Hey guys, I know it's been a while but I'm back again. Between life, laziness, and the sheer size of this one, it took a lot longer than expected to finish. The data gathering system is far more complex and more efficient so we had to be more careful.
I'd like to thank those who helped me out here, /u/beywiz /u/abeastlyseacow and /u/Geruyop . They were instrumental in recording this much data and helping me. They also made sure I didn't type one word per line and prevented dumb writing.
---
Restricting and Valuing Data
So in previous MUs, the lack of data made it hard to be selective as to what data we used. Choosing the 'good' data points resulted in a lack of size and made it very incomplete. However, this MU was very different. Between westballz and lucky alone, there were 49 sets. Because of this we were able to be more restrictive about what we used.
Now there is a system for how we ranked the relevance and value of a set. First of all, we ranked the individual skill of the players on a scale of 1-5. Those ranked at 5 are the undisputed masters of the MU. They only lose to each other and very rarely those below. Those would be Mango, Hax, Leffen, Westballz, and PPMD. Those in the 4 region have the potential to take sets from the 5s but are not as strong and can still lose to those below more often. The following shows how they are ranked.
5: Mango Westballz Leffen PPMD
4: Lucky Hax
3: DruggedFox Zhu Ice SFAT
2: SilentWolf
Majority of this classification was done by me but if it makes you feel any better I the DDT for input as well.
This is the first step on establishing the value of a data point. Every set is given a multiplier, from .5-1. A set of maximum relevancy is rated at 1. In order to be given that distinction, both players must be on the same rank for MU mastery. So Mango v. PPMD is 1. or Hax v. Westballz. What this means is that sets with a higher imbalance of skill affect the overall percentages less because their impact is decreased by the multiplier.
The next problem to cover is time. After a certain point sets become less relevant because it has been too long. In order to address this we decided to use the multiplier as well. For every year before 2014, the multiplier was decreased by a point. So a Mango Westballz set would normally be 1, but if it were in 2013 you subtract 1-.1 and get .9. Based on patterns in sets, 2014 was decided to be the best because that is where Leffen and Westballz began to show their prowess in the MU.
So we used this system as we began gathering data. However there was still a problem. Regardless of the fact that skill differences are subject to the multiplier, it almost became moot when Mango takes 7 sets over SFAT while only losing a few games. In order to combat this, we decided we would have a very early cutoff on data points. We would restrict the sets to only those in the 4 and 5 region. In previous MUs I would not have done this. However considering Westballz v. Lucky alone has more sets than all the Marth v. Falcon sets I found, we decided it would be more accurate.
For those of you curious on the math, the weighted percentages are taken by adding the multipliers of the sets won and dividing by the sum of the multipliers of all the sets.
The Data
In the spreadsheet, the data is separated based on who the sets are between. Within each one, you can find the actual win rate (without the multipliers playing a part) and the adjusted (with the multipliers). Further down, you can find the data on stages and stock counts. One of the interesting things about the MU, is that it doesn't appear as stage dependent. There are a lot of instances where people lose on their own counterpick.
After taking the win percent from all the data (using the multipliers) the result is that Falco wins 46.89% of the matches.
To get a better view of the stage results, the percentages from everyone were averaged. The idea behind doing this instead of just taking the percentage is that it will help account for variance in play. However, in order to get the best picture, you need to look at the data for individual people. We did not average the stock counts because there are too many individual variances that are hard to account for. The best way to look at stock count is for each set of players.
---
Win percentage on BF 0.5404589372
Win percentage on FD 0.3821428571
Win percentage on YS 0.3245454545
Win Percentage on PS 0.2772222222
Win percentage on DL 0.5864021164
Win Percentage on FoD 0.2604761905
---
Win Percentage on G1 0.5827777778
Win Percentage on G2 0.606402439
Win Percentage on G3 0.3776699277
Win Percentage on G4 0.6042207792
Win Percentage on G5 0.2928571429
---
Interestingly enough, Falco has the most wins on Dreamland, which some consider to be a fox stage. Although Mango is a large contributor to this. Also, Falco wins game 2 more than any other.
If you look through the individual tabs, you can find stock differences with stages, and for the win on either side. Certain players like PPMD don't play as often so these are harder to examine. The best one to look at is Westballz vs. Lucky. You can get a very good idea of how their stock differences vary from stage to stage. Except FoD. They hate FoD for some reason.
The stock differences are positive and negative based on who won. In the combined average section, a negative number means the average is in fox's favor and the positive in falco's favor.
When you look at the combined averages, Westballz does best on Dreamland, with a .47 stock difference. Lucky on the other hand does best on Pokemon Stadium, with a -.52 stock difference. When Westballz wins, he tends to win best on Dreamland, averaging 1.867 stocks. When lucky wins, he tends to do best on Battlefield with a 1.633 average stock difference. I'm not going to look at FoD in this because they don't play there enough for it to matter. One of the things that hese numbers highlight is how close these two play. They have sets that have 2 or 3 stock differences, but it happens both ways. And the sets that don't tend to go to the last stock. Also, lucky and westballz seldom deviate from their patterns. They almost always play game 1 on battlefield and game 3 on pokemon stadium. Westballz also tends to lose when he goes to game 5. Westballz loses 8/14 of all their game 5 sets. Also, at one point, lucky had the edge on westballz. However around 2014-2015 they began to go back and forth and westballz gained an edge. This lines up with when westballz started to show his ability to beat mango.
Over on Westballz vs Leffen, the first time they fought was a close set. Game 5, although a 2 stock. However, ever since then, leffen has had a dominant lead in their sets. That is until Dreamhack Winter. There leffen lost his first set to westballz 3-1. Since then they both traded at BEAST 6. It will be interesting to see how the future unfolds between these two. Unsurprisingly, Westballz wins most on Dreamland against Leffen as well as Lucky. at 57.14%, he has very dominant performances on this stage. They go even on FD and PS but rarely go to Yoshis which I find interesting. When it comes to stock counts, the same pattern repeats itself. At the greatest average stock difference, westballz has an average of .556 stocks on dreamland while leffen has an average of .5 on pokemon. Again, the stock differences are very close, which tells a lot about how well the characters play against each other and how close the skill levels are.
If you take a look at Mango vs. leffen, the results are going to be familiar. Everyone remembers the 4 stocks at TBH4 and APEX 2014. And then leffen took his set at BEAST. That is where he established his ability to beat mango. However, mango still has the edge over him. Even after leffen's summer tear, mango is still in the lead, winning 66.67% of their sets. As expected, Mango wins a lot on Mango land, with a 70% winrate there. However, what is unexpected is that he wins more on FD with a 71.4% win rate. However, one major difference is that when mango wins, he wins by a lot. He has an average of 2.125 stock difference when he wins on dreamland. This is largely because of the 3 and 4 stocks that he has. The funny thing is that both 4 stocks happened to close out the set. It just goes to show how momentum based mango can be.
Next is the matchup that makes the one that puzzles me. Westballz and Mango. Westballz got his big win over Mango at MLG Anaheim. A decisive 3-0 in the RR pools. In recent history, it feels as if Westballz beats mango all the time, becoming the catalyst for Mango's loser's runs. However, Mango still has a set lead, winning 66.67% of their sets. Much like his sets with leffen. However one of the major differences here is that Mango's counterpick is far less effective. Mango wins only half of the sets on Dreamland. However, he is very dominant on other stages, ranging from 60%-80% winrates. Just like he was with leffen, mango tends to have a greater stock leads when he wins against westballz.
Now one of my favorite things in all of Melee. Mango vs. PPMD. This is the only matchup where PPMD has many sets. And on a side note, PPMD is very cool. These data points were a bit annoying at times because of how they both switch characters. However there was enought to establish that mango leads with a 66.67% winrate over PPMD. Mango's two losses came from PP's era of dominance, at APEX 2014 and SKTAR 3. This is another situation where MangoLand doesn't work as well. Again Mango only wins 50% of the matches played there. As a result of of the lack of data, it is hard to say anything about the stock differences per stage per game. However if you combine it, you will see that the stock differences are very close. Regardless of game count, majority of their games always end up very close. For example their set at G3 was a great example of a close 3-0
---
I'm not going to bother with the inference studies because degrees of freedom get janky. However all the data on the MU can be found in the spreadsheet so feel free to look through that.
---
Thanks for reading, hopefully this helped give a better glance at what this MU looks like at the top level. Leave any criticisms or improvements I can make in the future in the comments below, thanks.
Shoutouts
Once again thanks to the rest of the Super Stat Bros crew for being immeasurably helpful
Shoutouts to mango for playing the MU on both sides.
Shoutouts to vods.co and tafostats for making this a lot simpler for us
Until next time, stay green my friends
Feel free to discuss anything about the MU and how the data aligns with it.
I'd like to thank those who helped me out here, /u/beywiz /u/abeastlyseacow and /u/Geruyop . They were instrumental in recording this much data and helping me. They also made sure I didn't type one word per line and prevented dumb writing.
---
Restricting and Valuing Data
So in previous MUs, the lack of data made it hard to be selective as to what data we used. Choosing the 'good' data points resulted in a lack of size and made it very incomplete. However, this MU was very different. Between westballz and lucky alone, there were 49 sets. Because of this we were able to be more restrictive about what we used.
Now there is a system for how we ranked the relevance and value of a set. First of all, we ranked the individual skill of the players on a scale of 1-5. Those ranked at 5 are the undisputed masters of the MU. They only lose to each other and very rarely those below. Those would be Mango, Hax, Leffen, Westballz, and PPMD. Those in the 4 region have the potential to take sets from the 5s but are not as strong and can still lose to those below more often. The following shows how they are ranked.
5: Mango Westballz Leffen PPMD
4: Lucky Hax
3: DruggedFox Zhu Ice SFAT
2: SilentWolf
Majority of this classification was done by me but if it makes you feel any better I the DDT for input as well.
This is the first step on establishing the value of a data point. Every set is given a multiplier, from .5-1. A set of maximum relevancy is rated at 1. In order to be given that distinction, both players must be on the same rank for MU mastery. So Mango v. PPMD is 1. or Hax v. Westballz. What this means is that sets with a higher imbalance of skill affect the overall percentages less because their impact is decreased by the multiplier.
The next problem to cover is time. After a certain point sets become less relevant because it has been too long. In order to address this we decided to use the multiplier as well. For every year before 2014, the multiplier was decreased by a point. So a Mango Westballz set would normally be 1, but if it were in 2013 you subtract 1-.1 and get .9. Based on patterns in sets, 2014 was decided to be the best because that is where Leffen and Westballz began to show their prowess in the MU.
So we used this system as we began gathering data. However there was still a problem. Regardless of the fact that skill differences are subject to the multiplier, it almost became moot when Mango takes 7 sets over SFAT while only losing a few games. In order to combat this, we decided we would have a very early cutoff on data points. We would restrict the sets to only those in the 4 and 5 region. In previous MUs I would not have done this. However considering Westballz v. Lucky alone has more sets than all the Marth v. Falcon sets I found, we decided it would be more accurate.
For those of you curious on the math, the weighted percentages are taken by adding the multipliers of the sets won and dividing by the sum of the multipliers of all the sets.
The Data
In the spreadsheet, the data is separated based on who the sets are between. Within each one, you can find the actual win rate (without the multipliers playing a part) and the adjusted (with the multipliers). Further down, you can find the data on stages and stock counts. One of the interesting things about the MU, is that it doesn't appear as stage dependent. There are a lot of instances where people lose on their own counterpick.
After taking the win percent from all the data (using the multipliers) the result is that Falco wins 46.89% of the matches.
To get a better view of the stage results, the percentages from everyone were averaged. The idea behind doing this instead of just taking the percentage is that it will help account for variance in play. However, in order to get the best picture, you need to look at the data for individual people. We did not average the stock counts because there are too many individual variances that are hard to account for. The best way to look at stock count is for each set of players.
---
Win percentage on BF 0.5404589372
Win percentage on FD 0.3821428571
Win percentage on YS 0.3245454545
Win Percentage on PS 0.2772222222
Win percentage on DL 0.5864021164
Win Percentage on FoD 0.2604761905
---
Win Percentage on G1 0.5827777778
Win Percentage on G2 0.606402439
Win Percentage on G3 0.3776699277
Win Percentage on G4 0.6042207792
Win Percentage on G5 0.2928571429
---
Interestingly enough, Falco has the most wins on Dreamland, which some consider to be a fox stage. Although Mango is a large contributor to this. Also, Falco wins game 2 more than any other.
If you look through the individual tabs, you can find stock differences with stages, and for the win on either side. Certain players like PPMD don't play as often so these are harder to examine. The best one to look at is Westballz vs. Lucky. You can get a very good idea of how their stock differences vary from stage to stage. Except FoD. They hate FoD for some reason.
The stock differences are positive and negative based on who won. In the combined average section, a negative number means the average is in fox's favor and the positive in falco's favor.
When you look at the combined averages, Westballz does best on Dreamland, with a .47 stock difference. Lucky on the other hand does best on Pokemon Stadium, with a -.52 stock difference. When Westballz wins, he tends to win best on Dreamland, averaging 1.867 stocks. When lucky wins, he tends to do best on Battlefield with a 1.633 average stock difference. I'm not going to look at FoD in this because they don't play there enough for it to matter. One of the things that hese numbers highlight is how close these two play. They have sets that have 2 or 3 stock differences, but it happens both ways. And the sets that don't tend to go to the last stock. Also, lucky and westballz seldom deviate from their patterns. They almost always play game 1 on battlefield and game 3 on pokemon stadium. Westballz also tends to lose when he goes to game 5. Westballz loses 8/14 of all their game 5 sets. Also, at one point, lucky had the edge on westballz. However around 2014-2015 they began to go back and forth and westballz gained an edge. This lines up with when westballz started to show his ability to beat mango.
Over on Westballz vs Leffen, the first time they fought was a close set. Game 5, although a 2 stock. However, ever since then, leffen has had a dominant lead in their sets. That is until Dreamhack Winter. There leffen lost his first set to westballz 3-1. Since then they both traded at BEAST 6. It will be interesting to see how the future unfolds between these two. Unsurprisingly, Westballz wins most on Dreamland against Leffen as well as Lucky. at 57.14%, he has very dominant performances on this stage. They go even on FD and PS but rarely go to Yoshis which I find interesting. When it comes to stock counts, the same pattern repeats itself. At the greatest average stock difference, westballz has an average of .556 stocks on dreamland while leffen has an average of .5 on pokemon. Again, the stock differences are very close, which tells a lot about how well the characters play against each other and how close the skill levels are.
If you take a look at Mango vs. leffen, the results are going to be familiar. Everyone remembers the 4 stocks at TBH4 and APEX 2014. And then leffen took his set at BEAST. That is where he established his ability to beat mango. However, mango still has the edge over him. Even after leffen's summer tear, mango is still in the lead, winning 66.67% of their sets. As expected, Mango wins a lot on Mango land, with a 70% winrate there. However, what is unexpected is that he wins more on FD with a 71.4% win rate. However, one major difference is that when mango wins, he wins by a lot. He has an average of 2.125 stock difference when he wins on dreamland. This is largely because of the 3 and 4 stocks that he has. The funny thing is that both 4 stocks happened to close out the set. It just goes to show how momentum based mango can be.
Next is the matchup that makes the one that puzzles me. Westballz and Mango. Westballz got his big win over Mango at MLG Anaheim. A decisive 3-0 in the RR pools. In recent history, it feels as if Westballz beats mango all the time, becoming the catalyst for Mango's loser's runs. However, Mango still has a set lead, winning 66.67% of their sets. Much like his sets with leffen. However one of the major differences here is that Mango's counterpick is far less effective. Mango wins only half of the sets on Dreamland. However, he is very dominant on other stages, ranging from 60%-80% winrates. Just like he was with leffen, mango tends to have a greater stock leads when he wins against westballz.
Now one of my favorite things in all of Melee. Mango vs. PPMD. This is the only matchup where PPMD has many sets. And on a side note, PPMD is very cool. These data points were a bit annoying at times because of how they both switch characters. However there was enought to establish that mango leads with a 66.67% winrate over PPMD. Mango's two losses came from PP's era of dominance, at APEX 2014 and SKTAR 3. This is another situation where MangoLand doesn't work as well. Again Mango only wins 50% of the matches played there. As a result of of the lack of data, it is hard to say anything about the stock differences per stage per game. However if you combine it, you will see that the stock differences are very close. Regardless of game count, majority of their games always end up very close. For example their set at G3 was a great example of a close 3-0
---
I'm not going to bother with the inference studies because degrees of freedom get janky. However all the data on the MU can be found in the spreadsheet so feel free to look through that.
---
Thanks for reading, hopefully this helped give a better glance at what this MU looks like at the top level. Leave any criticisms or improvements I can make in the future in the comments below, thanks.
Shoutouts
Once again thanks to the rest of the Super Stat Bros crew for being immeasurably helpful
Shoutouts to mango for playing the MU on both sides.
Shoutouts to vods.co and tafostats for making this a lot simpler for us
Until next time, stay green my friends
Feel free to discuss anything about the MU and how the data aligns with it.