Which does more: unbanning twin or banning ancient stirrings?
Like multiple people said before, the Stirrings decks dont warp the format
So you build your main decks and sideboards without considering Tron, KCI, or Affinity?
I'd argue you are conflating metagaming with format-warping. By that account, taking ANY particular deck into consideration in card selection makes that deck format-warping.
Which does more: unbanning twin or banning ancient stirrings?
Twin unban.
Like multiple people said before, the Stirrings decks dont warp the format
Some of the most prevalent/dominant/most represented decks of the last tournaments are stirrings decks! Tron, Hardened Scales Affinity, KCI, Amulet Titan, all of them run 4x Ancient Stirrings. Last GP top8 had 4/8 Stirrings decks (5/9 if you count the 9th one that just missed on breakers). I am not saying the completely wrap the format in unsolvable ways, but they definitely have a wrap around the format.
Which does more: unbanning twin or banning ancient stirrings?
Like multiple people said before, the Stirrings decks dont warp the format
So you build your main decks and sideboards without considering Tron, KCI, or Affinity?
I'd argue you are conflating metagaming with format-warping. By that account, taking ANY particular deck into consideration in card selection makes that deck format-warping.
I'd argue I'm not. ANY deck which influences the choices you make in designing your sideboard (or especially main deck) is warping. Nearly every top deck in every format is warping, unless you're playing some hyper-linear strategy that intends to ignore or play through the opponent.
Which does more: unbanning twin or banning ancient stirrings?
Twin unban.
Like multiple people said before, the Stirrings decks dont warp the format
Some of the most prevalent/dominant/most represented decks of the last tournaments are stirrings decks! Tron, Hardened Scales Affinity, KCI, Amulet Titan, all of them run 4x Ancient Stirrings. Last GP top8 had 4/8 Stirrings decks (5/9 if you count the 9th one that just missed on breakers). I am not saying the completely wrap the format in unsolvable ways, but they definitely have a wrap around the format.
And SCG Charlotte had only 2 in the top 8, being Amulet Titan.
There's a difference of being in the metagame, having sb slots dedicated to good tier 1-2 decks like Ancient Grudge or Stony Silence, and having those decks warp the format.
SCG Charlotte Classic had 2 Stirrings decks in the top 16, both Tron. SCG Modern IQ Fort Worth had 1 Stirrings deck, Tron.
There's a difference of being in the metagame, having sb slots dedicated to good tier 1-2 decks like Ancient Grudge or Stony Silence, and having those decks warp the format.
How so? If putting in specific cards to deal with specific decks is not "warping" then what is?
Ancient Grudge and Stony Silence are cards that specifically, and narrowly do one thing, whereas Abrade and Kolaghan's Command deal with similar things, but also have flexibility. Warping to me is any time you are choosing to put in the narrow cards because you either aren't playing the flexible ones or the flexible ones aren't good enough for a particular deck or decks you are struggling against.
There's a difference of being in the metagame, having sb slots dedicated to good tier 1-2 decks like Ancient Grudge or Stony Silence, and having those decks warp the format.
How so? If putting in specific cards to deal with specific decks is not "warping" then what is?
Ancient Grudge and Stony Silence are cards that specifically, and narrowly do one thing, whereas Abrade and Kolaghan's Command deal with similar things, but also have flexibility. Warping to me is any time you are choosing to put in the narrow cards because you either aren't playing the flexible ones or the flexible ones aren't good enough for a particular deck or decks you are struggling against.
Anceint Grudge has been in sideboards in Modern since forever. Also you are lumping these Stirrings decks all in one. They are all different decks and archtypes
Which does more: unbanning twin or banning ancient stirrings?
Twin unban.
Like multiple people said before, the Stirrings decks dont warp the format
“Warp” is a term I’ve seen used many times. What does this exactly mean?
What conditions must be met for a deck, or group of decks, to be “warping” the format. If “Ancient Stirrings” have actively been taking up a 30% share of GP top 8’s, then why are they “warping” the format.
If Dredge IS “warping” the format, why isn’t there a larger top 8 turnout for the deck? What qualifies Dredge as a warping deck?
“Warp” is a term I’ve seen used many times. What does this exactly mean?
It's the term people use when they want to make a deck sound worse than it is. Every top deck in every format "warps" that respective format. I suppose it could be related to a subjective look at the degree with which special, narrow, specific answers are required for such a deck. But then Twin (which was one of the original prompts for this comment in the first place) would be laughably NOT-warping, since the ways you deal with it are common, main-deck answers/disruption like creature removal, counterspells, discard, and a reasonable clock.
Warping, is Dredge. When its good, everyone has to bring 4 cards at least in the side, just for Dredge.
Stirrings decks, are too wide a group of archetypes to call warping. KCI is artifact and grave, and 'many cards per turn', while Tron is land, and big mana, and G-Affinity (just call it this people!) is creature pump with counters and of course artifacts.
Those are all doing very different things and require different hate.
Dredge, is warping, Stirrings is a card powering multiple archetypes.
There's a difference of being in the metagame, having sb slots dedicated to good tier 1-2 decks like Ancient Grudge or Stony Silence, and having those decks warp the format.
How so? If putting in specific cards to deal with specific decks is not "warping" then what is?
Ancient Grudge and Stony Silence are cards that specifically, and narrowly do one thing, whereas Abrade and Kolaghan's Command deal with similar things, but also have flexibility. Warping to me is any time you are choosing to put in the narrow cards because you either aren't playing the flexible ones or the flexible ones aren't good enough for a particular deck or decks you are struggling against.
"Warping" is almost always used as a suggestively negative and pejorative term. Merely including specific cards in your SB can't possibly be an indicator of format warping, as that would imply that all formats with specialized SBs are warped, which really makes the term lose meaning. It makes much more sense if "warping" denotes a specific and excessive level of adaptation and change which is beyond the accepted baseline. We can argue about the exact cutoff of that baseline or how to define it, but we shouldn't accept that any adaptation to any top deck is "warping." If we do accept that, we must throw out the term "warping" as a meaningful concept, as it would define all competitive formats in all degrees of health.
For instance, GGT Dredge was probably warping in that it created a battle of sideboards. But pre-Chill/post-GGT Dredge was definitely not warping, even though many players boarded anti-GY cards during its existence.
I did some unpublished research on the definition of warping based on the GGT Dredge days. If I remember, I found that top deck X is warping if more than 50% of other top decks are averaging 4+ anti-Deck X cards. But I would need to check the data for the exact number.
It is interesting to see the response. Ultimately, twin unban vs stirrings ban depends on your goal of the format. Both technically are designed to do the same thing. If twin is unbanned, according to the proponents of that move, it would beat up on hyper linear decks like infect, storm, dredge, tron etc. This would narrow the metagame when it comes to those linear decks while widening the meta to midrange and control. The latter occurs because those reactive decks can become more focused on the strategies that DO continue onward.
A stirrings ban, on the other hand, simply weakens a handful of decks. However, it would be a blow to decks that can be difficult for midrange and control to handle. Stirrings would be replaced by oath of nissa in tron, the big boogeyman to BGx. However, that major reduction in card selection leaves the deck mostly intact. KCI would definitely struggle, affinity would adapt, lantern would probably go for serum visions + whir for the occasions it wants to appear. Still, the end result is that the fair decks get boosted a bit by way of the unfair or "fair" decks being weakened.
The big difference, far as I can tell, is overall impact vs narrow impact between specific archetypes. I think twin would narrow modern overall, while stirrings ban would not. Again, this means that the question isn't just A vs B, but also whether there's such a thing as "too" diverse?
...we are saying that (Ancient Stirrings decks) are breaking a different format rule, i.e. the so-called format diversity rule, and doing so in the collective, just like P&P&P were doing so in the collective (albeit with a different rule). That's why I focused on the TC case, because although TC is almost definitely more broken than Stirrings, it's a clearer example. The following TC ban quotes could readily apply to a Stirrings ban:
-"Decks playing the powerful card drawers have been winning a lot, and pushing a lot of other decks down in competitive play"
-"However, as these decks have occupied a large portion of the competitive metagame, the overall variety of successful decks has been suppressed."
Those quotes are exactly what many players are alleging about Stirrings decks: that these decks are suppressing other strategies. TC fell under the exact same premise and I believe Stirrings could find itself in similar crosshairs.
The italicized parts I added to the quotes above are my points of disagreement for the sake of comparing these patterns. First, although evidence does point to very good conversion rates on average for several of the Stirrings decks (though none individually are anywhere near troubling levels by representation percentage), comparing the way TC decks pushed other decks out of competitive viability to how the Stirrings decks seems loosely supported at best. UR Delver alone was oppressive enough in representation to likely warrant the TC ban, but the fact that Burn of all decks splashed blue just to play it...that's format warping. All of the decks that Wizards cited were very fast decks that got pushed over the top by the raw power of such an easily splashable card. Those decks definitely consolidated power into fewer decks and invalidated much of what the rest of the format was doing. Stirrings decks are diverse, don't directly cannibalize other strategies that would have been viable otherwise, and the card by design can't just slot into any deck to power it up to warp the format.
Second, Modern is extremely diverse at the moment, and major tournament results ebb and flow constantly (as they should be in a healthy format that can self-regulate). Again, the comparison between TC decks suppressing overall variety compared to what Stirrings decks are doing isn't a good one, and homogenizing archetypes makes much more sense for TC (UR decks that race) for this comparison than Stirrings (various flavors of combo, control, ramp, aggro, and midrange).
This brings me to my second issue with your post. Throughout your post, you claim statements such as "these decks [i.e. Stirrings decks] are not suppressing the rest of the format" and that "none of them are suppressing diversity to a significant degree." This is by no means a proven case. In fact, the opposite is likely true. There is currently no single card in Modern that sees play in 30% of GP T8 decks. I think the second closest is probably SV at 15%. If we were to take 15% as our single-card baseline for GP T8, we have to ask what non-Stirrings decks would be showing up in the T8 if colorless strategies only comprised 15% of the T8s (like SV decks) and not 30%. That 15% addition is almost necessarily taking share away from other decks. This might include BGx, Ux, Mardu, and other decks with documented weak matchups against various Stirrings decks.
Statistically, I cannot argue against your numbers here. If people are playing more of one thing, they are necessarily not playing something else instead. I also concede that concrete evidence on either side would be a good thing to work out before anything definitive should be assessed. My continuing point of contention is using Stirrings itself as a metric to judge by, as the card is not causing any individual deck (or even archetype) to over-represent. "Stirrings decks" are not "Treasure Cruise decks", nor are they "Splinter Twin decks". Twin represents a package combo threat, so decks that play it will play with very similar lines, and should therefore be lumped together when considering win rates as well as their representation. TC decks are more varied, but still boil down overwhelmingly to URx aggro, tempo, and combo (ie decks that try to win as quickly as possible), so combining them for the purpose of comparison still makes sense. Stirrings decks are similar in that they play colorless cards, but they represent a variety of diverse options for the format. And unlike each of the previous two cases, none of the Stirrings decks are individually over-performing. It is simply incorrect to batch them to ascertain ban considerations.
As I see it, the alleged benefit of banning Stirrings is that Wizards weakens a broad set of decks without making them unplayable, thereby freeing up top tables for decks that are underrepresented. The counter-argument for this would be that a Stirrings bans would outright kill those decks and that no new decks would fill the void. For instance, if we saw all the Stirrings decks plunge to 10% after a ban and the Ux decks spike to 30%, that might not be a net diversity gain. I'm not sure what the outcome would be, but I am sure it's not as closed as you make it with your quotes like "none of them are suppressing diversity to a significant degree." That statement needs to be analyzed on both sides of the issue.
I fully agree with your conclusion, save for the fact that once again, Ancient Stirrings as a card should not be used to determine homogenized percentages of functionally different deck archetypes (none of which individually over-represent) for ban assessment. I can only add the possible perspective of Wizards as a business entity looking to maximize two things: card equity (ie the ability to use reprints to sell product) and player confidence (how far can you push someone before they stop playing your game, and consequently buying your product). Banning Stirrings risks the value of a horde of colorless cards, and it's doubtful the decks that spring up will drive enough fresh equity to replace what could be lost. Think of GBx decks that would benefit, full of cards like LotV and Goyf with healthy equity stepping up; though those cards would gain a bit, it's difficult to imagine the diminishing returns of them going from good to great would be enough to offset what would be lost in Gx Tron alone. And any player who is invested in an affected deck would look at such a banning with "wait, my deck isn't doing anything broken, nor is anything else playing it, and isn't dominating...but it got banned anyway?" Sacrificing the diverse Stirrings decks for the chance for net greater diversity is already a risky proposition, but coupled with these other factors, I would be extremely surprised if Wizards feels it's in their best interest to entertain a Stirrings ban.
All of this said...it's great to actually be in a bit of a debate with you. Your post quality is top-notch, and I wish everyone would be so thorough in their research and consideration.
We can try and define it but I'll explain why I think that Dredge warps the format around it.
Dredge, when left unchecked, is on average the best deck in Modern. Traditional hate, counter spells and discard, are very medium against it, and removal is bad against it, sans Path to Exile. The only thing that shuts it down are graveyard pieces, so it forces you to draw sideboard cards. Against all traditional interaction, if Dredge hasn't won by turn 5 or 6, something very wrong happened.
The reason Dredge is different than the other combo decks is with the consistency. I would bet that even its below average draws/hands would easily get out 10-15 power out by turn 4 with an almost 100% certainty when not interacted with. Yeah, Storm is faster, Amulet is more powerful, but those decks are nowhere near the consistency of Dredge. Not only that, those decks are slowed down by other interaction besides the very narrow GY hate.
This in turn creates a mini game of "did I draw my Rest in Peace on turn 2?" and "did Dredge draw Nature's Claim?" That's pretty much the extent of the game.
So you have a choice if you aren't the Dredge player, do you play a deck that has sideboard cards that can beat Dredge, like RiP. Or do you just play a deck that can beat deck without sideboarding, a la Amulet, Storm, Tron.
You don't go to a modern tournament asking that question with any other deck. You might say something like "what can I use in the sideboard to gain an edge vs X deck?" But your ultimate decision of which deck to bring is not as chained to Dredge as it is with any other single deck.
That is the definition of 'Warping' the metagame. Where was Tron and KCI a few months ago before Creeping Chill? Where was "faithless looting decks" before Creeping Chill?
And this is also what we saw happen with Dredge back in 2016. The best way to beat Dredge back then was to go under them, so the format sped up considerably. Good luck playing Jund in a meta with a lot of Dredge, but something like the UR Kiln Fiend deck could easily kill them without even needing graveyard hate.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern UBR Grixis Shadow UBR UR Izzet Phoenix UR UW UW Control UW GB GB Rock GB
Commander BG Meren of Clan Nel Toth BG BGUW Atraxa, Praetor's Voice BGUW
Anger of the Gods. Terminus. Settle the Wreckage. Nihil Spellbomb in Goyf decks. Scavenging Ooze. There are options you can even MD to hate out heavy GY decks, and plenty of good SB options. When the numbers show Dredge is a problem, then we can look at it as a problem. Until then, it's a deck with plenty of options available to fight it.
Anger of the Gods. Terminus. Settle the Wreckage. Nihil Spellbomb in Goyf decks. Scavenging Ooze. There are options you can even MD to hate out heavy GY decks, and plenty of good SB options. When the numbers show Dredge is a problem, then we can look at it as a problem. Until then, it's a deck with plenty of options available to fight it.
The problem with that is that we didn't have many numbers that justified the banning the previous time also.
Wizards took a more intuitive approach and added a kind of new (it was spoken of another time, but in here everybody has forgotten it) criterion to the banlist.
Again, it wasn't new. It's the same criterion that DR was initially banned for. We, or at least many of us, just failed to articulate that at the time:https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/latest-developments/welcome-modern-world-2011-08-12 "Although games against it are often interesting, the larger game of deciding whether to dedicate enough sideboard slots to defeat it or ignore it completely and hope not to play against it is one that is not very satisfying for most tournament players. We chose to ban the most explosive graveyard card rather than leave that subgame present."
The 2017 logic of "battle of sideboards" is clearly the same thing as the 2011 DR-related logic of the "subgame" of "deciding whether to dedicate enough sideboard slots to defeat it or ignore it completely."
Anger of the Gods. Terminus. Settle the Wreckage. Nihil Spellbomb in Goyf decks. Scavenging Ooze. There are options you can even MD to hate out heavy GY decks, and plenty of good SB options. When the numbers show Dredge is a problem, then we can look at it as a problem. Until then, it's a deck with plenty of options available to fight it.
I think the numbers did show it as a problem, it's just one in which Modern has answered.
When the top end of the tournament is all packing 4 sideboard GY hate cards...that's because it's a problem.
Even with the extreme amount of hate dredge was still able to place 3 in the top 32. Dredge just does awful things to the format. As for ancient stirrings, I still say if Preordain is banned, having Stirrings roaming around is a farce.
i mean does anyone seriously believe the meta CANT develop past this point? if you think it can, then bannings are unnecessary.
some of us just have to accept that wizards wants this diversity 'soup'. which has the unfortunate byproduct where the set of decks that rise to the top at any given time might not be that savory.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
Unbanning Twin, easily.
Spirits
So you build your main decks and sideboards without considering Tron, KCI, or Affinity?
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
I'd argue you are conflating metagaming with format-warping. By that account, taking ANY particular deck into consideration in card selection makes that deck format-warping.
UB Faeries (15-6-0)
UWR Control (10-5-1)/Kiki Control/Midrange/Harbinger
UBR Cruel Control (6-4-0)/Grixis Control/Delver/Blue Jund
UWB Control/Mentor
UW Miracles/Control (currently active, 14-2-0)
BW Eldrazi & Taxes
RW Burn (9-1-0)
I do (academic) research on video games and archaeology! You can check out my open access book here: https://www.sidestone.com/books/the-interactive-past
I'd argue I'm not. ANY deck which influences the choices you make in designing your sideboard (or especially main deck) is warping. Nearly every top deck in every format is warping, unless you're playing some hyper-linear strategy that intends to ignore or play through the opponent.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
And SCG Charlotte had only 2 in the top 8, being Amulet Titan.
There's a difference of being in the metagame, having sb slots dedicated to good tier 1-2 decks like Ancient Grudge or Stony Silence, and having those decks warp the format.
SCG Charlotte Classic had 2 Stirrings decks in the top 16, both Tron. SCG Modern IQ Fort Worth had 1 Stirrings deck, Tron.
URStormRU
GRTitanshift[mana]RG/mana]
How so? If putting in specific cards to deal with specific decks is not "warping" then what is?
Ancient Grudge and Stony Silence are cards that specifically, and narrowly do one thing, whereas Abrade and Kolaghan's Command deal with similar things, but also have flexibility. Warping to me is any time you are choosing to put in the narrow cards because you either aren't playing the flexible ones or the flexible ones aren't good enough for a particular deck or decks you are struggling against.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Anceint Grudge has been in sideboards in Modern since forever. Also you are lumping these Stirrings decks all in one. They are all different decks and archtypes
URStormRU
GRTitanshift[mana]RG/mana]
“Warp” is a term I’ve seen used many times. What does this exactly mean?
What conditions must be met for a deck, or group of decks, to be “warping” the format. If “Ancient Stirrings” have actively been taking up a 30% share of GP top 8’s, then why are they “warping” the format.
If Dredge IS “warping” the format, why isn’t there a larger top 8 turnout for the deck? What qualifies Dredge as a warping deck?
It's the term people use when they want to make a deck sound worse than it is. Every top deck in every format "warps" that respective format. I suppose it could be related to a subjective look at the degree with which special, narrow, specific answers are required for such a deck. But then Twin (which was one of the original prompts for this comment in the first place) would be laughably NOT-warping, since the ways you deal with it are common, main-deck answers/disruption like creature removal, counterspells, discard, and a reasonable clock.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Stirrings decks, are too wide a group of archetypes to call warping. KCI is artifact and grave, and 'many cards per turn', while Tron is land, and big mana, and G-Affinity (just call it this people!) is creature pump with counters and of course artifacts.
Those are all doing very different things and require different hate.
Dredge, is warping, Stirrings is a card powering multiple archetypes.
Spirits
"Warping" is almost always used as a suggestively negative and pejorative term. Merely including specific cards in your SB can't possibly be an indicator of format warping, as that would imply that all formats with specialized SBs are warped, which really makes the term lose meaning. It makes much more sense if "warping" denotes a specific and excessive level of adaptation and change which is beyond the accepted baseline. We can argue about the exact cutoff of that baseline or how to define it, but we shouldn't accept that any adaptation to any top deck is "warping." If we do accept that, we must throw out the term "warping" as a meaningful concept, as it would define all competitive formats in all degrees of health.
For instance, GGT Dredge was probably warping in that it created a battle of sideboards. But pre-Chill/post-GGT Dredge was definitely not warping, even though many players boarded anti-GY cards during its existence.
I did some unpublished research on the definition of warping based on the GGT Dredge days. If I remember, I found that top deck X is warping if more than 50% of other top decks are averaging 4+ anti-Deck X cards. But I would need to check the data for the exact number.
A stirrings ban, on the other hand, simply weakens a handful of decks. However, it would be a blow to decks that can be difficult for midrange and control to handle. Stirrings would be replaced by oath of nissa in tron, the big boogeyman to BGx. However, that major reduction in card selection leaves the deck mostly intact. KCI would definitely struggle, affinity would adapt, lantern would probably go for serum visions + whir for the occasions it wants to appear. Still, the end result is that the fair decks get boosted a bit by way of the unfair or "fair" decks being weakened.
The big difference, far as I can tell, is overall impact vs narrow impact between specific archetypes. I think twin would narrow modern overall, while stirrings ban would not. Again, this means that the question isn't just A vs B, but also whether there's such a thing as "too" diverse?
Second, Modern is extremely diverse at the moment, and major tournament results ebb and flow constantly (as they should be in a healthy format that can self-regulate). Again, the comparison between TC decks suppressing overall variety compared to what Stirrings decks are doing isn't a good one, and homogenizing archetypes makes much more sense for TC (UR decks that race) for this comparison than Stirrings (various flavors of combo, control, ramp, aggro, and midrange).
Statistically, I cannot argue against your numbers here. If people are playing more of one thing, they are necessarily not playing something else instead. I also concede that concrete evidence on either side would be a good thing to work out before anything definitive should be assessed. My continuing point of contention is using Stirrings itself as a metric to judge by, as the card is not causing any individual deck (or even archetype) to over-represent. "Stirrings decks" are not "Treasure Cruise decks", nor are they "Splinter Twin decks". Twin represents a package combo threat, so decks that play it will play with very similar lines, and should therefore be lumped together when considering win rates as well as their representation. TC decks are more varied, but still boil down overwhelmingly to URx aggro, tempo, and combo (ie decks that try to win as quickly as possible), so combining them for the purpose of comparison still makes sense. Stirrings decks are similar in that they play colorless cards, but they represent a variety of diverse options for the format. And unlike each of the previous two cases, none of the Stirrings decks are individually over-performing. It is simply incorrect to batch them to ascertain ban considerations.
I fully agree with your conclusion, save for the fact that once again, Ancient Stirrings as a card should not be used to determine homogenized percentages of functionally different deck archetypes (none of which individually over-represent) for ban assessment. I can only add the possible perspective of Wizards as a business entity looking to maximize two things: card equity (ie the ability to use reprints to sell product) and player confidence (how far can you push someone before they stop playing your game, and consequently buying your product). Banning Stirrings risks the value of a horde of colorless cards, and it's doubtful the decks that spring up will drive enough fresh equity to replace what could be lost. Think of GBx decks that would benefit, full of cards like LotV and Goyf with healthy equity stepping up; though those cards would gain a bit, it's difficult to imagine the diminishing returns of them going from good to great would be enough to offset what would be lost in Gx Tron alone. And any player who is invested in an affected deck would look at such a banning with "wait, my deck isn't doing anything broken, nor is anything else playing it, and isn't dominating...but it got banned anyway?" Sacrificing the diverse Stirrings decks for the chance for net greater diversity is already a risky proposition, but coupled with these other factors, I would be extremely surprised if Wizards feels it's in their best interest to entertain a Stirrings ban.
All of this said...it's great to actually be in a bit of a debate with you. Your post quality is top-notch, and I wish everyone would be so thorough in their research and consideration.
Dredge, when left unchecked, is on average the best deck in Modern. Traditional hate, counter spells and discard, are very medium against it, and removal is bad against it, sans Path to Exile. The only thing that shuts it down are graveyard pieces, so it forces you to draw sideboard cards. Against all traditional interaction, if Dredge hasn't won by turn 5 or 6, something very wrong happened.
The reason Dredge is different than the other combo decks is with the consistency. I would bet that even its below average draws/hands would easily get out 10-15 power out by turn 4 with an almost 100% certainty when not interacted with. Yeah, Storm is faster, Amulet is more powerful, but those decks are nowhere near the consistency of Dredge. Not only that, those decks are slowed down by other interaction besides the very narrow GY hate.
This in turn creates a mini game of "did I draw my Rest in Peace on turn 2?" and "did Dredge draw Nature's Claim?" That's pretty much the extent of the game.
So you have a choice if you aren't the Dredge player, do you play a deck that has sideboard cards that can beat Dredge, like RiP. Or do you just play a deck that can beat deck without sideboarding, a la Amulet, Storm, Tron.
You don't go to a modern tournament asking that question with any other deck. You might say something like "what can I use in the sideboard to gain an edge vs X deck?" But your ultimate decision of which deck to bring is not as chained to Dredge as it is with any other single deck.
That is the definition of 'Warping' the metagame. Where was Tron and KCI a few months ago before Creeping Chill? Where was "faithless looting decks" before Creeping Chill?
URStormRU
GRTitanshift[mana]RG/mana]
Spirits
UBR Grixis Shadow UBR
UR Izzet Phoenix UR
UW UW Control UW
GB GB Rock GB
Commander
BG Meren of Clan Nel Toth BG
BGUW Atraxa, Praetor's Voice BGUW
Again, it wasn't new. It's the same criterion that DR was initially banned for. We, or at least many of us, just failed to articulate that at the time:https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/latest-developments/welcome-modern-world-2011-08-12
"Although games against it are often interesting, the larger game of deciding whether to dedicate enough sideboard slots to defeat it or ignore it completely and hope not to play against it is one that is not very satisfying for most tournament players. We chose to ban the most explosive graveyard card rather than leave that subgame present."
Compare to the GGT ban:
https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/news/january-9-2017-banned-and-restricted-announcement-2017-01-09
"Dredge, the mechanic and the deck, has a negative impact on Modern by pushing the format too far toward a battle of sideboards."
The 2017 logic of "battle of sideboards" is clearly the same thing as the 2011 DR-related logic of the "subgame" of "deciding whether to dedicate enough sideboard slots to defeat it or ignore it completely."
I think the numbers did show it as a problem, it's just one in which Modern has answered.
When the top end of the tournament is all packing 4 sideboard GY hate cards...that's because it's a problem.
Spirits
some of us just have to accept that wizards wants this diversity 'soup'. which has the unfortunate byproduct where the set of decks that rise to the top at any given time might not be that savory.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)Is Spirits it? Maybe? Infect?
Those 3 decks though are a real issue to me, in how polarizing they can be to play against.
All of them simply say 'go under'.
Spirits
Infect or Burn would give you 50% or better against all of those.
Spirits