Right now, i have two major issues with the current list.
First, 80+% of the disagreement on matchups is within 10 points or so.
Is matchup x 50-50 or 55-45? 45-55 or 35-65? 40-60 or 30-70?
Why not just place matchups on a 10 point scale (5-5, 6-4, 7-3 etc.) and cut out the conflict?
second, we have no good definition for these matchup ratios. The idea that they demonstrate how often one side of a match-up will win is ludicrous. If high-level falco mains beats 75% of the high-level foxes by 1 stock (on average), does that mean the matchup is 75-25 in favor of falco?
NO!
It seems much more reasonable to define these ratios as stocks taken. For example, if the falco mains in the example beats 75% of high-level foxes by one stock, and loses to the rest by 2 stocks, then the falco’s advantage is 4/7*75%+1/3*25%= 51%, making the matchup 51-49 or about 5-5.
This is my reasoning behind the math:
When falco mains win against fox by 1 stock, that means they lose 3 stocks each match. In an average match, a total of 7 stocks are lost, with the falcos taking four. (4/7).
They don’t win every game, however. The ones that they lose, they usually lose by 2 stocks. In those matches, the falco mains take 2 stocks and lose four, for a total of 6 stocks (2/6=1/3).
Now you just have to weigh the two results by how often they happen. They take 4stocks out of seven 75% of the time and 1stock out of three 25% of the time