with a few sideboard cards.This is exactly my point! Aggro-control hybrid decks are designed to be much more fluid than linear aggro or dedicated control. The can easily "change gears" between control or beatdown as the situation demands.

It's good that we have decks like this, and I can understand their appeal. But this doesn't mean that pure aggro and hard control styles are invalid as concepts! If you can't see that Legacy has moved a way from more polarised aggro or control strategies towards more moderate and fluid midrange and tempo strategies, I don't think you are looking far enough back.

Edit:

IMO control and aggression aren't the opposite ends of a spectrum. Who's the Beat down and all that Jazz.If we define control vs aggression as the likelihood (or frequency) that your deck will end up going control vs beat down in practise, then they are very much opposite ends of a spectrum!

Of course this is meta-dependant, but that's my entire point! D&T, Shardless, etc, are considered control decks because they are among the least aggressive decks in the meta. If we had more "dedicated control" (Pox, draw/go, Stacks, etc), those decks would be "going beatdown" a lot more often.

lordofthepit

01-17-2016, 03:51 AM

Updated to reflect three new tournaments. Thanks to Ziveeman and Mackan for some of the data!

EventDate# Players# BrainstormBrainstorm MW%# Force of WillForce of Will MW%
Dark Tower Legacy Open (Aug 2014)08/24/20145226 (50.00%)39-26-1 (59.85%)26 (50.00%)35-27-1 (56.35%)
AZMagicPlayers.com Championship (Sep 2014)09/06/20145026 (52.00%)38-23-1 (62.10%)25 (50.00%)38-23-1 (62.10%)
Card Kingdom PTQ Legacy (Nov 2014)11/08/20145943 (72.88%)31-26-1 (54.31%)40 (67.80%)37-25-2 (59.38%)
Card Kingdom PTQ Legacy (Jan 2015)01/03/20154331 (72.09%)21-13-1 (61.43%)26 (60.47%)23-17-1 (57.32%)
Mirkwood Legacy for Duals (Jun 2015)06/14/20157046 (65.71%)43-34-0 (55.84%)45 (64.29%)42-34-0 (55.26%)
Card Kingdom GPT (Aug 2015)08/16/20155029 (58.00%)35-26-0 (57.38%)28 (56.00%)37-23-0 (61.67%)
Card Kingdom GPT (Oct 2015)10/24/20156434 (53.12%)36-44-1 (45.06%)33 (51.56%)33-43-1 (43.51%)
Viken Legacy Championship (Dec 2015)12/05/20155637 (66.07%)25-38-2 (40.00%)31 (55.36%)37-39-2 (48.72%)
Mox Boarding House Legacy $1K (Dec 2015)12/19/20155936 (61.02%)28-26-5 (51.69%)35 (59.32%)30-27-5 (52.42%)
Card Kingdom $1K (Jan 2016)01/09/20166747 (70.15%)44-37-2 (54.22%)37 (55.22%)52-46-4 (52.94%)
AZMagicPlayers.com Championship (Jan 2016)01/09/20166431 (48.44%)38-37-0 (50.67%)26 (40.62%)41-35-0 (53.95%)
Overall (Dig Legal)324201 (62.04%)207-148-4 (58.22%)190 (58.64%)212-149-5 (58.61%)
Overall (Dig Banned)310185 (59.68%)171-182-10 (48.48%)162 (52.26%)193-190-12 (50.38%)

It looks like there's a substantial drop in the advantage of blue decks since Dig Through Time got banned. I have specific tournament results and archetype analysis, but I'm trying to decide how to best present that. (I don't think it may appropriate for me to show the names of all players in these events, but I'll have to check with the tournament organizers who provided me the data.)

By archetype, pre-Dig:

Archetype# Players% FieldPerformance
Miracles3410.49%84-65-6 (56.13%)
Death and Taxes226.79%49-52-2 (48.54%)
Reanimator164.94%48-40-1 (54.49%)
Omniscience154.63%37-41-0 (47.44%)
UR Delver144.32%32-25-0 (56.14%)
RUG Delver134.01%36-26-1 (57.94%)
ANT123.70%33-28-1 (54.03%)
Burn113.40%25-32-0 (43.86%)
Jund113.40%27-25-1 (51.89%)
Sneak and Show92.78%16-24-0 (40.00%)
UWR Delver92.78%27-21-3 (55.88%)
BUG Delver82.47%23-20-0 (53.49%)
Infect82.47%21-18-1 (53.75%)
Elves72.16%18-16-1 (52.86%)
Merfolk72.16%16-16-0 (50.00%)
Shardless BUG72.16%19-16-0 (54.29%)
Dredge61.85%15-15-0 (50.00%)
Grixis Control61.85%14-13-0 (51.85%)
Junk Depths61.85%16-18-2 (47.22%)
UWR Stoneblade61.85%20-14-0 (58.82%)
MUD51.54%10-15-0 (40.00%)
Maverick51.54%5-13-3 (30.95%)
Affinity41.23%7-15-0 (31.82%)
Deathblade41.23%12-10-0 (54.55%)
Gold Digger41.23%11-10-2 (52.17%)
Imperial Painter41.23%10-9-0 (52.63%)
TES41.23%3-10-0 (23.08%)
4c Delver30.93%10-8-0 (55.56%)
Big Red30.93%14-7-0 (66.67%)
Death's Shadow30.93%12-5-1 (69.44%)
Grixis Delver30.93%11-7-0 (61.11%)
High Tide30.93%0-10-1 (4.55%)
Manaless Dredge30.93%5-8-1 (39.29%)
Nic Fit30.93%6-9-1 (40.62%)
Zombardment30.93%3-10-0 (23.08%)
4c Loam20.62%2-6-0 (25.00%)
Esper Stoneblade20.62%4-5-0 (44.44%)
Goblin Stompy20.62%3-5-0 (37.50%)
Goblins20.62%3-6-0 (33.33%)
Junk20.62%8-2-0 (80.00%)
RG Lands20.62%1-7-0 (12.50%)
Tin Fins20.62%3-6-0 (33.33%)
UR Pyromancer20.62%8-4-0 (66.67%)
12-Post10.31%7-0-1 (93.75%)
Belcher10.31%3-3-0 (50.00%)
Bird Tribal10.31%1-4-0 (20.00%)
Deadguy Ale10.31%1-2-0 (33.33%)
Esper Mentor10.31%1-2-0 (33.33%)
Food Chain10.31%2-4-0 (33.33%)
Grixis Painter10.31%2-2-0 (50.00%)
Grixis Pyromancer10.31%2-2-0 (50.00%)
Harpies10.31%3-3-0 (50.00%)
Lands10.31%2-4-0 (33.33%)
Landstill10.31%2-2-0 (50.00%)
Living End10.31%1-2-0 (33.33%)
Mono-Blue Tempo10.31%2-2-1 (50.00%)
Mono-White Hatebears10.31%2-2-0 (50.00%)
Monoblack Aggro10.31%0-3-0 (0.00%)
Pox10.31%0-2-0 (0.00%)
RUG Depths10.31%4-3-0 (57.14%)
Rebels10.31%0-3-0 (0.00%)
Scepter/Chant10.31%0-3-0 (0.00%)
Shardless Bant10.31%2-4-0 (33.33%)
Shardless Deathblade10.31%4-2-0 (66.67%)
Stax10.31%1-3-0 (25.00%)
Sylvan Plug10.31%1-2-0 (33.33%)
Tezzeret10.31%3-3-0 (50.00%)
UW Tempo10.31%3-3-0 (50.00%)
UWR Mentor10.31%0-2-0 (0.00%)
Vial Maverick10.31%5-2-0 (71.43%)

By archetype, post-Dig:

Archetype# Players% FieldPerformance
Miracles3511.29%84-71-12 (53.89%)
Death and Taxes216.77%51-44-2 (53.61%)
ANT196.13%46-44-2 (51.09%)
Burn165.16%46-47-0 (49.46%)
Shardless BUG165.16%40-35-0 (53.33%)
Infect154.84%24-40-2 (37.88%)
Grixis Delver134.19%40-29-1 (57.86%)
4c Loam113.55%35-23-2 (60.00%)
BUG Delver103.23%20-29-0 (40.82%)
Deathblade92.90%30-23-1 (56.48%)
Jund92.90%22-19-1 (53.57%)
RUG Delver92.90%25-21-1 (54.26%)
Reanimator92.90%21-22-0 (48.84%)
Elves72.26%23-18-0 (56.10%)
RG Lands72.26%15-17-2 (47.06%)
Sneak and Show72.26%16-17-0 (48.48%)
Goblins61.94%10-17-0 (37.04%)
Grixis Pyromancer51.61%18-12-0 (60.00%)
Merfolk51.61%13-13-0 (50.00%)
TES51.61%7-16-0 (30.43%)
4c Delver41.29%13-12-1 (51.92%)
Imperial Painter41.29%14-8-0 (63.64%)
Maverick41.29%11-13-0 (45.83%)
Nic Fit41.29%11-10-0 (52.38%)
12-Post30.97%5-8-1 (39.29%)
Aluren30.97%6-10-0 (37.50%)
Bant30.97%10-8-0 (55.56%)
Dredge30.97%9-9-0 (50.00%)
Lands30.97%10-7-1 (58.33%)
Pox30.97%3-12-1 (21.88%)
Tin Fins30.97%6-9-0 (40.00%)
UWR Stoneblade30.97%6-9-0 (40.00%)
All Spells20.65%7-6-0 (53.85%)
Enchantress20.65%2-6-0 (25.00%)
MUD20.65%8-4-0 (66.67%)
NetherLands20.65%4-4-1 (50.00%)
Omniscience20.65%2-6-0 (25.00%)
Painter20.65%5-5-0 (50.00%)
BUG Thopters10.32%3-3-0 (50.00%)
Brave Sir Robin10.32%2-2-2 (50.00%)
Deadguy Ale10.32%2-3-0 (40.00%)
Doomsday10.32%2-4-0 (33.33%)
Esper Stoneblade10.32%0-3-1 (12.50%)
Food Chain10.32%0-2-0 (0.00%)
Goblin Stompy10.32%3-3-0 (50.00%)
Human Stompy10.32%4-2-0 (66.67%)
Humility10.32%3-3-0 (50.00%)
Hypergenesis10.32%4-3-0 (57.14%)
Jund Smallpox10.32%2-2-1 (50.00%)
Junk Depths10.32%4-3-0 (57.14%)
Landstill10.32%3-2-0 (60.00%)
Manaless Dredge10.32%2-4-0 (33.33%)
Mono-Black Devotion10.32%2-4-0 (33.33%)
NO BUG10.32%0-4-0 (0.00%)
Ooze Reanimator10.32%1-2-0 (33.33%)
R/W Stompy10.32%1-5-0 (16.67%)
Slivers10.32%0-3-0 (0.00%)
Spanish Inquisition10.32%2-4-0 (33.33%)
UR Delver10.32%4-1-1 (75.00%)
UW Stoneblade10.32%3-3-0 (50.00%)
Vial Maverick10.32%4-2-0 (66.67%)
Zombardment10.32%3-2-0 (60.00%)