He believes (correctly, in ny opinion) that it is ridiculous to do a rating system based on the isolated power level of a card because cards are never isolated. They always exist within the context of other cards.
That is precisely why he is so poor at card evaluation. He creates his own hypothetical meta and then judges cards based on that, with the same standards you are saying he doesn't use. How you don't see that as flawed reasoning and logic beyond me, but you are entitled to your opinion. I mean his rational for giving EVERY Priest Ungoro card 1 star was that Priest was not viable...how is it reasonable to say EVERY card is bad based on this reasoning? Undefendable, but he's a great entertainer, and he identifies as an entertainer, that's why overall I was positive of his influence towards the community.
He didn't say all of the cards were bad. He said none of them would see play, which is the whole point.
Like I said, he isn't rating how good the cards are. He's rating how much play they'll see because that is one of the only falsifiable way of rating cards and by extension the only scientifically valid way of rating the cards.
(EDIT: Let me clarify that by falsifiable I basically mean testable. Trump's rating system is the only system in which you can definitively and objectively test whether or not his predictions were accurate.)
His predictions of cards are just pathetic, he has little idea of what makes cards strong or potentially strong.
I disagree. I think although his analysis on many cards have been well off the mark on many an occasion, his reasoning is well founded. Let’s take what most people take to be the most egregious example, his analysis of Warlock’s KotFT cards (and this actually ties into some confusions people have about his rating system).
Trumps rating system is not based on the individual strength of a card. He believes (correctly, in ny opinion) that it is ridiculous to do a rating system based on the isolated power level of a card because cards are never isolated. They always exist within the context of other cards. In addition, when you make a claim about a card that’s based on pure powerlevel it’s impossible to ever actually prove it wrong since no matter what happens you can just say “the conditions aren’t right for it.” For this reason Trump designed a rating system which does not attempt to say how good the card is but instead only tries to predict the amount of play it sees. As trump admits, this makes his rating system much riskier as you can actually prove him wrong or right once the cards come out.
Now onto his Warlock predictions. Prior to Frozen Throne, Warlock was in such a bad shape that Trump believed that it was probably impossible for one set to pull Warlock out of the dumpster no matter how good the cards it got were. As it turned out, Warlock got some pretty crazy cards in Throne and Trump acknowledged this in his review. His assertion was that there still wasn’t a way for Warlocks to win games despite all of the insanely powerful defense tools they got (which he actually said were insanely powerful) since they didn’t have any kind of reliable wincon. The reason he was wrong was because practically everyone reviewing the set, including him, underestimated the independent strength of Bloodreaver Gul’Dan. Gul’dan is so good that you could make a serious arguement that Warlock wouldn’t see play right now we’re it not for Gul’dan, which actually means that we’re it not for Gul’Dan, all of Trumps other predictions on the Warlock cards would have been correct as none of them would see any play because Warlock would not see any play.