Months ago and on a different website, I said that Magic Online gave us the ability to statistically track the best cards and strategies for the formats available there. This article marks the first rigorous attempt to statistically model a limited format. I thousands of cards played in Zendikar limited, and recorded the cards that contributed to these wins and losses. Over the next five days, I will be releasing the results for all the commons. Unlike traditional analysis, the data will not be a matter of opinion and heresy—they will be of pure observation. I will not justify cards are good because I said so—they will be good because they have won actual games on Magic Online. (However, I will include a brief explanation for why every card appears where it does, based on my in-game observations.) The results will surprise you and may make you reconsider everything from pick orders to some of the very basic conventional wisdom of limited formats.

Before I begin with the results, I must detail the methodology of my experiment. (If this does not interest you, feel free to skip to the list of cards.) To begin, I assume that skill, luck, and the quality of a player's deck determine who wins any particular confrontation. While undoubtedly skill matters, this study is focused on the luck and card quality factors. Players actually have a great deal of control over both of these, as a poorly-constructed deck will win less often than a well-constructed one. From this, we can conclude that some cards contribute to wins more frequently than others. If an average card ever reached play in a game, we would expect its controller to have only won that game around 50% of the time. But if a truly exceptional card reached play, we would expect its controller to have won upwards of 70% of the time.

Watching replays of Pro Tour San Diego qualifiers on Magic Online (and carefully avoiding the qualifier in which the system malfunctioned and everyone played a 140 card deck—yes, this actually happened), I recorded the results of more than a thousand players. Every time a card hit play, I would record it as either a win or a loss, depending on what ultimately happened in that game. If the card reached play multiple times (perhaps because of a Grim Discovery), it only counted once. But if a player cast multiples of a single card, I counted that card multiple times.

Such a large number of observations were necessary to remove the play skill bias that would have shown up in a smaller-n study. It also shrinks the margins of error, allowing for better hypothesis testing, which I ran at 90%, 95%, and 99% confidence.

For those of you unfamiliar with hypothesis testing, here is a brief explanation for what each of those means:

90% Confidence: When I say we can be 90% confident that a card positively contributes to victories, it means that there was only a 10% chance that the card has no impact and the data came back so eschewed based on pure luck. While the odds of being wrong here are only 1/10, we should be very skeptical of these results as statisticians. Generally, it is only a good idea to accept these results if we have a good theory behind them. For example, I would accept Burst Lightning—a quality removal spell as being true—but I would cast doubt on whether Blood Seeker was actually affecting things.

95% Confidence: This is the gold standard of statistics. When a card meets 95% confidence, the likelihood the card is merely average but we got this extreme of data back is only 1/20. At this point, it is a good idea to start thinking of theories to justify the results if you do not have one already.

99% Confidence: While rare (there were only four in this study), a 99% confidence virtually guarantees that a given card has an impact on the match—there is only a 1/100 chance that this result is wrong. You should pay careful attention to these.

Just because a card does not show up a significant does not mean you should not care about the results. But you should not treat them as gospel, either. The best analogy I can draw is to that of a baseball team. It is possible that your star hitter goes through a minor slump at the beginning of the season and an average player goes on a torrid streak at the same time. That does not mean the average player is better than the star; it just means he was better during that period of observation. So don’t be surprised if the study ranks an average card lower than one you perceive as a top-pick. My card-by-card commentary will help qualitatively decide whether this was just statistical coincidence or if it might be part of a larger trend.

Additionally, just because a card is sub-50% does not mean you should automatically stop playing it in all of your decks. Going back to the baseball analogy, a team cannot field nine players with batting averages all over .300. But it can maximize its performance by putting its best players in the lineup. So if you need to play (Vampire’s Bite) to have enough black cards to justify running Sorin Markov, go right ahead; but if Vampire Lacerator is floating around in your sideboard, the data indicate you should swap out the Vampire’s Bite.

On to the cards. Today is white. Let’s begin with a list of the cards ordered by their win percentages:

Steppe Lynx: 68%**
Cliff Threader: 60%
Kor Skyfisher: 60%
Journey to Nowhere: 56%
Kor Sanctifiers: 55%
Ondu Cleric: 55%
Makindi Shieldmate: 50%
Kor Hookmaster: 48%
Kor Cartographer: 45%
Kor Outfitter: 41%
Nimbus Wings: 30%**
Bold Defense: Ineligible
Caravan Hurda: Ineligible
Narrow Escape: Ineligible
Noble Vestige: Ineligible
Pillarfield Ox: Ineligible
(Shieldmate’s Blessing): Ineligible
Sunspring Expedition: Ineligible

*Statistic is significant at 90%.
**Statistic is significant at 95%.
***Statistic is significant at 99%.
A card is ineligible when there are fewer than 20 observations.

Now let’s run down the cards:

Steppe Lynx: 68%**
Before reading this article, I bet you believed that Journey to Nowhere is the best white common available. That may be the case—we’ll see why Journey to Nowhere is a full 12% lower in a moment—but Steppe Lynx is here because it really, really wins games. No one drop in this format puts on greater pressure than the Lynx, and tricks with fetchlands and Harrow do some ridiculous things. Because there aren’t many creatures in the format that can block it early, your opponent ends up having to spend a removal spell like Burst Lightning or Disfigure early on, which prevents them from using those spells on bigger beaters later on. Add in the fact that Steppe Lynx remains relevant in the later game, and you have a great card. Its one flaw—that it is useless on defense—hardly seems to matter.

Later in the week, we will see that this is not a coincidence: the entire cycle of common landfall creatures have favorable ratings, three of which are statistically significant.

Cliff Threader: 60%
Blocking does not work very well in this format. We’ve known that since the prerelease. But it might come as a surprise that a 2/1 creature with mountainwalk does so well for itself. Cliff Threader does well for a few reasons. First, and most obvious, is that anyone sideboarding this in will have a 2/1 unblockable creature whenever they cast it in games two and three. Two untouchable damage per turn starting on turn two puts your opponent on an extremely short clock and requires a removal spell right away, just like Steppe Lynx. However, you should probably be maindecking Cliff Threader, as red was the most popular color in the games I tracked, and was frequently featured as at least a splash color for access to Burst Lightning and Magma Rift. And, in the worst case scenario, the Threader is a 2/1 for two mana. That’s okay in Zendikar, especially since you don’t have to worry about Plated Geopede blocking it.

Kor Skyfisher: 60%
Yes, the top three cards for white all are creatures costing two mana or less. There’s always been some question as to whether the risk of lost tempo keeps Kor Skyfisher from being a great creature. This data should help answer that question. Playing Skyfisher on turn two on the draw with no permanent to pick up is a horrible idea. But outside of that, you can’t go wrong. Any time you can retrigger an important 187-ability makes you very likely to win the game. Meanwhile, a turn one Adventuring Gear followed by Kor Skyfisher isn’t a horrible play either and puts your opponent on a limited clock.

On a side note, as we will see tomorrow, Kor Skyfisher has one not-so-obvious consequence: it makes Paralyzing Grasp awful.

Journey to Nowhere: 56%
If I sat down at a draft today and opened Journey to Nowhere along with Steppe Lynx, Cliff Threader, or Kor Skyfisher, I would not hesitate to take Journey first. The reason it ranks so low here, though, is a little humorous: people are terrible playing it. In the 37 losses I observed Journey to Nowhere being a part of, an all-too-common theme was something like this:

Turn 1: Plains, Go.
Turn 1: Swamp, Vampire Lacerator, Go.
Turn 2: Plains, Journey to Nowhere, Go.
…
Turn 4: Swamp, Crypt Ripper, Attack, Go.
…
Turn 7: &@*# and your Crypt Ripper. You didn’t deserve to win that game. If I had just drawn one of my six removal spells, I would have won for sure. Lucksack.

Hey, Timothy Scrubsville, you did draw a removal spell. It was Journey to Nowhere! Your answer was in your opening hand—you were foolish enough to cast it on an average creature. No one should be surprised when they make such a boneheaded maneuver and lose, but it happens far too frequently. Played optimally, Journey to Nowhere is still white’s obvious MVP. Don’t let bad players change your mind about this.

On the bright side, however, I will be releasing a complete list of cards on Friday. This should assist players in making judgments whether a creature is worthy of a removal spell or not. Hint: Crypt Ripper is, Vampire Lacerator isn’t.

Kor Sanctifiers: 55%
This may seem fairly obvious analysis, but I will say it anyway: when Kor Sanctifiers is kicked, its controller usually wins. When it is not, its controller usually loses. The good news is that there are a couple great cards in this format that Kor Sanctifiers can hit: Journey to Nowhere (on Crypt Keeper, not Vampire Lacerator) and Soul Stair Expedition (take my word for it until we get to black). In addition, it also nails a bunch of average to suboptimal cards (Paralyzing Grasp, Adventuring Gear, (Explorer’s Scope), Stonework Puma, and all of the Expeditions). Part of the trick is knowing when to hold Kor Sanctifiers and when to play it just for the body. In my estimation, people generally cast it too hastily. Nail down the right mix and Kor Sanctifiers will do better than 55% for you.

Ondu Cleric: 55%
Ondu Cleric gets buoyed by a strange fact: it is virtually exclusively played in heavy ally decks. Decks lucky enough to receive a bunch of Umara Raptors, Nimana Sell-Swords, and Tuktuk Grunts tend to do pretty well on their own. Thus, the 55% statistic is a little misleading, as the other cards from this group are doing the bulk of the work, and Ondu Cleric is just riding their coattails. In comparison, whenever I saw Ondu Cleric played on a battlefield devoid of allies, its controller promptly lost most of the time. Consequently, I do not recommend you run this guy unless he fits your deck. Compare to Makindi Shieldmate:

Makindi Shieldmate: 50%
Like Ondu Cleric, Makindi Shieldmate does exceedingly well in ally decks and very poorly outside of them. However, because the Shieldmate appears to do more than the Cleric, it gets played more frequently outside of its natural home. Players who attempt this are routinely punished for it. A wall of its size isn’t horrible for this format—it’s just not that great either. As a result, Makindi Shieldmate appears to do worse statistically than Ondu Cleric even though it is probably better in the aggregate. Don’t be caught in this trap.

Kor Hookmaster: 48%
Kor Hookmaster is about an average of a card as you can get. Its body is average and not compelling; its ability is average and not compelling; and consequently its win percentage is average and not compelling. Some of the time you will lock down a key attacker and buy yourself some extra time. Other times you will clear out a blocker for a couple turns, giving you the ability to swing for the win. The rest of the time you will just get a 2/2 for three mana, and frequently you won’t even be able to tap anything with it. Thus, Kor Hookmaster earns an unimpressive 48%.

Kor Cartographer: 45%
This might come as a surprise given Zendikar’s theme and how good the common cycle of landfall creatures are statistically. However, in practice, Kor Cartographer does not contribute much. Don’t get me wrong—it is nice to swing for an extra couple of points of damage when combined with Steppe Lynx and its ilk. But most of the time you get a 2/2 with an extra Plains. Unfortunately, mana acceleration doesn’t come at a premium when it puts your fifth land into play. Hence Kor Cartographer ranks lower than you might have thought.

Kor Outfitter: 41%
Out of all white’s cards that qualified for this ranking system, Kor Outfitter does the second-to-worst, and it’s lucky it didn’t fall to an even lower percentage. In a good number of the Outfitter’s victories, its controller would have been equally as well off with a 2/2 with no abilities or perhaps even better with a vanilla 2/2 for 1W. Yes, you can save a mana here and there by immediately equipping your Adventuring Gear or Explorer’s Scope, but that does not compensate you for an awkwardly priced 2/2.

Nimbus Wings: 30%**
Despite conventional wisdom, not all creature enchantments fared poorly in this study. Nimbus Wings wasn’t one of those. You can attribute the 30% to the natural risks that creature enchantments leave you vulnerable to. Other creature enchantments get away with it because they afford some sort of protection to the creature they enchant. Here, Nimbus Wings barely provides a boost to toughness, and somewhat humorously leaves you open to Oran-Rief Recluse. (Yes, I witnessed this happen.) Thus, it gives me great pleasure to say Nimbus Wings is bad to a statistically significant extent.

Bold Defense: Ineligible (8-1**)
While only appearing in nine games (a sign that people don’t want to put the card in their decks), Bold Defense won in eight games and lost only one, which actually makes it statistically significant to 95% confidence. On one hand, it acts as a bit of an Overrun in the late game, so it should not be surprising that Bold Defense has a good win percentage. On the other, I wonder how many times it just sat in its controller’s hand while they got pummeled by opposing creatures without the mana to ever cast the thing. As such, I want more data on Bold Defense before I pass final judgment on it.

Caravan Hurda: Ineligible (1-4)
Step one: spend five mana. Step two: put a creature that is functionally a wall into play. Step three: gain one life whenever it actually engages in combat. I don’t think that Caravan Hurda’s 20% mark in limited action is a coincidence, and I always wondered why its controller ever decided to put it in his or her deck in the first place.

Narrow Escape: Ineligible (5-6)
Three of these five wins came from playing Journey to Nowhere, stacking the ability, casting Narrow Escape, removing an opposing creature from the game permanently, and then recasting Journey to Nowhere. Another picked up a creature with a Paralyzing Grasp on it (hint: Paralyzing Grasp is terrible). The other saved a creature from dying in combat. Most of the six losses saw a player desperately clinging on for another turn by grabbing an irrelevant permanent just for the extra life. Thus, Narrow Escape is either a little awesome or very bad. I’d like to see some more data on it.

Noble Vestige: Ineligible (0-2)
Noble Vestige was played twice, both to losing efforts. Three mana for one damage in the air a turn or a limited healer effect doesn’t go far in any format. I don’t want to see any more data for this one, nor do I think I will be able to find people silly enough to run it in their decks to give me that data.

Pillarfield Ox: Ineligible (11-5)
Somehow, Pillarfield Ox managed to rake in a 69% clip in limited action. I do not have an explanation for why that is the case other than random chance, as it did not do much in any of the games I watched. Treat this one as coincidence until I pull in more data.

(Shieldmate’s Blessing): Ineligible (3-3)
Was Healing Salve too good? (Keep in mind it came from a cycle that included (Ancestral Recall), Dark Ritual, and Lightning Bolt.) While Shieldmate’s Blessing came out at an even 3-3 over six games, I’d still prefer a slightly below average creature like Kor Hookmaster or Kor Cartographer over a poor combat trick like this one.

Sunspring Expedition: Ineligible (1-4)
How much life do you need to gain from a single card to make it worthwhile in limited? Eight is not enough, apparently. Even when Sunspring Expedition went off, it barely affected the game. And the times when it didn’t were absolutely miserable for its controller. Try applying pressure with Steppe Lynx instead.

That wraps up all of white’s commons. Although there are only five cards above 50% that meet the requirements to be eligible for the study, four of them are quite good, and consequently white is underappreciated in this format.

Next time, we will run down blue and answer some pressing questions such as:

Is Reckless Scholar any good in a format that requires playing lands, not discarding them?
Do 0/4s for one mana do anything?
Was someone silly enough to play Spell Pierce?
And finally, just how bad is (Paralyzing Grasp, an alleged “removal” spell?

See you then.

William Spaniel

williamspaniel@gmail.com