I am a big fan of this way of expressing cut conversion, whilst conversion rates are inherently impacted by other factors (such as pilot and that player's other deck) so is overall winrate, a deck might win 100% of it's games on bottom-mid tables.
This way of showing it is very clear and a useful statistic in my mind.
I'm not a fan of cut conversion rate because it conflates corp and runner success rates. To cherry pick an example, take the Worlds Showdown, where Santa made the cut with Azmari (2-2-0) and Ari (3-0-1). What are we to conclude about Azmari cut conversion when the player was carried by their runner?
Or in the same event, look at cicada who played Azmari 3-1-0, but 419 at 0-4-0. Had Cicada played a different runner and gone 2-2-0, she would have been in the bubble. If she had played 419 to a 3-1-0 record like enkoder or ChonkySeal, she'd have made the cut. What are we to conclude about Azmari in this case?
I can see an argument that cut conversion averages out these effects, but I don't think the sample size of any given ID in any event smaller than continentals is big enough to be confident in that claim. I think cut conversion is an inherently messy stat and not where I look for insights.
The useful (and beautiful) thing about cut conversion rates is that it actually accounts for both of the things that you describe (I would argue).
In the examples you give, I would suggest that the 2-2-0 Azmari result that got Santa into the cut indicates a better performance than the 3-1-0 result that cicada demonstrated. I would argue this because Santa was playing at higher tables. It is impossible to know for sure, but it's reasonable to expect that if cicada had performed better with 419, then their win rate with Azmari would have dropped* (as all of our win rates do when we face tougher opponents). This is a phenomenon that win rate does not account for, but that conversion rate does.
To be clear, I do not think that cut conversion rate alone is a trustworthy metric. However, for the very reasons that you describe, I don't believe that win rate is a trustworthy metric either. But I do think that, when considered together, we should get a fairly reliable performance indicator.
* None of this has anything to do with either players actual performance, I posit it simply as a working demonstration of how the swiss system self regulates.
I find conversion rate to be misleading at times: you express a decks conversion rate, but that stat is inherently tied to the player and the pair of decks they play rather than the single ID. A deck could perform badly, but still converse well of the other side gets particularly good results.
That being said I think comparing conversion rate and win rate can show more of what the data holds and is great at creating storylines
I am a big fan of this way of expressing cut conversion, whilst conversion rates are inherently impacted by other factors (such as pilot and that player's other deck) so is overall winrate, a deck might win 100% of it's games on bottom-mid tables.
This way of showing it is very clear and a useful statistic in my mind.
I'm not a fan of cut conversion rate because it conflates corp and runner success rates. To cherry pick an example, take the Worlds Showdown, where Santa made the cut with Azmari (2-2-0) and Ari (3-0-1). What are we to conclude about Azmari cut conversion when the player was carried by their runner?
Or in the same event, look at cicada who played Azmari 3-1-0, but 419 at 0-4-0. Had Cicada played a different runner and gone 2-2-0, she would have been in the bubble. If she had played 419 to a 3-1-0 record like enkoder or ChonkySeal, she'd have made the cut. What are we to conclude about Azmari in this case?
I can see an argument that cut conversion averages out these effects, but I don't think the sample size of any given ID in any event smaller than continentals is big enough to be confident in that claim. I think cut conversion is an inherently messy stat and not where I look for insights.
The useful (and beautiful) thing about cut conversion rates is that it actually accounts for both of the things that you describe (I would argue).
In the examples you give, I would suggest that the 2-2-0 Azmari result that got Santa into the cut indicates a better performance than the 3-1-0 result that cicada demonstrated. I would argue this because Santa was playing at higher tables. It is impossible to know for sure, but it's reasonable to expect that if cicada had performed better with 419, then their win rate with Azmari would have dropped* (as all of our win rates do when we face tougher opponents). This is a phenomenon that win rate does not account for, but that conversion rate does.
To be clear, I do not think that cut conversion rate alone is a trustworthy metric. However, for the very reasons that you describe, I don't believe that win rate is a trustworthy metric either. But I do think that, when considered together, we should get a fairly reliable performance indicator.
* None of this has anything to do with either players actual performance, I posit it simply as a working demonstration of how the swiss system self regulates.
I find conversion rate to be misleading at times: you express a decks conversion rate, but that stat is inherently tied to the player and the pair of decks they play rather than the single ID. A deck could perform badly, but still converse well of the other side gets particularly good results.
That being said I think comparing conversion rate and win rate can show more of what the data holds and is great at creating storylines