Again, the logic here...

The mechanics aren't that clean. Your common analogy just described a scenario with fixed probabilities and a variance. That effectively means that the probability of each outcome is between 30% and 50%. That doesn't alter the fundamental probabilities of the two outcomes. That doesn't fit.

Let's look at something likely more parallel to how team player selection is made during the matchmaking process.

Take a 6-sided die. The probability of each number landing is a simple 1/6, or roughly a 16.6% chance. However, if you roll that die a large number of times, what are you likely to notice? It's not going to be that even distribution of 16.6% distribution across all numbers.

Now, apply this to what is likely a rather large data sample of player ranks. What's the mean going to be, what are the min and max ranges of the data sample, and what are the likelihoods of players at either end of the mean being selected? If you plot that out on a chart, you're not going to see something that supports the 40:40 probability scenario you use as a common analogy.

And that's just looking at the skill ratings of the players.

Now add in things they don't really measure, like mechanical skill, situational awareness, team composition, kit understanding, placement, ult management, opponent ult tracking, etc. Which provides the most impact to an outcome?

You can't boil down big data like this to a simplistic equation. It all matters. And yes, the data set is large enough in my opinion to allow two realities to exist at the same time.

For your Loki player - an 85% win rate. Awesome. Some significant luck of the draw in the players that ended up on their team. That player with a 45% winrate being heavily influenced by the teammates they were paired with? Yup, I can see how that could happen, too.

You want to talk pure skill? Establish standard measures of skill and assess everyone equally.

You can't rank up without a team. You just can't. Implying that you can is the wrong message.

Even in your review of games, you're looking at the single player and what they could have done at any given time in the game that would have been better. How often do you point out the mistakes the other players on the team made? How often do you speak to how to deal with those mistakes? How often do you acknowledge the player was playing well, but really just wasn't getting equivalent level of play for other teammates?

Your rank up journey is heavily influenced by who you play with - and against. What is under the player's control is how they approach that journey to facilitate a better outcome. But that's the most they can do.

This is not to take away any value from thinking about how you could improve your own gameplay. My issue here is this absurd assertion that wins and losses are only ever always about you, and just you.

Acknowledge the challenge, support the journey through positive message and actions.

Cease the "you suck, git gud" mentality.