my point is simply that wizards may have been making decision based solely on top 8 all along. their diversity bans (bbe, deathrite, pod, twin) are all exactly explained by top 8, and the fact that the first three were also justified by broader metagame shares is possibly just a coincidence. the ban announcements do mention the broader metagame, but i’m pretty sure those are written after the decision is already made. so the language doesn’t necessarily reflect that exact reasoning that went into the decision. if nothing else, the twin ban has showed us that when the broader metagame and the top 8 metagame differ, wizards bases ban decisions on the latter.

I hope Wizards addresses concerns like this soon. Although Modern does need lots of high-level support to stay strong, it’s very possible the Pro Tour is not what’s best for the format. Improved communication would give everyone a better sense about Wizards’ priorities in PT events and with the format.

These are interesting numbers but they don’t really speak to my main argument here. In all the format-diversity ban cases (except, of course, Twin), either the metagame share OR the Top 8 prevalence would have been a good predictor. Twin is the first one where the Day 2 data is misaligned with past examples. Decks like Eggs, Storm, and Amulet don’t count here because they were banned for different reasons, so the standards are going to change relative to the format-diversity bans. But among format-diversity bans, all the previous ones had both the Top 8 piece and the metagame element, and either of those would have been predictive of the ban. Twin changed that which is likely either a new policy by Wizards (in which case, I strongly disagree with it), or a willful diversion from the old policy to fulfill a secondary goal.

This seems like a great way to drive Modern interest. New cards, reprints, and unbans seem WAY more exciting to me than bans. The latter leaves a bad taste in the mouth and alienates at least as many players as it appeases. The former is sure to make some people unhappy, but they should be in a relative minority to those who were pissed off at bans. This marketing approach would do wonders for Modern as a whole.

I agree that this is a decision we as players need to make. We also need to make it clear to Wizards. If Wizards knows we are fine watching PTs with the same old Modern decks, they’ll probably be less likely to ban cards to shake things up. It’s very possible Wizards is operating from a place of ignorance about what viewers want to see. Alternately, maybe some audience members did express disinterest in watching a stagnant Modern format, and Wizards is just responding to that. The key in all this, no matter what mechanisms are at play, is communication. Wizards needs to be more transparent about these issues and better at soliciting feedback from Modern players.

I don’t know if there’s the monetary support available for a 5th PT. Hasbro might not be interested in that kind of event, and they might have a big hand in writing those kinds of checks. That said, I do think Modern would benefit from lots of GPs, a Worlds format, and more extensive SCG support. A PT is supposed to showcase new cards and Modern isn’t going to consistently accomplish that goal. I love Modern and want it to succeed, but the longterm format picture might demand losing the Modern PT entirely.

Although there are certainly reasons to be nervous about the new metagame, we should stay optimistic for a while. Remember that PT FRF had 25%-30% of the field on straight Abzan last year, and that metagame quickly changed to something less offensive and warped. We’ll probably see something similar this year. If the linear masses are still on top into June, however, that will be another issue entirely.

It will be interesting to see what URx strategies evolve out of the change. We’re not seeing this in the early metagame indicators, but I expect they’ll start to emerge more concretely after the Pro Tour and SCG Regionals!

2012 season (1 PT, 8 GP’s):
wins — 3 jund
top 8’s — 16 jund, 11 pod, 9 affinity
banned: bloodbraid elf, seething song

2013 season (7 GP’s):
wins — 3 pod
top 8’s — 10 jund, 7 affinity, 7 pod
banned: deathrite shaman, second sunrise

2014 season (1 PT, 7 GP’s):
wins — 3 pod
top 8’s — 14 pod, 7 affinity, 7 twin
banned: birthing pod, dig through time, treasure cruise

2015 season (1 PT, 7 GP’s):
wins — 3 twin
top 8’s — 12 twin, 7 affinity
banned: splinter twin, summer bloom

every season, they banned a card from both the deck with the most wins and the deck with the most top 8’s. three of these seasons that was the same deck, and in 2013 they banned a card (deathrite shaman) that was present in both. i also think this is rational from wotc’s point of view. although day 2 metagame is a far more meaningful sample than top 8’s, the vast majority of modern players only look at top 8 lists or possibly winners only. further evidence is the timing of the second sunrise ban. it was the only ban announcement since 2011 that did not occur in jan/feb. although eggs first won the pro tour in october of 2012, it wasn’t banned until it won a second tournament, a GP in march of 2013.

With each set they can print a few reprints here or there, and all of a sudden, people will want to buy the set in hopes to get something good. I loved how awesome Khans was for the fetchlands. Ravinca and the shocklands, Theros with Thoughtseize. These chase modern cards, makes people want to buy the set. That’s a great thing.

So I really believe that from what we have seen and whats been said by forscythe and others is that we really have to choose between watching pro players play our favorite format for 2 days and having decks get banned in the process for years to come or do we take modern off the pro-tour and keep our format more secure.
I really don’t think it’s possible for us to tell wizards we are fine having the same decks be there year after year. I think it is probably closer to one or the other at this point.

Would you consider this a Win-Win situation as I do?

Couldn’t agree more.

FWIW Modern Masters can’t introduce new cards to the format since it’s a supplementary set and as such not itself legal in Modern. The only way for cards to enter the modern card pool(unless they redefine included sets), is through standard.

Great to hear you are enjoying the Modern content! We started the site with a data-driven mission, and I’m glad users think we are sticking to our roots.

I think Summer Bloom was a goner regardless of the Pro Tour. As long as Wizards upholds the turn four rule, decks like Bloom gotta go. It was just too offensive on too many grounds. I also think Pod, DRS, and Bloodbraid also would have gone regardless of the PT. The only ones I am less sure about are DTT (which could have survived on metagame stats but likely would have been banned later, as in Legacy) and Twin (which didn’t have half of the justification to begin with). We’ll see how the post-Twin world shapes out, and I have some interesting numbers coming out on Wednesday to talk about this. Of course, even if the new metagame is more diverse than the old one, that still doesn’t mean the methods to get there were good ones. These means might lead us somewhere much worse in the future and Wizards needs to address that.