Why do Some Argue Against Skill Based MM?

Siege_Engine, on Aug 01 2021 - 16:42, said:   Of course I personally think that combined damage correlates to win rate.  That's always been my theory.  I've been saying that from the start and haven't changed my opinion.  That's not the point.    My issue is that you will often show a table of numbers, while claiming they are "statistics" that counter argue the expert testimony that teams are too often so skill unbalanced to where it's not fun to play.    But, where's a proper statistical analysis of those numbers?    Have you done any F tests?  What is the correlation between combined damage of two teams and win rate at various confidence intervals?  You should at least be able to do a regression and show confidence bands and provide a description of your sample, assumptions and limitations.   For example, when does a TEAM of players have a 99% statistical chance of losing a battle, based on their difference in combined damage?  What about 95%?  or 90%?  What's the statistical confidence interval of those conclusions?   What about an F test?      You're showing numbers in a table, which is more than most people have done here, and it's perfectly "okay", and I thank you for that.  But expert testimony is also "okay".  Neither is better.  Neither answers any questions other than "more combined damage appears to result in more wins".  Which we all expect to be true.