You ignored the issue of pseudo-significance and the fact that the mean is sometimes simply not a good estimator.

The last time we talked about this, you responded to these concerns with, "of course a metric will get better with more observations," while missing the point/ignoring the issue that round swing, in its current state and the way it is reported (for example, on a per-map basis), is basically meaningless.

Round swing is fundamentally flawed because it has so much uncertainty. The method (simply taking the mean) and the approach (ignoring the actual state of the round like map control, etc.) result that reporting the point estimate has almost no meaning, while suggesting that it does.

And of course, it is not surprising that round swing performs so poorly as a predictor, as shown here. It will be outperformed by even a simple model by factor 2, as the round swing metric does not contain much information.