Now that I'm back at a proper keyboard rather than the tablet...
You're being deliberately obtuse, koadah, a form of trolling in which you revel and excel (probably due to practice). However, to humour you:
1.
http://www.plasmoids.dk/bbowl/NTBB.htm talks of Tier 0 teams:
The BBRC seem to have managed to get all the tier 1 teams into the 55-45% win zone that they wanted. But a handful of teams start out stronger than this, then fall down into the tier 1 zone in prolonged league play. In tournament play and short league play these teams are at a notable advantage - so I've introduced some minor changes to lessen their short term power without weakening their long term performance.
It lists those teams as: Dwarf, Wood Elf, Amazon, Undead and Orc.
2. When asked what stats were used to assess this statement,
these were presented (second table, combined stats), but with the caveat that the Necro LRB6 data was ignored due to the fact that Golem prices changed by 10k, and the Necro(Old) stats from
this table were used. The actual numbers he is using are referenced in
this post.
This is where the issue is. Without teaching you to suck eggs, looking at those leagues alone does tell how well races have done in those leagues at that time, but that is all the bare win%s tell you. If you want to assume that those are representative of early-game league play in general then you have to take them as a sample of a larger (effectively infinite) population, and you will therefore have a range of values and a confidence interval (as VM explained so well earlier), and that will depend on the sample size in each case. You also need to make a fairly large number of assumptions about the sample itself, since to be considered valid the sample should be randomly taken, which these leagues are not: there are selection biases involved as well as biases towards coach skill, league structure and league composition. Glossing over all that, and assuming that the sample is considered to be a random (or at least "good enough") sample of the population (which, if only the dice were the difference between each matchup, they would be), we can then look at the size of the margin of error to 95CI. When we do that using very basic techniques we see that the range of values for all the teams does reach into into the 45-55% region. This means that the statement "a handful of teams start out stronger than this" from the quote above isn't justified at all by the stats that were used.
Even ignoring that, and let's say that we just look at the win%s pulled up by those leagues and ignore the CI ranges, neither Amazons nor Orcs are actually above the tier. Two of the 5 teams in the Tier 0 section whose changes are justified by the fact that they "start out stronger than this" can be seen not to in the very stats used to justify the changes.
Now I'm not against Martin's house rules at all: I'm trying them out on PBeM and enjoying it. But to claim that they are justified in the manner stated is just incorrect. I've been helping Martin to try to shore up the stats somewhat, but the issue remains for the moment: the stats do not say what is being claimed.