Hearthpwn

The deck is pretty legit. I don’t think it’s very settled yet, but hard to go wrong with the most obvious build. That is the benefit of aggro. The most obvious thing is much closer to the performance ceiling of the deck than it would be for other builds. I have been playing a deck like this with slight variations, and continue to get good results north of Rank 5.

Aya Blackpaw is extremely solid. I’ve been very glad to draw her into the middle game. That said, any given Legendary will not be sorely missed in a deck with no draw that wants to close out around Turn 6-8. You could still reach legend with it by running Jade Spirit instead. Some cards I’ve also used:

Ancestral Knowledge – More cards, more burn, more wins.

Doomhammer – Helps your pirates, works as burn against non-taunt decks.

Hammer of Twilight – Because getting Harrisonned sucks.

Bloodlust – Between Patches, Totems, and Jade tokens, the deck fills the board really quickly. Bloodlust is pretty good at exploiting those windows where you have a decent board. Not to mention Deckhand into Patches into Bloodlust adding to whatever you have on board then.

Jinyu Waterspeaker – It is nice to have healing this good for those ranks of the ladder inundated with Pirate Warrior.

The concept is basically the same though. The rough patch with Jade golems in all classes is slogging through them when they are 1/1’s and 2/2’s. Rogue and Druids don’t really have any good buffs that like full boards. Maybe Savage Roar, but I haven’t seen the deck yet, and the Jade cards in Druid seem more inclined to Control. In Shaman though, Flametongue is the bomb. A 2/2 weapon that summons a 1/1 is actually good on its own. Even better that it makes your Jade Lightning better. Also, the pirates really fit into that Flametongue dynamic too, because with Patches they are 2 bodies. With coin and Small-Time Buccaneer, I have killed a Turn 2 Doomsayer before.

Those decks with Valiants are tournament decks for a "Last Hero Standing" format, where your lineup is anti-control.

In the Control matchups like Priest, N'Zoth Pally, and Warrior, their first and last line of defense is a set of board clear spells. They don't like to be constantly clearing with minion trades. In those matchups, laying down just enough material to prompt a board clear is the proper line. So in that spot, a card that builds an entire board for you can seal the game.

By the same token, Valiant is terrible against midrange, or any deck like Tempo Warrior that makes a lot of minion trades. Due to having a lot of those on ladder, I'd suggest altering the build for ladder.

This argument always seem to me to be more rooted in bias than reality. The reason is that for every win these hypothetical Freeze Mage win farmers get, they give a free win right back to another legit noobie. You only remember those games where you actually played straight up against the farmer and had no chance. You probably thought that those games where you get a concede up front were due to disconnects.

Also, I think it's nearly a mathmatical impossibility for somebody to be stuck on Rank 20. Do you know what win-loss rate you'd need to be stuck there? Hint, it's a lot lower than 50%. With even a 50% win rate, you will eventually hit a win streak long enough to climb to 19, where there are ostensibly no farmers. And that is also true for win rates well below 50%, due to not being able to lose stars. So with a group of farmers who need to maintain a 50% win rate to stay at Rank 20, you have a 50% win rate against them, and you will eventually climb into the higher ranks, even if it's true that you are only facing farmers (which I doubt). If your win rate against them added to your win rate against actual players still isn't high enough to get 19, then you will probably stay below Rank 20 each season in the first place.

Bottom line, Blizzard has already fixed this problem with the way they have implemented win streak bonus stars. People just need to stop complaining when they hit an opponent with an actual deck on Rank 20, as if it's a fundamental injustice.

Yeah, 2x Primal Fusion and 0x Flamewreathed Faceless seems very unconventional, not to mention 2x Thunder Bluff Valiant.  I'm really curious to see the application. I'd say Fusion would have to get up to +3/+3 before it's above the curve, but at that point, making a bigger Taunt or more burst seems like it might put a few decks in some rough spots.

1) Ancestral Knowledge v. Azure Drake - I feel that Ancestral is going to outperform Drake. I'm playing a deck that I based of Loyan's midrange, and this is one of the main changes I made. First, the 4/4 at this timing is not very good for this deck. You are trying during the middle turns to set up a board that can't get cleared after you pass turn, and this has you adding a minion that can be traded down using most 3 and 4 drops in the game. Ancestral in the same spot might be played along with Tuskarr Totemic, Tunnel Trogg, or Thing from Below. Also, digging one more card is really important. The cards off the top of your deck are things like Doomhammer, Faceless, Bloodlust,Thing From Below, etc. They are cards that have a very high synergy with the rest of your deck, or have to be hit at certain points of the game. You need more selection, more than anything. Also in a bubble, any of these cards are a lot better than the 4/4 you're trading the extra card for in Azure Drake. Also, there's something to be said about synergy with Tunnel Trogg and Eternal Sentinel. For the same mana and card ratio, I'd much rather have a Trogg and Ancestral, simply because the Trogg can get bigger. Also, although I'd never play with a Draw 2 for 4 mana, it's not exactly what the card reads when you're digging to Sentiel. The deck will work for you if you let it. Another quick point on Ancestral, it does take a bit more judgment to play. Trogg into Ancestral is a move I see a lot of opponents making, but you just shouldn't ever be playing the card early like that. Even when you have Coin - Sentiel on your Turn 3, you really can't afford to spend the first turns like that. One removal card, Abusive Sergeant, etc, ruins your game in that spot.

2) Al'Akir v Ragnaros - I took Loyan's deck and found room for an Al'Akir myself as well. It looks like a weak card and it tends to die eaisly, but if you look at the list of Classic Legendaries by win rate, the testing data during Beta had it as the highest win-rate legendary at that time. Even in the early seasons before Naxx, it was winning almost as often as the 4 mana Leeroy Jenkins. It is a pretty solid upgrade over Rag, especially given a lot of the Zoo, Paladin and Shaman decks out there, where Rag can be pretty dead right now.

3) Doomhammer - The ol' hammer is worthwhile for board control or burst, either one. The only situation I'd consider cutting it is where you're seeing a huge number of Harrison Jones, and even then, keeping it as 1x and using it as finish in those matchups is also a viable play-around. Point is, you'll value this in a lot of spots other than that. Even when playing the Face Shaman with 2x Doomhammer, I'd find myself using Doomhammer to clear quite often against Zoo, Tempo Warrior, Rogue, so on. There are quite a few 2 health minions in the game right now, and those that run one tend to run more.

4) Bloodlust - This card is what lets the deck contend the Control matchups - Paladin, Warrior, Priest. The main tool against healing is burst. This is a deck that can get its board cleared, then set up immediately the following turn with 4 minions up and keep that pace for the entire game. It can be clunky if you don't hit your draw and is one of the cards you hate to see in an opener, but it's an important tool in the deck. Also, it basically seals in your favor any of those matchups like C'thun Druid, N'Zoth Rogue, etc, that are both slower and lacking in board clears.

5) Lightning Storm - You need it for basically two decks right now - Zoo and the Shaman mirror. With 2x and enough draw, even Zoo can be an decent matchup. And even against the Control matchups right now, it's easy enough to find a worthwile spot to play it, such as against Priest with 2-3 targets out like Pyromancer, Northshire. Of course a lot of other cards would be better there, but it happens to be critical in some matchups, so simply not being dead in the rest is enough to keep it.

6) Unbound Elemental and Fireguard Destroyer - Unbound is basically a conditional 3/5 for 3 like Blackwing Tech, not good enough. Even a reliable 3/5 for 3 would not be good enough for a lot of decks, including this one. For Fireguard Destroyer, same story, different mana cost. This card was never good. The card that's actually in contention for this mana slot would be 1x Dranei Totemcarver for its high cieling, which was seen in a limited number of decks in recent tournaments. And honestly for all these options, consider that Faceless and Tuskarr Totemic are two of the most overstatted minions in the game, and they are your most expensive ones. Thing from Below is often 2-3 mana. You just can't get better than that, and there just isn't a lot of room for more.

7) Thunder Bluff Valiant - A quick aside on this guy, I tried him for a while and he just wasn't getting it done. In fact, it is a little hard for me to see the draw of this guy now. You've basically got a 3/5 and a 2/2 for 7 mana, and a very conditional buff to your existing totems. It just isn't quite there in my eyes, either on a value perspective or on burst potential. For value, it is just too late to wait for 7 mana, especially when you are overloading Turns 5-6 so often. You really need something on the middle turns for this deck. And for burst in addition to Doomhammer combos, Al'Akir is much more reliable for the same cost, and better synergy with existing cards. If I were to try something that was meant to supplement the role of Bloodlust, it would probably be Primal Fusion, or possibly Evolve. Fusion has gotten decent use here and there in tournaments, tends to reward slamming the button at a pace that is actually relevant, and is actually useful in the aggro mirror when used on a Taunt (Thing from Below, Wolves, Stoneclaw).

The flaw in your analysis is that there's a difference between "imbalanced" and "broken / overpowered".

Imbalanced: More powerful than any other card of its type, mana cost, so on. Faceless certainly fits this definition.

Broken: Any card which is essential to a deck/strategy which, as a whole, intractably centralizes the game around it.

Put simply, the fact that a card is more powerful than other cards does not necessarily indicate that the game is now flawed and broken because of it. So, a case around the bare fact that Faceless is powerful isn't persuasive on its own in indicating that there is a problem with the game. Blizzard wants you to be battling things out on board against 7/7's on Turn 4, because it's now their idea of fun. Imo, that beats the Miracle Rogue v. Freeze Mage v. Face Hunter roulette.

It's a recurring problem with this game, it seems like.

When Miracle/Combo gets too powerful, people can run Face/Direct Damage decks.

When Face decks get too powerful, people can run Control/Healing decks.

When Control/Healing decks get too powerful, people can run Midrange/board-oriented decks.

But if Midrange/Board-Oriented decks become too powerful... ? Working as intended.

If any of the first three dynamics don't work, Blizz will nerf the offending strategy. They nerfed miracle, freeze mage, patron Warrior, Face Hunter, Undertaker, other 1-drop minions, and so on. But if they are saying that they want Hearthstone to be a game where minions are battling things out for board control, how would we expect a nerf to a board control strategy to happen? It just won't.

The other archetypes of Combo, Control, and Face, they have success by avoiding interaction on the board, and skirt around it via some other victory condition. But when a midrange deck is the best, it's the best just by doing what they envision that you're "supposed" to be doing in Hearthstone. And they really don't call for a nerf unless they find the enabled strategy is "unethical" on some sort of level. Just about every nerf was accompanied by the same mission statement, that they think that taking a bunch of damage on one turn, avoiding trades, etc, isn't how they want Hearthstone to play out. Not so with Midrange.

Case in point, Secret Paladin. When a deck rises to the top on the merit of just having the best drops at 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8, there's no pivot point for the balance discussion. And what's more, they will sort of gradually nudge those drops onto perceived unfavored/underrepresented classes until the tables turn.

The only balance that Blizzard really cares about is in getting everyone to play board-oriented decks, and then any perceived inequalities will just work themselves out by the publicity on pro tournaments, which they refuse to hold in any sort of single-deck format that would shine light on an imbalanced deck. As long as all the publicity is on "Last Hero Standing" tournaments, Blizzard can afford not to care what the most powerful deck is, as long as the experience of the player base (read: non-net deckers) is aligned with their vision of fun. 

TL;DR - Keep playing Shaman and Zoo, if you care about your win rate. There's little evidence against the idea that they're just going to continue being super-powerful decks for the long term. 

@FinalFortune

Thanks for the analysis. Yeah, I do see the common mistake being made that the combo is supposed to be looked for each game. I don't think I'm doing that, just looking for whatever means of victory I have available at the time. If I can use Soulfire/Darkbomb to mitigate trades and force through more damage, then that is the play. The problem in the Control MU's is translating card advantage to enough damage on board by the time the decks runs out. Because of course, when they're drawing live and you aren't, your card advantage disappears.

I agree that Mystic is not good anymore on ladder. Where Mage, Hunter and Paladin made up 70%+ of the ladder, she was great of course, but now with Priest, Shaman and other bad matchups being more played, time to take her out. I hold to the principle that tech cards should be for your worst matchups, maximizing impact, and of the secret classes Paladin is the only truly poor matchup. Maybe Jaraxxus straight up as a tech card then, in place of Mystic.

On Earthen Ring, care to share why the card should be taken out? It's been ok for me with Brann in the Hunter matchup. 

I have not tried Shadowflame, but that might be in order for a meta where there are some Aggro Mu's and some Control MU's where you need 2x BGH. I am inclined to cut down to 1x BGH though, because it is no good against Priest, traditional Handlock is rarely seen anymore, and you never know what you're going to see out of Reno Warrior. WIthout BGH, there isn't anything left with attack more than health that you feel great to Shadowflame. I've been trying Demonwrath, ok against Zoo, Hunter, and Druid, but not great at all against Shaman. This new Aggro Shaman has been a good matchup for me so far though, so not sure I will take it out.

Dr Balanced seems like it might be a good alternative. Although, there is the same worry that opposing BGH's will be live against you, so I am not sure it avoids the same issues as Alex. He does come out a turn earlier, but it is hard to imagine that the 2 minibots get in for anywhere near the same impact as the Alex Battlecry, specifically against Priest and Warrior.

Sylvannus might be worth a shot too. Ideal scenario, she is hard removal that the deck otherwise lacks for. I just worry about not sticking her at the correct point, and just giving the opponent more chance to trade down and preserve their health total, which is the original problem. I don't see trading down efficiently as being the problem in these Control MU's, rather burning through the deck and not having enough damage.

One other non-Dragon alternative I was wondering about is Jaraxxus, Eredan Lord of the Burning Legion. At that point of the game, tapping only gets you to fatigue faster, and the 6/6 every turn will definitely bury a control opponent on board. Only doubt here, again, is the synergy with the rest of the deck.

But mainly what drew me to the 3 Dragons is what would be cut for these. I'm not sure 2x BGH isn't correct, not as a matter of needing two of these battlecries in a game, but more reliability. Burning 7 or more damage into an opponent's minion is something that will cause this deck to lose the long game, so if you don't have an answer ready for the finishers when they come out, you are screwed. The card I'd substitute out would be Azure Drake. Honestly, the boost in damage to the dome is rarely decisive, and cantrips for this deck start to become a liability. With down to a few cards left, I often find myself not able to play Drake for burning out too quickly. But of course, you start taking Dragons out and other cards in the deck become less consistent without more Dragons in.

I've been running Purple's Malylock now for a few days (like everyone else it seems like), and I'm really having issues with getting enough damage dealt before I burn through my deck.

Against Control/Dragon Priest, this matchup started pretty even, but lately it has just been terrible. Maybe I take the board some time in the early late game, get my opponent to the upper teens in health, but then one set of threats gets taken care of and late, late game I burn through my deck. There is no hope once Fatigue sets in. And that's if I don't lose the game to a Ysera I can't handle.

Against Warrior, please, there is no way to win, no matter the build. With 4 hard removals and sometimes a silence for a Twilight Drake, the average health of the remaining minions in the deck is about 3. Pointing all direct damage at the dome only gets him to half health.

Against Midrange Pally, just awful. Everything gets dealt with by Truesilve,r Aldor and Keeper of Uldaman, not to mention Equality-Consecrate when it happens. Games will often end without me making a single attack with a minion.

Against those decks, I get to fatigue and lose in most games. I also get to fatigue at times against Shaman and Control Mage (not Freeze). I'm sure I'd burn through to fatigue against Rogue as well if I didn't die before then. And before my skill level is put into question, I'm not Purple, but I have made legend several seasons. This is a challenging deck to play (I guess), and I do observe my friendlist making obvious mistakes, missing lethal with direct damage, etc, and I can assure you that whatever mistakes I am making are not so obvious. These matchups are catastrophes, not just narrow losses. Aggro (Hunter, Druid, Mage, Zoo) is just a matter of surviving, it's only the Control MU's where this issue with throughput is a big problem.

I'm considering adding one or more of these dragons, likely in exchange for 1x Azure Drake:

Ysera - All the throughput you need, one package. Makes it easier to land Malygos safely. Very slow and mana-intensive, not good against Aggro.

Chromaggus - Gets you more of what you need, without it coming from your deck. But does nothing if killed immediately.

Alexstrasza - Sets up for Malygos kill, can be used as healing in a pinch. Is slow, and is a BGH target.

Any thoughts?

Plays too much like the old Malygos deck, which to clarify, also had a spot where it was wrecking the field, then dropped off immediately once the field changed. Purple getting the kind of winrate he did in Legend ranks on ladder is no indication that he would have done so in lower ranks (much less the rest of us). It's an indication of what the meta was like in Legend ranks, and nothing more.

Matchup analysis in the OP would be good. From best to worst, here's mine:

Freeze Mage: Excellent Brann-Healbot combo wins the game by itself.

Handlock: Excellent The Maly combo's make it easy mode.

Patron: Excellent Against anyone still playing it, at least.

Aggro/Midrange Druid: Excellent They can't handle the Taunt, AoE, double BGH and Healing without any draw.

Zoo: Favorable Just too slow and board-oriented against this deck.

Tempo/Mech Mage: Favorable A bad draw can easily lose to a good draw from opponent, but Mystic is superb.

Face/Hybrid Hunter: Favorable You lose with a bad hand, but otherwise solid and Mystic takes away their last out against you.

Midrange Shaman: Favorable Hex is a bother, but everything is favorable against Shaman, basically.

Mindrange Hunter: Even If you draw Mystic, it's just about killing Highmanes as they pop out. Without either, you lose.

Dragon Priest: Even They can't deal with combo, but you can't kill Ysera.

Control War: Even You can apply pressure, but the MU leans toward unfavorable if you misassign your role. You lose the long game because of fatigue and Ysera. At least Brann + Blackwing make it easier than before.

Oil Rogue: Unfavorable At least if they play correctly, your heals are ineffective due to burst, and their pressure and combo are better.

Mech Shaman: Unfavorable No consistent answer to Whirling Zap'O openings backed by Taunts. This is what the Face Hunter matchup will look like as well w/o Kezan, btw.

Reno Warrior: Abyssmal Worse than Warrior. Same problems with Ysera, burst combo is ineffecitve.

Secret Paladin: Abyssmal In b4 some video of this deck beating Secret Pally. You basically have to take the board early and hold it so that Mysterious Challenger hits an empty field, then also be holding BGH. Yeah, try doing that consistently with this deck.

Midrange Paladin Abyssmal Just an auto-loss. Aldor and Keeper of Uldaman together extinguish any hope you once had.

Basically, there is no point in playing this deck unless you expect Freeze Mage and Handlock to be the only Control decks, which are the same meta conditions that the previous Malygos Lock showed up in. Because otherwise, Aggro are your only favorable MU's, and you need Kezan Mystic to carry you through most of those, besides. And so especially after the other decks have adjusted post LoE, Reno, Keeper of Uldaman, etc, the deck just won't put up the stats that it did a few weeks ago.

On the lower ranks where Freeze and Handlock play is sub-par and rare to begin with, and where aggro is everywhere, there are better, less skill-intensive decks to play. There is always that element that thinks skill-intensive equals better, but really, even optimal play of this deck puts you at the mercy of how much Paladin and Warrior you face.

Ok, fair enough. Give cards a chance, and all that.

Does anyone else want to offer their overrated/underrated of the set?

Now that LoE has had a little time to settle, what have been the cards that didn't live up to the hype? Cards that exceeded expectations? Here is my list:

Overrated

Naga Sea Witch - Maybe some cards in LoE are worth building your deck around a little, but not this one. You still can't have any significant number of your cards cost more than 5. Even as Handlock, you are likely to have two or even one card that this helps, get that one BGH'd, then get the Sea Witch taunted, frozen, Aldor'ed and be unable to get rid of it. It's a card you'd include only for tempo that ends up costing you tempo as often as it saves it.

Jeweled Scarab - Even in classes with power 3-cost class cards, I can't seem to get good results from a glorified Novice Engineer. Sorry to say it.

Mounted Raptor - The mechanic of overcosting a body by X, then Deathrattle summon a random minion of cost X has fallen flat with every other card but Shredder. And to see how Raptor's performed, you realized that Shredder succeeds mostly because of lack of competition. Every deck that has an otherwise solid 4-drop, Oil Rogue, etc, can take or leave Shredder. With the upside variance of 1-drops being much lower than it is with 2-drops as well, Druid won't be swapping out Shade of Naxxramaas.

Unearthed Raptor - Not sure how hyped this c ard was, but this card that makes you play other cards you don't want for the reward of very little upside when you do.

Tunnel Trogg - Not working for me. Mana Wyrm triggers off half the cards in your deck, and still not every Mage runs it. The class needs more than one good Overload card at 2 mana for this to work.

Underrated

Reno Jackson - It's catching on how good this card is, but it's surprising how a card few people were excited about was so immediately and obviously meta crushing the moment it got put in.

Sir Finley Mrrgglton - I was very wrong about this card. I thought it was designed as another consolation prize for the Shaman class, but it's overperformed everywhere I've thought fit to plug it in.  I think I'd thought it would end up hurting you way more often than it does. Getting the third worst Hero Power for the situation is very rare, and everything better than the 4th worst ends up being much better than expected. With control builds of Warrior, Priest, and Warlock, their innate Hero Powers have very limited shelf-lives, and getting something that stabilizes or affects the board is superb. Some other decks like combo Druid just become a different animal with something like Warlock, Shaman or Paladin Hero Power.  And with basically anyting against Face Hunter, the combination of a 1/3 at 1 and a borrowed Hero Power to heal 2 is enough to swing that matchup by itself. It's also just a really fun card.

Entomb - If the meta ever swings back to Control v Control matchups, Priest is going to turn some heads.

Dark Peddler - So, I am starting to think that this battlecry is better for Zoolock than even drawing a card. This thing really rarely blanks. I don't think there's enough visibility on the fact that discover gives you class cards, including class minions, so much more often than neutrals. And when you're usually getting one of Flame Imp, Blood Imp, Power Overwhelming, Mortal Coil, Voidwalker, it's not just about not missing. It's about your curve being more smoother than it ever was, without having to pack your deck with 1-drops. You're getting an extra of a card you're already playing, or could have easily be playing, usually at a stage of the game where it's best to use it. As funny as it is to say, the card Peddler gives to Zoolock is way better than the card that Scarab gives to other classes in the best of situations.  And, the body doesn't get killed for free.

We can agree that Paladin should never skip out on either Truesilver or Muster for Battle.

I don't think that the weapons will overwrite each other as often as it might seem from already running 4, so that's not the reason. Even if you play Muster > Coghammer > Trusilver one turn after the other, that's potentially only one charge of Cog wasted, 4 of Light's Justice, 0 of Truesilver. More likely is something less than that.

The main deal is that 2 damage just doesn't kill very much anymore, if it ever did. You usually have to combine it with Consecration or minions to get anywhere, and having Silver Hand Recruits lets you ration damage as you need it so that even Light's Justice is useful.

Cog can make for some pretty sick openings if your 2-drop lives, but a lot of 3 drops in that spot will do that.

I think there's a few things wrong with this idea.

First, there's the assumption that playing Aggro leads to faster games. The argument presupposes it, based on nothing but the general idea that an Aggro deck beating an opponent due to having a fast draw is a quicker game than average. But at long as you are talking about decks as either "aggro" or "not aggro", which is a bit inane in the first place, it's not at all true in my experience that choosing Aggro guarantees your game will be faster.  I don't find my aggro v not aggro games going any shorter, whether in turns or real time, because I am waiting for my opponent to kill me to see if I draw enough direct damage in time, or what not. And my Aggro v Aggro games tend to take a while for the very reason that there's more parity, maybe Hunter games are quicker than Zoo, I'm not sure.  But I'm certain that if you take the distribution of all games by time, the biggest difference comes from those really long games fought to Fatigue, not those games that end on Turn 6-7 instead of Turn 10 average.  Because even as Control Warrior v Pally, I have seen games end that soon.  What I've not seen with every deck is strategizing around who gets to fatigue first.  So if people want shorter games, every other deck is the same, and they should basically just avoid playing fatigue decks.  Which they do, for the most part. But that doesn't lead to any practical difference in how much aggro you see.

Second, even supposing for the sake of debate that the aggro player gets into the queue sooner, so does his opponent. You might get the aggro deck's opponent and not the aggro deck. If a lot of not-aggro decks beat aggro decks, but do so slowly (maybe because they're playing around Explosive Trap), then more aggro actually slows down this meta. This logic is especially flimsy if you're just grouping as "aggro" or "not aggro", and don't take into account win or lose.  

So lets take 4 possible games under this rubric: a) Aggro v Aggro (Aggro Win), b) Not Aggro v Not Aggro (Not Aggro Win), c) Aggro v Not Aggro (Aggro Win), d) Aggro v Not Aggro (Not Aggro Win).  First, you have to look at the type of game you avoid by deciding Aggro or not, which are the mirrors, a and b. You have to say that the mirror is shorter for Aggro than not Aggro, and the better way to look at it as I stated above, is actually Fatigue v Not Fatigue.  Second, for the non-mirror games c and d, you take the win rate of each matchup and multiply it by the time it takes.  Sure, if you have a low win-rate versus aggro as not aggro, you see lots of it, and the games are quick, then more aggro leading to more games played makes sense.  But why are you playing that deck? Either you see very little aggro and you lose quickly to it, in which case it's a small difference, or you see a lot of aggro and you beat up on it. That's the game you want to look at for how much time it takes.  And in that event, it's the not-Aggro deck that's dictating the pace of the game, not the Aggro deck.  In the end, the presumption is that these are 50-50 games in a stable meta, only the incidence of Aggro changes.  It matters more what the Aggro mirror and Aggro losses look like than the Aggro wins, which are the only games that seem to be shorter, as a rule.

So overall, this analysis is flawed because it's taken from the perspective of a "not-Aggro" player jumping into the shoes of an "Aggro" player, and presuming that Aggro player has an insane win rate where he's dictating the pace of each game he plays.  In other words, the laddering speed is much more complicated than that.

The real reasons for Aggro's overrepresentation, if any, would be accessability, whether in terms of dust or learning curve.