u/One-Yogurtcloset379

Hello guys, so I looked at the criteria for the 2026 Asian Games in Korea, and there is a fierce ongoing debate on the candidates, whether they are merited for the position.

I fetched the data from gol.gg and did a comprehensive calculation. I'll state the conclusion first: Zeus, Canyon, and Zeka, if you look strictly at the stats as stated by the Korean Committee, they are valid. Gumayusi, Faker, and Keria, however, are debatable if you look only at their stats from 2024–2026.

You can see the overview webpage here:
https://asian-game-esports-kr-dossier.vercel.app/
Or you can download or view the Excel sheet using the Dropbox link:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/eh43od8i8m63gro5ew951/lck-roster-factcheck-2026-05-20.xls?rlkey=12511ewtjwmi5rvxpgaxgdhx5&st=7p22zi27&dl=0

Here is how I did it, so you can replicate or argue with me:

1. I pulled every gol.gg tournament page for each KR player in scope (LCK regular splits, playoffs, MSI, Worlds — 2024 through the current 2026 split).
2. For each metric the Committee actually listed (KDA, KP%, DMG%, DPM, DPG, GDPM, CSD@15, Gold%, VSPM, solo kills, champion pool, win%, plus First Blood% for jungle), I did a games-weighted average across all those tournaments.
3. Then, for each role, I min-max normalized every metric across the whole KR pool at that role, applied role-specific weights (e.g. supports get heavier vision weight, junglers get heavier KP and FB%), and added it up.

So when I say someone is "valid," I mean:

• against the exact stat lines the Committee themselves named, this player is in the top tier of KR at their role over the 2024–2026 window.

When I say "debatable," I mean:

• their score is not clearly top of the pool — there are other KR players at the same role who score equal or higher on the same metrics.

You can refer to the original criteria here: https://m.sports.naver.com/esports/article/442/0000192509?sid3=79e&spi_ref=m_sports_x

1. Top / Zeus — valid.  Top of the list
2. Jungle / Canyon — debatable. I'll explain later.
3. Mid / Zeka — valid. Right after Chovy, since he is sick.
4. ADC / Gumayusi — debatable. Really poor stats if you only run the figures.
5. Mid / Faker — debatable (stats only). 
6. Support / Keria — debatable. Same shape as Faker.

I think they pick Gumayusi, Faker, and Keria both out of competence and popularity.

But,

Canyon vs Oner — so this is where things get interesting.

If you only look at the stats, Canyon is at #5 in the jungle list, whereas Oner is at #7, and in front of them are Peanut, Kanavi, Lucid, and Cuzz. Since Peanut has already retired, and you can argue that Kanavi, Lucid, and Cuzz don't have big international wins (if you take out MSI, Kanavi has no international wins compared to Canyon), so, if you follow the Committee's way of choosing candidates, Canyon is at #5 and higher than Oner, and also has a Worlds championship, right? This would only make sense if you do not choose Gumayusi.

I'll explain why. Simply put: purely from a Worlds-results point of view, yes, you should pick Gumayusi. But purely from a stats point of view, you should be picking Viper, not him. So the moment you put Canyon on the roster, what you are actually saying is "we pick on stats plus Worlds honors that come first on the list." But from that angle, Viper should be the one — he has a Worlds championship and really good stats, and his name also appears at the top of the list, instead of Gumayusi.

And yet you pick Gumayusi instead of Viper. Is that a subtle way of saying that for ADC, we value Worlds honors more than stats, but for jungle, stats matter more — even when the counterpart has three Worlds championships?

Thanks for reading. I'll explain how I calculate the numbers in the coming posts.