This article has been debated itself for over 6 years. It has also been highly rejected for over 6 years.
To counter your point on "thinning your deck so insignificantly" is a bad move against certain archetypes. You could be absolutely correct. The fact of the matter is the X number of fetchlands you play is the X number of dead cards you are going to draw against that deck.
Your Fact that is based off that article has huge mathematical errors and biases surrounding it. I take statistics every year for my masters. Thats a highschool project put into a computer program with ridiculous numbers as baselines for manabases. I will criticize that paper because I can. I can also bring up statistics that whenever fetchlands were in standard, everyone used them. Those stats are staggering, and probably alot more sound then the argument you linked to.
We aren't debating marginal, because thats a personal perspective as to what that exactly is. Even the original poster said it probably ranges higher then 5%, and that is statistically significant.
It's a good thing BweeBwee already took the words right out of my mouth:
Deck thinning from fetches is definitely a myth. The lifeloss is not worth a negligible increase in the chance of drawing a spell. First of all, sometimes you want to draw lands. Secondly, if you people think 5% sounds like a good percentage increase, think about it this way. A 5% increase in chance of drawing a spell will, on average, give you 1 additional spell over TWENTY TURNS or some such. Games are decided in far fewer than that, and the life loss from the amount of fetchlands required to even reach that threshold is definitely relevant.
Now, fetchlands are definitely worth running if they serve other purposes, like pumping a geopede or changing your top card when you have a nocturnus, but if you are running them purely to thin, you are doing it wrong.
PT Venice. The major Onslaught Block Constructed tournament.
Let's look at the top 8:
- R/g Goblins (Nassif). Fetchlands are played to splash for green for Broodhatch Nantuko.
- Mono Red Goblins (Walamies). No fetchlands.
- R/G Mana Ramp, aka The Claw (Kastle). Fetchlands are played for mana fixing due to the fact it's a R/G deck playing with double green and triple red stuff in the maindeck.
- R/W Slide (Lebedowicz). No fetchlands.
- G/W/b Mana Ramp (Kashima). Fetchlands are played for mana fixing due to the fact that G/W are the critical colors for the deck to function.
- R/G Beasts (Berkowitz). Fetchlands are played again for mana fixing because there is a good split between needing to play both red and green.
- Mono Red Goblins (Jorstedt). No fetchlands.
- G/W Mana Ramp (Jensen). Fetchlands are played for mana fixing.
So, out of the entire top 8, bothMono Red Goblins decks did not play a single fetchland, completely contrary to your previous statement that all Goblin decks played a full playset of each red fetchland solely for the purpose of deckthinning. Only Nassif used fetchlands in his Goblin deck, and that was simply to have an easy splash for green, which is what fetchlands are actually used for.
Oh yeah, this was before Stifle was printed as well.
So are you really saying that fetchlands are worth so much because of the 'deck thinning' effect they have in monocoloured decks? I think not, it's obvious it's because they provide great fixing in every single format of the game.
Therefore the original post was not made because the poster 'can't afford fetchlands lulz' he makes it quite clear that they're purpose is primarily colour fixing.
I have to agree with him really, slapping 8 fetchlands in your moncoloured deck purely for 'deck thinning' seems very pointless. It's like giving your opponent a free burn spell at the start of every game for very little if no return.
Not sure how you take what I said and think I believe that fetches are only worth so much due to deck thinning. I think the deck thinning aspect of fetches are a super small bonus that might make a difference in 1 in 5 games(Just taking a guess). I actually posted earlier in this thread that there is no deck in standard that runs fetches only for the thinning aspect they provide. So I really dont even think this should be a debate.
i think that in playing magic you obviously want to use everything you can to your advantage, regardless every 1-4% helps and so on and so on, any help is good help, let the cards work for you
Not to rag on you too hard, but the numerical analysis you provided isn't sound. You shouldn't have to make an assumption about what you draw in any hand to be able to predict the percentages of the next hands. Use Markov Chains, it'll get you a whole lot further for less work. Some basic combinometrics show that the effect is pretty substantial as the course of the game continues.
And yes, fetchlands often are thinning that is good enough.
1 life is negligible most of the time; You lose because you don't have the one spell you need to stop them or the one spell to swing into your win. The extra lightning bolt is worth the risk. Especially if you crack 2 - 4 fetches over the course of a 6 - 8 turns.
You also fail to mention the fact that fetches let you shuffle your library, in case cards are put on the bottom from the numerous cascade spells in the format as well as if you have spells that let you look at the top cards of your library, or even if someone puts a creature on the bottom of your library.
Finally, if you are playing multicolor decks, fetches are pretty much the best way to fix your mana and still be able to play a spell.
If this extremely miniscule percentage of thinning your deck is supposedly worth paying one life, why aren't we seeing every single deck run as many relevant fetchlands as possible?
If this extremely miniscule percentage of thinning your deck is supposedly worth paying one life, why aren't we seeing every single deck run as many relevant fetchlands as possible?
Decks like Bushwhacker and monowhite tokens run the full set of oncolor lands (12 and 8, respectively) and every other deck like Jund, Naya, Bant runs as many fetches as possible given the constraints. For instance, the first Jund list has only 8 basic lands. Every other land is non-basic, but since fetches can only find basic lands, if the number of basic lands in the deck was reduced, there become a high probability that you have already fetched out all your lands of a certain color, making your fetch-land a dead draw.
The Bant deck even runs lands which can only get a single basic (although this is largely due to KotR) which clearly shows how good fitting as many fetchlands as possible into a deck is.
People arguing that decks like RDW should run only mountains as their manabase should go take their deck and go win some tournaments, if it is so clearly better than the alternative (note: the alternative which is what is currently winning, all the time). Or just get together both versions of the decks, one with fetches and one without, and match them up. I guarantee that the number of games the fetchland deck loses because of the 1-2 points lost while fetching will be less than the number of games won due to overall better and more consistent draws.
It's pretty hard to make the argument that anyone would ever play morphics/panoramas in mono without landfall. Some landfall-free decks would illustrate the point better.
TBH, they are: http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/eventcoverage/worlds09/sndrdtop8decks
People arguing that decks like RDW should run only mountains as their manabase should go take their deck and go win some tournaments, if it is so clearly better than the alternative (note: the alternative which is what is currently winning, all the time). Or just get together both versions of the decks, one with fetches and one without, and match them up. I guarantee that the number of games the fetchland deck loses because of the 1-2 points lost while fetching will be less than the number of games won due to overall better and more consistent draws.
Every deck in that list that runs non-fixing fetches (Bant, Boros, White Tokens) has some sort of effect that fetches abuse - KotR/Emeria Angel for Bant, Lynx/Geopede for Boros, and Lynx for Tokens.
The only time I would ever consider running fetchlands for thinning only would be if I was playing a super-fast suicide deck that was guaranteed to be much, much faster than the rest of the meta - but then again, if such a deck was competitive, the life loss would certainly hurt you in the mirror match.
I think the title of this thread was a bit misleading, as the thinning is not a myth, it's just irrelevant the vast majority of the time.
can you factor how much damage you would take in a game where instead of drawing something revelant as oppiose to drawing a land. You really can't, but I can't count the times where I had to draw somehting besides a land to stop taking damage from a creature that turn
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I am the stone that the builder refused I am the visual, the inspiration, that made lady sing the blues I'm the spark that makes your idea bright The same spark that lights the dark so that you can know your left from your right I am the ballot in your box; the bullet in the gun That inner glow that lets you know to call your brother "son" The story that just begun, the promise of what's to come And I'mma remain a soldier til' the war is won
Pitching 3-5 life to fetches to potentially make one of your land draws (PER GAME...) into a non-land card isn't really worth it. If they help, sure. otherwise, its not very bright to bleed yourself for close to no guaranteed advantage for an guaranteed loss of life.
Of course, if it's helping your mana fixing, It's fine.
It's understandable blue control players would be shocked and in denial at the notion of this card, since their decks have been dominating multiple formats for an eternity yet they've curiously never once had to deal with any counter-hosers that weren't ineffectual, narrow CRAP.
i think that in playing magic you obviously want to use everything you can to your advantage, regardless every 1-4% helps and so on and so on, any help is good help, let the cards work for you
The faulty logic here that I see repeated over and over is: yes I would like the 1-4% chance to draw a non-land card. But its not free.
1-4 extra life helps as well. And "any help is good help".
Just please: Show me a mono-colored decklist with no landfall that uses lots of fetches and placed well in a tournament.
Vampires run fetchs so that if they play nocturnous, they can fetch while its in play to try again at a black card. You rarely crack them unless you have to. plus the lifeloss is negated by tendrils and nighthawks and bloodwitches.
Thought Scour is terrible in BV. How many flashback spells are being run? Say roughly 15. This gives you a roughly 38% chance of milling one flashback spell. And even if you do, you paid one mana to cantrip and dump an overcosted spell. Alchemy, Geistflame, Devil's play, etc. all cost much more to flash back than your average card, so you're not getting full value out of it.
You'd much rather play Ponder. At least that generates a tangible advantage.
Why don't you see RDW or Vamps winning enough? Fetch hurts them more than it helps them! That is the point of my research. That is what I have discovered.
Yeah I'm sure that's the reason. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with matchups, the popularity of the deck, etc, anything. It seems like you are confusing correlation with causation.
The deck thinning theory has been around since the original fetches and have been destroyed as a meaningful advantage years ago. That's why noone run the old fetches in decks that run a single color in Vintage or Legacy.
The thing is - if you DO have a reason to run fetches (either because it helps your mana base, because you're using landfall shenanigans or whatever), you have a small, very small, bonus with deck thinning. Should you use fetches just because of it? Of course not. Is it good that this colateral bonus is there? Sure.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Alea iacta est
I'm a Spike Vorthos - I love lore and flavor, but only if the cards are competition worthy.
The deck thinning theory has been around since the original fetches and have been destroyed as a meaningful advantage years ago. That's why noone run the old fetches in decks that run a single color in Vintage or Legacy.
The thing is - if you DO have a reason to run fetches (either because it helps your mana base, because you're using landfall shenanigans or whatever), you have a small, very small, bonus with deck thinning. Should you use fetches just because of it? Of course not. Is it good that this colateral bonus is there? Sure.
They do run them in older mono coloured decks though. You're just straight wrong.
Well, I'd also kindly remind everyone that fetches will ruin your day if your opponent runs Mind Funeral and Archive Trap, but that's beside my point.
Moving on...
There will be some people who will swear to the grave that the measly 1-4% early game buff is crucial in winning games. I think in a standard environment in which even aggressive decks consider running 23-24 lands minimum, they've already made the decision that they want the increased chance of drawing a land. So hopefully there's no one out there who goes with the safe 23-24 land count AND runs fetches for thinning purposes, as that would be doublethink. Games are not won by this percentage chance, they are won by skilled deckbuilding. Standard has always been about finding the best value for the fewest (and cheapest to cast) cards. If you make sure you'll squeeze every last drop of value out of the spells you run, you won't need to worry about thinning your deck to draw more since you'll get plenty of use out of the ones you DO draw. It only takes one Blightning to ruin someone's day, and in many games people cast two or more in a single game.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Seven Knights gathered under a single banner, but soon came to learn one more would join their cause.
So, out of the entire top 8, bothMono Red Goblins decks did not play a single fetchland, completely contrary to your previous statement that all Goblin decks played a full playset of each red fetchland solely for the purpose of deckthinning. Only Nassif used fetchlands in his Goblin deck, and that was simply to have an easy splash for green, which is what fetchlands are actually used for.
This is ridiculous. This is what you give me as profound evidence? You search wizards database and find one, and I mean one mere top 8 as fact to disprove my point of view?
14, an astounding 14 decklists that are mono red goblins packed 3+ fetchlands.
The thing is, I did my homework, because I played that era. I saw what happened, don't come in on forums and try to debate people with 1 or 2 "goodie" links that support your point of view in a fragment of time, and leave the whole spectrum blind to everyone else trying to dismiss me.
This is a horrible attempt at ridicule, edit your post, because if you want to point and click examples off of Wizards database as your "hardcore evidence" lets rumble, because I can come up with 50 times more examples supporting what I say, then you can.
A fraction of time (too long in fact, imo) was that no one knew how good fetchlands were, why did we need them? There was painlands in the format, and they don't provide 2 colors, City of brass and the CIPT dual lands were available as well.
As time went on, people started to realize the full potential of these cards. The actual price spike of them was almost immediately after the 2005 Extended season, where Antoine Ruel won with a classic UB psychatog. With life from the loam, cycle lands, and fetchlands in the format, card advantage screamed for mercy. Even his large competitors, the Japanese first formed what we call "Boros" style decks, lots of burn and efficient creatures. The most ridiculous factor of all, was the fact that they had more fetchlands then lands that provided mana. Why did every single notable Japanese player use them? Sure you can claim Grim Lavamancer is a reason, but no other card in that deck had direct synergy.
Like I said, I can poke examples all day, and at a frequency you will not be able to compare.
Anyone can simply do this, Search "2003 X Fetchland name/Goblin" and you will see the results for yourself. Out of 10 links I've seen perhaps 5-8 decks that didn't run fetchlands that were mono colored. So congrats, a few top players disagreed with the other 500.
Your argument is well written, but horribly unsound.
Next joke please, I will argue this all month if I have to. If your one of these people in denial, come and PM me. I will talk to you on MSN I don't care, I like sharing my point of view and learning from others. I will admit when I make mistakes (which I have written so in the past), but this is such a forte of mine, and my deck building is a reason im 1850 rating at the moment after a long long hiatus. Fetchlands are a key to my success, not going to lie one bit, they can be the key to yours.
A commonly occuring decklist for goblins in events past this one (Odyssey-Onslaught), but im pretty sure he is just mana fixing right?
Along with the other 10 goblin decks with similar if not more horrid amounts of fetchlands? In a format full of Discard/Madness decks?
How about the other 50 decks, that pack 8 fetchlands between 2 colors? Enemy colors, by the way are they mana fixing too?
Final Note: I can't be bothered trying to post anymore, I'm buying fetchlands 10-15$ a pop depending what it is, any color combination any set. No questions asked.
Those lists are from 2003, and goblins are one of the most aggressive decks ever made. IIRC it pretty much only lost if it ran out of steam, so adding that extra 1-3% actually mattered. That was also 6 years ago, so I'd have to guess that nobody did the math on how much fetches did...
you've linked a decklist with 4 Grim Lavamancer and 4 Barbarian Ring as "proof" that fetchlands were being played for deck thinning. this is not a good example. it has 8 other cards in the deck that are confounding factors.
if you want to legitimately prove your point find a single colored deck with no graveyard based effects, no shuffle based effects, no landfalls, or any other way of gaining extra advantage from fetchlands. thats the deck that would actually prove your point elegantly.
Pretty much. No deck uses fetchlands SOLELY for deckthinning. That's just nonsense. There's almost always some other (greater) reason for using them. The thinning aspect is a minor, coincidental, rarely realized benefit. Period. End of story.
The OP is obviously wrong in saying thinning is a myth because thinning is obviously not a myth, by removing lands from your deck you WILL draw less lands. Whether fetch should be played in a monocolor deck with no other purpose but to thin comes down to the metagame and the value of life vs better draw. Both side is being right in that fetchlands can be played in mono color decks, as shown by the onslaunt block t2, but right now it probably shouldnt because of the insane amount of creature based aggro / midrange in the format.
Saying 1 life is never worth the extra few % of draw all the time is being ignorant and never played in the mono-red vs wrath/vengence/slide era. Saying 1 life is always worth the extra draw is also being ignorant and does not realize that against 90% of the deck in the format, the extra life helps more than the thinning. In matchup of control vs aggro, the life of the aggro player is rarely ever relevant because if the control player dealt 18 19 damage, he stablized the board long before that, and having that extra life rarely ever matters, much less than the improved draw.
So in conclusion, it comes down to metagame.... Thinning DOES occur, but is it worth the life? Thats up to the individual player to decide.
you've linked a decklist with 4 Grim Lavamancer and 4 Barbarian Ring as "proof" that fetchlands were being played for deck thinning. this is not a good example. it has 8 other cards in the deck that are confounding factors.
if you want to legitimately prove your point find a single colored deck with no graveyard based effects, no shuffle based effects, no landfalls, or any other way of gaining extra advantage from fetchlands. thats the deck that would actually prove your point elegantly.
If you look at the links, there are decks without lavamancer.
Every mono-red Goblins deck in the link you posted plays Barbarian Ring, a card that depends on Threshold.
Also, if these players were running fetchlands for thinning purposes, why would they not run all 8 (R/B and R/G) maindeck to achieve maximum thinning? Not a single mono-colored list, other than your European list, ran more than 4, and that list was Threshold-heavy with 8 cards maindeck relying on the graveyard.
It's a good thing BweeBwee already took the words right out of my mouth:
It appears you haven't done any research on this at all. Luckily, I did.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=sideboard/ptven03/t8decks
PT Venice. The major Onslaught Block Constructed tournament.
Let's look at the top 8:
- R/g Goblins (Nassif). Fetchlands are played to splash for green for Broodhatch Nantuko.
- Mono Red Goblins (Walamies). No fetchlands.
- R/G Mana Ramp, aka The Claw (Kastle). Fetchlands are played for mana fixing due to the fact it's a R/G deck playing with double green and triple red stuff in the maindeck.
- R/W Slide (Lebedowicz). No fetchlands.
- G/W/b Mana Ramp (Kashima). Fetchlands are played for mana fixing due to the fact that G/W are the critical colors for the deck to function.
- R/G Beasts (Berkowitz). Fetchlands are played again for mana fixing because there is a good split between needing to play both red and green.
- Mono Red Goblins (Jorstedt). No fetchlands.
- G/W Mana Ramp (Jensen). Fetchlands are played for mana fixing.
So, out of the entire top 8, both Mono Red Goblins decks did not play a single fetchland, completely contrary to your previous statement that all Goblin decks played a full playset of each red fetchland solely for the purpose of deckthinning. Only Nassif used fetchlands in his Goblin deck, and that was simply to have an easy splash for green, which is what fetchlands are actually used for.
Oh yeah, this was before Stifle was printed as well.
Not sure how you take what I said and think I believe that fetches are only worth so much due to deck thinning. I think the deck thinning aspect of fetches are a super small bonus that might make a difference in 1 in 5 games(Just taking a guess). I actually posted earlier in this thread that there is no deck in standard that runs fetches only for the thinning aspect they provide. So I really dont even think this should be a debate.
—Dr. Cox, Scrubs
______________________
I think its funny this got locked:
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=184367
And yes, fetchlands often are thinning that is good enough.
1 life is negligible most of the time; You lose because you don't have the one spell you need to stop them or the one spell to swing into your win. The extra lightning bolt is worth the risk. Especially if you crack 2 - 4 fetches over the course of a 6 - 8 turns.
You also fail to mention the fact that fetches let you shuffle your library, in case cards are put on the bottom from the numerous cascade spells in the format as well as if you have spells that let you look at the top cards of your library, or even if someone puts a creature on the bottom of your library.
Finally, if you are playing multicolor decks, fetches are pretty much the best way to fix your mana and still be able to play a spell.
TBH, they are:
http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/eventcoverage/worlds09/sndrdtop8decks
Decks like Bushwhacker and monowhite tokens run the full set of oncolor lands (12 and 8, respectively) and every other deck like Jund, Naya, Bant runs as many fetches as possible given the constraints. For instance, the first Jund list has only 8 basic lands. Every other land is non-basic, but since fetches can only find basic lands, if the number of basic lands in the deck was reduced, there become a high probability that you have already fetched out all your lands of a certain color, making your fetch-land a dead draw.
The Bant deck even runs lands which can only get a single basic (although this is largely due to KotR) which clearly shows how good fitting as many fetchlands as possible into a deck is.
People arguing that decks like RDW should run only mountains as their manabase should go take their deck and go win some tournaments, if it is so clearly better than the alternative (note: the alternative which is what is currently winning, all the time). Or just get together both versions of the decks, one with fetches and one without, and match them up. I guarantee that the number of games the fetchland deck loses because of the 1-2 points lost while fetching will be less than the number of games won due to overall better and more consistent draws.
Umm, in response to Surging Chaos. Now he wasn't running 4 Tarn and 4 Mesas, but you can see this dude ran a full 12.
This is why this discussion is pointless. No one is including discussing Panoramas or Expanses (ie no life loss)
EDIT: Not to say he was using them solely for "thining", but he was also using them to maximize landfall triggers, so there you have it. 2fer
Every deck in that list that runs non-fixing fetches (Bant, Boros, White Tokens) has some sort of effect that fetches abuse - KotR/Emeria Angel for Bant, Lynx/Geopede for Boros, and Lynx for Tokens.
The only time I would ever consider running fetchlands for thinning only would be if I was playing a super-fast suicide deck that was guaranteed to be much, much faster than the rest of the meta - but then again, if such a deck was competitive, the life loss would certainly hurt you in the mirror match.
I think the title of this thread was a bit misleading, as the thinning is not a myth, it's just irrelevant the vast majority of the time.
Pitching 3-5 life to fetches to potentially make one of your land draws (PER GAME...) into a non-land card isn't really worth it. If they help, sure. otherwise, its not very bright to bleed yourself for close to no guaranteed advantage for an guaranteed loss of life.
Of course, if it's helping your mana fixing, It's fine.
The faulty logic here that I see repeated over and over is: yes I would like the 1-4% chance to draw a non-land card. But its not free.
1-4 extra life helps as well. And "any help is good help".
Just please: Show me a mono-colored decklist with no landfall that uses lots of fetches and placed well in a tournament.
Yeah I'm sure that's the reason. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with matchups, the popularity of the deck, etc, anything. It seems like you are confusing correlation with causation.
The thing is - if you DO have a reason to run fetches (either because it helps your mana base, because you're using landfall shenanigans or whatever), you have a small, very small, bonus with deck thinning. Should you use fetches just because of it? Of course not. Is it good that this colateral bonus is there? Sure.
I'm a Spike Vorthos - I love lore and flavor, but only if the cards are competition worthy.
They do run them in older mono coloured decks though. You're just straight wrong.
Moving on...
There will be some people who will swear to the grave that the measly 1-4% early game buff is crucial in winning games. I think in a standard environment in which even aggressive decks consider running 23-24 lands minimum, they've already made the decision that they want the increased chance of drawing a land. So hopefully there's no one out there who goes with the safe 23-24 land count AND runs fetches for thinning purposes, as that would be doublethink. Games are not won by this percentage chance, they are won by skilled deckbuilding. Standard has always been about finding the best value for the fewest (and cheapest to cast) cards. If you make sure you'll squeeze every last drop of value out of the spells you run, you won't need to worry about thinning your deck to draw more since you'll get plenty of use out of the ones you DO draw. It only takes one Blightning to ruin someone's day, and in many games people cast two or more in a single game.
This is ridiculous. This is what you give me as profound evidence? You search wizards database and find one, and I mean one mere top 8 as fact to disprove my point of view?
Alright, let's rumble...
http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=sideboard/gpatl03/t8decks
Here is a top 8 where two mono red goblins that run fetches. Also every deck in that list has quite a few.
Actually, lets look at all the day 2 decks.
http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=sideboard/gpatl03/d2decks
14, an astounding 14 decklists that are mono red goblins packed 3+ fetchlands.
The thing is, I did my homework, because I played that era. I saw what happened, don't come in on forums and try to debate people with 1 or 2 "goodie" links that support your point of view in a fragment of time, and leave the whole spectrum blind to everyone else trying to dismiss me.
This is a horrible attempt at ridicule, edit your post, because if you want to point and click examples off of Wizards database as your "hardcore evidence" lets rumble, because I can come up with 50 times more examples supporting what I say, then you can.
A fraction of time (too long in fact, imo) was that no one knew how good fetchlands were, why did we need them? There was painlands in the format, and they don't provide 2 colors, City of brass and the CIPT dual lands were available as well.
As time went on, people started to realize the full potential of these cards. The actual price spike of them was almost immediately after the 2005 Extended season, where Antoine Ruel won with a classic UB psychatog. With life from the loam, cycle lands, and fetchlands in the format, card advantage screamed for mercy. Even his large competitors, the Japanese first formed what we call "Boros" style decks, lots of burn and efficient creatures. The most ridiculous factor of all, was the fact that they had more fetchlands then lands that provided mana. Why did every single notable Japanese player use them? Sure you can claim Grim Lavamancer is a reason, but no other card in that deck had direct synergy.
Like I said, I can poke examples all day, and at a frequency you will not be able to compare.
Anyone can simply do this, Search "2003 X Fetchland name/Goblin" and you will see the results for yourself. Out of 10 links I've seen perhaps 5-8 decks that didn't run fetchlands that were mono colored. So congrats, a few top players disagreed with the other 500.
Your argument is well written, but horribly unsound.
Next joke please, I will argue this all month if I have to. If your one of these people in denial, come and PM me. I will talk to you on MSN I don't care, I like sharing my point of view and learning from others. I will admit when I make mistakes (which I have written so in the past), but this is such a forte of mine, and my deck building is a reason im 1850 rating at the moment after a long long hiatus. Fetchlands are a key to my success, not going to lie one bit, they can be the key to yours.
EDIT: Just because I'm a jerk here you go:
http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=sideboard/euro03/alldecks
4 Bloodstained Mire
8 Mountain
2 Petrified Field
4 Wooded Foothills
22 lands
4 Blistering Firecat
3 Goblin Goon
4 Goblin Piledriver
2 Goblin Taskmaster
4 Goblin Warchief
4 Grim Lavamancer
4 Raging Goblin
1 Siege-Gang Commander
4 Sparksmith
30 creatures
4 Firebolt
4 Volcanic Hammer
8 other spells
A commonly occuring decklist for goblins in events past this one (Odyssey-Onslaught), but im pretty sure he is just mana fixing right?
Along with the other 10 goblin decks with similar if not more horrid amounts of fetchlands? In a format full of Discard/Madness decks?
How about the other 50 decks, that pack 8 fetchlands between 2 colors? Enemy colors, by the way are they mana fixing too?
Final Note: I can't be bothered trying to post anymore, I'm buying fetchlands 10-15$ a pop depending what it is, any color combination any set. No questions asked.
if you want to legitimately prove your point find a single colored deck with no graveyard based effects, no shuffle based effects, no landfalls, or any other way of gaining extra advantage from fetchlands. thats the deck that would actually prove your point elegantly.
Saying 1 life is never worth the extra few % of draw all the time is being ignorant and never played in the mono-red vs wrath/vengence/slide era. Saying 1 life is always worth the extra draw is also being ignorant and does not realize that against 90% of the deck in the format, the extra life helps more than the thinning. In matchup of control vs aggro, the life of the aggro player is rarely ever relevant because if the control player dealt 18 19 damage, he stablized the board long before that, and having that extra life rarely ever matters, much less than the improved draw.
So in conclusion, it comes down to metagame.... Thinning DOES occur, but is it worth the life? Thats up to the individual player to decide.
If you look at the links, there are decks without lavamancer.
Also, if these players were running fetchlands for thinning purposes, why would they not run all 8 (R/B and R/G) maindeck to achieve maximum thinning? Not a single mono-colored list, other than your European list, ran more than 4, and that list was Threshold-heavy with 8 cards maindeck relying on the graveyard.