every once in a while, someone says "X has such a high winrate on this champion" and that is followed by "Yeah but he just has a high winrate in general" And on the other hand, sometimes you see a winrate and it looks really tough, but that player has only won two games this split and they were both on this pick. so i think that should be taken into account when we talk about winrates, so that we can have an actual discussion about champion mastery.
(why am i doing math two days after my maths exam? ;-;)
so i propose percentage change:
let's, for example, pick chovy's azir. chovy, overall, has a 68.9% winrate in his career. he has a 70.9% winrate on azir. that's a 2.9% increase. so sure, his azir is good, but it's probably just similar to his average performance.
canyon has a 69% winrate in his overall career, which i can admit, is pretty nice. he has a 81% winrate on nidalee. that's a 17.39% increase. that's a huge jump, indicating he has great mastery on nidalee but he's still also just a good player in general so it's not as dramatic as later examples.
peanut has a 63.2% winrate in his overall career. peanut has a 18% winrate on lillia. the percentage change is a 71.51% decrease. oof. yeah i just thought this was funny. don't put this guy on lillia apparently.
pyosik has a 47.2% career winrate and a 83.3% winrate on rek'sai. That's a 76.48% increase. massive. how was i not aware of this?
i think this could be improved by taking into account the actual amounts of games played and the winrates of the champions themselves, because i can definitely find 100% winrate champs if i scroll down far enough, and on the other hand there are just bad champs in pro, but i am making this post at 10pm after a week of exams so I won't figure that out right now. my point is just that i think we should look at some more representative metrics when it comes to winrates.
