Why was it an "objective list to consider"? I think it would be better to use any list that has enjoyed success recently; Steve's list is a theoretical build which I'm assuming hasn't seen any tourney play (given that no matches were actually discussed in the article and given that Steve didn't feel absolutely certain about the configuration, such as the number of Pacts and ESG). I appreciate that, but it is a little puzzling why you elected to go with a theoretical build over a tourney-proven build. You must admit that it can be interpreted as "convenient" if hypothetically your goal was to lower the numbers, even though that wasn't your intention.
I really just chose this list because it was from someone much more respected than myself and I wanted to avoid criticism about personal choices that I would have made that differed.
Do you happen to have a preferred Flash decklist? I had a slow day at work, so I was working through all the possibliities of Turn 1/Turn 2 kills with/without protection. I would love to see what it was for a tourney proven deck.
The percentage is deceptive; I didn't mean to imply that you were being deceptive. I understand your careful wording, but the context is important. I'm assuming that we are attempting to compare the first turn kill rates of Flash to the first turn kill rates of Trinisphere; just tossing out the probability of a first turn Trini doesn't by itself serve much purpose unless we start breaking down what that 16% means.
I actually couldn't agree with you more. The reason I gave this example is because people have been claiming it is analogous recently and some just throw out percentages.
Actually, the anecdotes plus reasonable rationale are ample evidence to do something about Flash; calculating precise percentages is almost inconsequential. As one TMD member quoted in the forums when we were discussing Trinisphere, sometimes we will know a problem exists when we see it - sometimes things that defy quantification can still be flagged as a serious issue. This is also why we can speak of cards like Trinisphere or Flash in terms of exceeding the "threshold of acceptability"; we cannot exactly pinpoint what that threshold is, but we can still intuitively come to the conclusion that Trini and Flash overstep it. Your call for "objective evidence" isn't actually necessary, and I cannot recall a single B/R decision in the past that was based on any such evidence. It doesn't mean that the effort is not appreciated, because it is, its just that the argument doesn't hinge upon the precise numbers.
I agree that sometimes these things are a little like pornography....hard to define but we know it when we see it. That approach is fine for me too.
The precise numbers comes from more of just how I think about building decks and Magic in general. For the most part, I am perfectly happy with well-reasoned arguments; however, when some people start posting win percentages and making claims based on small sample sizes, I generally like to know exactly what is going on (honestly, this is not a reflection of the quality of those posts, but a mere reflection of how I solve most problems I deal with on a daily basis). I guess some of this is also just a tendency to "go all the way" on the nerd factor as well -- I actually find the exact win percentage possibilities to be quite interesting (hell, I might even assign problems like this to some of my graduate students to work on to get them ready for some tricky comprehensive exam questions).
Finally, I think that a set of precise statements about why the deck is bad for Magic as a whole is stronger when supported by some quantification. Of course, if the ridiculousness is salient enough, then the quantification is just "gravy", so to speak. On the other hand, it is a fallacious argument to say that since a B/R decision hasn't been based on such evidence in the past that it is unnecessary -- that doesn't invalidate the process and possible importance of the quantification for the question at hand. Dismissing it prior to the completion of the exercise, makes the argument appear weaker as it seems supporters of the restriction are worried that the numbers won't support their claims -- although I have a very strong sense that they will in the end.
For further clarification, upon rereading my original post, I can see how the tone indicates that I think that 7.2% is no big deal so let's get on with our lives. This is really meant to be a first pass at things and get some feedback (which I already feel as been successful) to get a more detailed analysis. Once Turn 2 is taken into account, the numbers will look a lot different. I am one that agrees that this does take a little fun out of magic, but I don't know what the right restriction is -- I lean more and more towards Merchant Scroll because I am inherently opposed to it being unrestricted regardless of the deck.
