I am just naturally to aggressive, so playing defensively keeps me in the fight long enough to have influence on the win chance. Some good players who I played with back then made me consider treating my survival rate as an important indicator and while doing that I actually noticed my win rate was going up a lot. *I actually started out playing overly aggressive and died a lot without having a lot of influence. What happens if everyone on my team uses MMM and thinks that since I have decent stats I need support? That would make my historical performance worthless since I suddenly have to play aggressive. Not only to support those there while hopefully my strong flank wins the engagement, but because I know if things go bad I am pretty good at kiting and delaying. Also, I clearly know from my own playstyle in the past, I actually liked going to the weak flanks. I actually seen this happen with my own eyes pretty often, just as I seen good players actually die to ( even for them ) stupid reasons.

By not supporting someone just because he has bad stats, you might be actually hurting not only his rise up to getting decent stats, but also your own win chance in that game since perhaps your own statistical performance already includes the aid of such allies in your random teams which might have bad historical performance but will actually carry you this one game if you help him through the first minutes.

But if we always play to our statistics, those same statistics would be static. I mean yes, yes off course statistics are usually really good indicators. You can support this player as much as you want but in 90% they will find a way to die and drag you to bottom of sea aswell. Would be pointless to follow some DD to/near cap and find out he likes to sit in it while covered in smoke. They give you general and pretty accurate indication if you should support some player or not.

Xvm for world of warships