With these numbers Mentor adds up to be 16% and Shops adds up to be 22%. For me personally, 6% is close enough where I feel comfortable using the word "basically", but I can understand if some people disagree.
According to the data you just presented, with a total count of 544 decklists reported in the daily's you surveyed (the denominator), a 6% difference is equal to 33 decklists.
That means that there were 33 more Shops decks in reported daily's than Mentor decks. No, "basically the same" is not an accurate description. Nor is any synonym.
To put that in context, in historical Magic Metagame reports, there were many occassions in which only the top 3 or so decks even constituted more than 6% of the overall metagame. In other words, you could fill all of the Dredge decks in a metagame in some quarters with that percentage. That's more than many archetypes combined. I don't think there is any reasonable definition of "basically the same" that can bridge that gap.
My concern with your article is not simply the factual inaccuracy which I pointed out here, and which you now acknowledge having presented your data, but the impression conveyed in what may be reasonably read as a critique of the DCI's decision.
I don't always agree with the DCI, and I am on record saying I probably wouldn't have handled this restriction the same way, but I've been incredibly disappointed with some of the vitriol, venom and false characterizations of the DCI.
I must also add that I suspect that there are further errors in your data that undercount the number of Shop decks in your sample. In both the Daily Sample and Premier Event Sample I compiled with Kevin, we found that Shops were consistently no less than 31% of all reported decks. So for you to find that Shops are only 22% is a pretty significant discrepancy that I am skeptical can be explained by simply going back to October. Since Shops are both 31% of the Premier Top 16s and the reported dailys in our sample (Jan 1 to March 20th, when we did our podcast), Shops would have to be about 12% of the reported decklists in October, November and December to average out to 22%. That seems very unlikely to me.
It's possible that people jumped off of Shops hastily following Chalice's restriction, and that could explain a brief dip in Shops numbers, but Kevin and I had previously found Shops to be 50% of reported daily decks prior to Chalice's restriction. In any case, I think my data - starting in January (or, in the case of the premier events, November) makes more sense as it is more proximate.
I should also add, lest you feel picked on, that my concern here is not you or any particular individual, but the overly casual claims made by far too many Vintage players (including VSLers on Dark Petition) regarding prevalence, dominance, or representation.
On a personal level Steve, in the future I would really appreciate the chance to give a real explanation before my credibility is attacked.
My first in this post in this thread merely says that a statement in your article was false/incorrect. Not every time someone disputes an empirical statement should it be interpreted as an "attack on someone's credibility."
I was watching a little bit of the replay of Rich Shay's twitch stream this evening, and I was actually astonished that some people felt that by posting data here and asserting that a quote in your article was a false statement that I was "attacking your credibility."
Moreover, my credibility was actually repeatedly attacked because I "wrote a book about Gush." There was also a good deal of venom and vitriol. Sad.
Moreover, your article, and others like it, could be read as an attack on the DCI's credibility. I consider that far more serious than any individual's pride. The legitimacy of the format depends on that, not to mention risks of an overreaction.
Second and more importantly, I did give you a "chance to give a real explanation."
I replied to your post linking this article with the comment:
""They occupied basically the same percentage of the metagame as all of the Mishra’s Workshop decks combined" This statement is not true. https://docs.google.com/.../1cj99OKyaTn7zLvyh3OND.../edit... https://docs.google.com/.../1cj99OKyaTn7zLvyh3OND.../edit... FYI."
To which you replied:
"This is all I'm going to say in this regard as I candidly don't want to get into this debate: I used a different data set than this, and mine took different things into consideration."
You had a chance to explain, you responded, and I found your response troubling on account not only of its vagueness and unwillingness to provide specifics, but more importantly because of the position that you were unwilling to even discuss it at all. Although I found your reply a bit suspicious, I never felt that you were being deceitful - just a bit fast and loose. That impression appears well founded, by your own admission.
I often enjoy your work, so I appreciate your willingness to try to strive for greater clarity. I think we can all aspire to that.