17Lands: Where I Agree, Disagree, and What Data You Should Be Taking From It

Bereaved Survivor Art by Zara Alfonso
Bereaved Survivor Art by Zara Alfonso

Hopefully everyone is doing well! Today I’m finally writing about my perspective on the 17Lands database because it’s gotten to the point where it seems like it’s the main source of draft data that Arena Limited players are currently using. It’s a very detailed and in-depth approach to identifying the best cards and strategies of a specific Limited format and another big appeal of it is the large sample size that’s used to collect the data for it. Players who have 17Lands setup can simply draft and have all their information easily added to the database.

However, a huge issue that I come across over and over when I see people discussing 17Lands data is just how bad players are at interpreting the data that is present. I see players often stating how one archetype is better than another because it has a higher win rate according to 17Lands, and that’s an incredibly detrimental mindset to have when it comes to participating in Limited discourse. In my opinion, draft is probably the most complex and dynamic forms of Magic, and it’s impossible to answer all the questions about it by simply going over card/archetype win rates.

17Lands is still a tool to use that could help improve your Limited game, so in this article I want to highlight what data I agree with, which I don’t, and what you should and shouldn’t be using 17Lands data for. There’s an absolute mountain of data on the site, so hopefully I’m identifying it correctly because otherwise that would be really embarrassing! Let’s dive in, starting with the color ratings!

Format Color Ratings

I don’t think this data matters particularly much because you’re not going to often draft mono-colored decks in this set. I’ve done so many drafts and have yet to have it happen for me. Plus if you end up multicolored in a Draft and end up with enough playables, then you probably did a great job reading the table and were the only one in that color. If that’s the case, you’re going to have a solid deck regardless of whatever color it is.

Mono-colored decks are so great in Limited because they get to ignore the biggest issue with Limited decks; their mana base. Having perfect mana every game just increases your win rate by an insane amount. So don’t look to this data to decide what color is the best in draft. In my eyes, this information serves little to no purpose beyond reinforcing being the only drafter of a color at a table is obviously good.

Format Color Combination Ratings

Now this is the juicy data that I was looking forward to breaking down! During every Limited format in recent memory there has been constant debate over what color combination is the best at a given time. In Midnight Hunt Limited, you’re almost always two colors, so I wanted to focus on the win rates for those archetypes. What makes Midnight Hunt a great format is that every two color combination is viable, even the worst one’s like Boros. 17Lands data also seems to support this assumption since the discrepancy between the highest and lowest win rates archetypes is 7.5%, which is a decent, but not insurmountable gap. Here’s how the color combinations are ranked according to 17lands data:

  1. Azorius
  2. Dimir
  3. Simic
  4. Selesnya
  5. Orzhov
  6. Boros
  7. Golgari
  8. Rakdos
  9. Izzet
  10. Gruul

However this data needs to be properly interpreted, so you can’t just assume that this is an accurate ranking of the ten color pairs. Certain archetypes are harder to play, draft, and sometimes they’re being over-drafted or under-drafted depending on the current Limited metagame. Sometimes players prioritize the wrong cards for a certain color combination or maybe they aren’t executing the proper game plan for that color combination. There is also a large discrepancy in games played for each color combination, with Dimir having almost 100,000 games played, Azorius only having 46,000, and Gruul having a surprisingly low 18,000 games in the database. Most importantly, what games is this data being taken from? New and inexperienced players inputting their data does more harm than good when it comes to reaching solid conclusions. In my opinion, there are just too many variables skewing the validity of these rankings and I want to break down these specific issues while I’m talking about some of the color pair rankings.

Let’s start with Izzet, because I’ve actually found Izzet to be one of the best color combinations when it’s drafted correctl,y but it can also be one of the worst when you’re prioritizing the wrong cards. Izzet needs to be fast and based around Festival Crasher, Thermo-Alchemist, Delver of Secrets, and Seize the Storm. If you find yourself relying on Ardent Elementalist, Arcane Infusion, Unblinking Observer, and Mysterious Tome, you’re going to get quickly out-competed on the board by the colors with better creatures. What’s deceiving about this data is that Izzet Aggro and garbage Izzet midrange are grouped together, which means that the power of Izzet Aggro is overshadowed by the mediocrity of Izzet Midrange.

Azorius being labeled as the best archetype over Dimir and Simic is also incredibly confusing to me. Azorius has great creatures because of Disturb, but their removal is so much worse than Dimir and is ultimately what makes the color combination so weak to creatures with powerful abilities like Morbid Opportunist and Skaab Wrangler. A reason why Azorius might be winning so much is players undervaluing the color combination. I’ve noticed during drafts that Mourning Patrol, Beloved Beggar, Lunarch Veteran, and Shipwreck Sifters are consistently going much later than they should be. Every creature with Disturb is good, and it still seems like a lot of players aren’t properly evaluating just how powerful it is to draft an Azorius deck with multiple Disturb creatures and Shipwreck Sifters. I like Azorius, but I feel like it’s win rate is slightly inflated and that there’s a very low chance that Azorius is a more powerful color combination than Dimir and Simic.

It feels criminal for Golgari to have a higher win rate than Gruul! I’m assuming that a ton of players draft Gruul poorly, and that’s why the win rate here is so low. This isn’t like Ravnica Allegiance where you just take cheap creatures and hope to get there. Gruul revolves heavily around having cheap Werewolves and creatures that start the Day/Night cycle early; you’re not interested in bad two drops like Pestilent Wolf and Timberland Guide. I feel like this data is deterring players from drafting Gruul, which is a shame because the color combination is very good because of how good it’s creatures are and how well it makes use of Lunar Frenzy and Duel for Dominance. Again, this data also groups together Gruul Werewolves and Gruul Spells, which are entirely different decks that almost certainly have way different win rates.

Overall, I wouldn’t put too much credence to the color combination data listed here. It’s correct in identifying Dimir, Simic, Orzhov, and Azorius as the conventionally best archetypes because they have the overall highest card quality, but it doesn’t take into account factors like player mistakes, improper deck building, multiple archetypes in one color combination, demand for the archetypes, under and over evaluation of certain cards, etc. The only purpose I could see for this data is it supporting the idea that every color combination is viable and getting a very basic hierarchy, even if it isn’t entirely accurate.

Individual Card Ratings

This was the section that I was most excited to dive into. Having a database that accurately evaluated cards based on their performance at every stage of the game is an incredible tool to use when considering what cards to take during a Draft. It was slightly confusing and a lot to dive into at first, but I’m honestly not the best when it comes to data science. I wanted to break down the relevance of the following in-game data metrics that are being collected on: games in hand win rate, opening hand win rate, improvement when drawn, and games played win rate. I’m not really interested in how late or early cards are being taken because those trends are drastically fluctuating at all times. Measuring the in game metrics is what I believe could end up being the best way to determine just how powerful/weak some of these cards are. This is is what the table looks like on the site:

Let’s start with Lunarch Veteran. Some players love the card, while others hate it. Personally, I’ve found the card to be mediocre in most decks and excellent in only a select few, namely Azorius Disturb with a bunch of Shipwreck Sifters. However, the game drawn win rate of Lunarch Veteran is 59.3% with an opening hand win rate of 63.1%, which is absolutely preposterous to me since it’s higher than the opening hand win rate of Organ Hoarder, which is only 62.2%. The fact that the opening hand win rate of Lunarch Veteran is even close to cards like Adeline, Resplendent Cathar (which has a 66.4% opening hand win rate) makes me incredibly skeptical of players being able to draw the right conclusions from this data. Obviously it’s good to have your one drop in your opening hand, but it’s not anything special or even particularly close to Adeline, so let’s all cool it on Lunarch Veteran!

Let’s go to another couple cards that are making me weary of the data being presented. Wake the Slaughter introduced another issue with the data being portrayed. The game drawn win rate for the card is 47.2%, which more or less says the card is atrocious because your win rate decreases when you draw it or have it in your hand. Now I’m not saying that Wake the Slaughter is a good card (I agree that it’s pretty bad) but it yet again brings up the issue of inexperienced players misusing cards and affecting the validity of the data surrounding the card. The only people who are willing to even try Wake the Slaughter after reading it would normally be a more novice player, which makes me worried that accurate data on the card will never be reached since I can’t see an experienced Midnight Hunt drafter ever being interested in taking and playing it.

Crossroads Candleguide has a similar issue, except it’s a way better card than it’s currently labeled as. I see a lot of players playing it in their streamlined two color decks, which explains why the opening hand win rate of the card is only 47.7 and why the games not drawn win rate is higher than the games drawn win rate. However, Candleguide is actually surprisingly decent in a three or four color deck that isn’t glutted with four and five drops. The same is the case with Mystic Skull because it’s a bad card that does actually have a home where it can shine. Yet again, data being acquired from newer players is incorrectly skewing the value of the card.

Is 17Lands Useful Then?

Absolutely! For example, the data is pretty on point when it comes to a card like Heirloom Mirror. This card is such a trap because the flipside is so powerful and enticing, even though in actuality it’s near impossible to reach. The card is unplayable, and the game not drawn win rate being higher than the game drawn win rate supports that. That means that a new player could avoid pitfall cards like this by looking at the data, which is a great resource to have if you’re newer to Limited and are trying to improve at it.

Overall, I don’t think that 17Lands data is for the very invested/experienced Limited players, but that’s okay! Reviewing the data will help paint a picture of the format in a less experienced player’s head while helping them to not grossly misevaluate a card that they’re unsure about. A decent amount of the data also supports a lot of the same format conclusions that myself and other Limited devotees have come to, so it’s not like I have issues with a lot of the data being presented. In short, it’s going to help you identify the best and worst cards in the format more often than not, even if situational cards like Lunarch Veteran slip through the cracks.

If I’m being honest though, if you’re really unsure about a format, I’d look to the many masters of Limited to get your questions answered. Ben Stark, Sam Black, Mike Sigrist, TheHamTV (Kyle Rose), Martin Juza, LSV, Raphael Levy, PVDDR, Marcio Carvalho, Jean-Emmanuel Depraz, Shuhei Nakamura, Reid Duke, William Jensen, Chrisitan Hauck, Jacob Wilson, Allen Wu, and there’s definitely way more but these are some of masters that came off the top of my head. I trust their opinions and know that the opinions they’re expressing aren’t being skewed by the inputs of less experienced players.

It kinds of reminds me of ancient Greece and why it placed such importance on public education. In order for Greek Democracy to work, all the citizens who were participating in it had to be highly educated. That’s kind of how I feel about this data. I only want input from those who are experienced in the format and general Limited theory because if everyone can give their input then you’re going to have a lot of incorrect data being inputted. That causes the results and data that are being acquired become muddied and significantly less reliable since data input from Bronze players and Mythic players hold the same weight.

Feel free to disagree with my assessment of 17Lands though, and talk to me about it in the comments! I’m always open to being wrong and there’s definitely a chance that I’m missing something here because this data was a little difficult to break down.

Thanks for reading!

Chris Kvartek

While Chris Kvartek technically kicked off his career in 2012, he burst onto the scene in 2019 like few before him. With an early season Top Finish at Mythic Championship II and narrow miss for his second at Mythic Championship IV, Kvartek earned invitations to two more Mythic Championships through online qualifiers. He secured his second Top Finish of the season at Mythic Championship VII, and now this rising star must prove he can stay among the elite of professional Magic.

3 Responses

  1. Draugdur says:

    Thanks for this article! It’s really important to emphasize that raw data is not enough, it needs to be interpreted correctly to get a full picture. It’s especially important to take into account things like people overdrafting, underdrafting, not switching when they should etc., which is difficult to reflect in statistics.

    That said, I don’t think the rating of Gruul is that much of a mistake, at least for the Werewolves deck. I can imagine it can be a good deck when it comes together, but it is incredibly reliant on uncommons. There are very few playable wolves or werewolves at common (and I’d argue, none that are great). And even worse, the good uncommon werewolves are not just playable in Gruul, but everywhere. Any green deck will want cards like Burly Breaker or Hound Tamer, and any red deck will want Fangblade Brigand and Lunar Frenzy…except MAYBE Izzet spells, but they’re rock solid even in that deck. Contrast Azorius disturb, which runs on cards like SIfter or Faithful mending which nobody else wants.

    And I’m still completely perplexed about Simic. Not that I’ve drafted that much – but still, I’ve seen every single form of deck (including 5C garbage) except that one. But it was also never open.

    • Chris Kvartek says:

      Hey draugdur thanks for the comment! What’s nice about Gruul werewolves is that it actually can make great use of some of the less desirable common werewolves like Harvesttide Infiltrator, Bird Admirer, and Tavern Ruffian when you combine them with Unnatural Moonrise and powerful activated abilities like those of Hound Tamer, lambholt Harrier, and Fangblade Brigand. Simic is great pretty much soley off the back of Eccentric farmer and Organ Hoarder with Flashback and Disturb. it’s really hard to outgrind Simic, which is why it’s one of the best decks and for sure something you should always be looking to draft!

  2. Derael says:

    While I agree that you need to interpret the data correctly, in my experience the data seems to be collected from relatively high level players, and I assume low rank players data is already pre-filtered. I’ve been a slightly above average drafter with roughly 53-54% winrate (I didn’t play magic before arena, so I wasn’t very experienced to begin with). But after I started using 17lands, my winrate skyrocketed, and today I got to mythic for the first time as F2P player (I’m currently at Mythic rank 217). So unless we are talking about one of the 500 best limited players, this data will undoubtedly be useful to anyone.

    The only thing I strongly agree with is that mono colored deck data isn’t very useful, but I haven’t seen anyone judge color strength by mono colored decks data. When it comes to color pair strength, the data is actually very accurate. The main reason why Golgari has better winrate than Gruul is simple: black is a much stronger color in this draft environment. Yes, you can build a strong gruul deck. But it’s ONLY worth attempting if Gruul is obviously open, and you got a few bombs. But even then, it’s still a questionable choice. Gruul was open in almost every draft I played, and yet, it still has one of the lowest winrates in the game. Even if players draft it incorrectly, it’s still a very weak color pair. On the other hand, while Azorius on average isn’t as good as Dimir (but it’s probably better than Simic), when you open a few golden cards in Azorius colors and/or Sifters, you can build a very potent aggro decks that flies over the opponents defense and quickly kills them. On top of being fast and evasive, it can also outgrind many opponents thanks to disturb. Yes, removal is the weakest link of Azorius, but when you are flying over their heads, even cards like Morbid Opportunist might be too slow. But there is a reason why despite having the highest winrate, Azorius isn’t more popular: it’s very dependent on a few key cards. So if you didn’t open any/many of them early, it’s better to simply switch to Dimir or Orzhov.

    As for Lunarch Veteran, just like Chaplain of Alms, it’s a VERY good card, and completely deserves its winrate. The reason is its versatility. It fits perfectly in UW, BW and GW decks. 1/1 body is fine in early game to push some damage through and get some health, and as many games end up in races, those damage and health go a long way. And then you can use it as a sac fodder or chump blocker, and get yourself a free 1/1 flier out of the deal, which will continue to heal you throughout the game. And in multiples it can easily let you outrace any opponent. It is just as good as Organ Hoarder in many decks, just more agressively slanted.

    As for Wake the Slaughter, I think the likley reason for its low winrate is that it was mostly played when there weren’t enough good playables to begin with, so it’s not that the new players played it, but that the deck itself was bad. But the reason why it’s not played unless pressured is that it’s bad to begin with, so nothing surprising about WR or IWD.

    Admittedly, I mostly ranked up in the higher ranks through QD, and I was 100% rare drafting when doing it, and QD meta is quite a bit different, but 17lands data was just as useful to me in Premier, and my winrate was close to 70% before I got to high platinum and switched to QDs. I haven’t drafted a single Green or Red deck, at all, and never regretted it. Azorius, Dimir and Orzhov are all very good, and you can easily switch between those 3, while staying open early, even more so in QD.

    Even if you are an expert drafter, it might be worth to try and draft a few games using data, to see a different perspective. Because I’ve seen even pro players criminally undervaluing cards all the time.