How foolish of you to try that card (a second person to have done that recently… What is it with with this syndrome: Valeera avatar, delusions of grandeur… 
).
First of all, of course, the ad hominem fallacy — obvious as it is.
Second, you never know who you’re talking and trying to compare the length of your… skill to. I’ve hit numbers higher than that in my rather amateurish Hearthstone ‘career’ (see, for example, also this), yet I haven’t had any delusions of grandeur about them and their significance, putting on airs like I’m someone just because of some stupid figures.
Allow me to tell you a little personal tale — indulge me, I think it’s a useful one.
Had a ‘friend’ in HS years ago, maybe it was open beta, maybe the first release — I don’t rightly remember, and it matters not. You know how I made this one? There I was, sitting, watching some local HS stream, making ironic or even sarcastic remarks (hmm, perhaps that’s my modus operandi after all) about trying to climb to Legend with Priest (back in that era — the original ‘Classic’ or maybe even ‘pre-Classic’) in the chat. Some guy there responded to me calmly that he’d done it. I swallowed my next snarky words, feeling a change of attitude was in order, and asked him how he’d accomplished it, with what deck and so on. The guy replied to me politely and constructively, provided with a deck (codes weren’t even a thing back then — we used some websites with deck builders) and tips how to play it, although he admitted it could be tough, and that’s how I got to know him a bit.
A few years later, he won the HS world championship (or whatever it was called), and that was the only time I was more or less watching, since that kind of ‘e-sport’ hasn’t generally been my ‘thing’, so to speak, due to heavy ‘RNG’ and all that. That tournament was no exception, but I was still rooting for that guy, even if I might not had been in touch with him by then. Subsequently, he had a much more successful ‘e-sports’ career than probably most people on these forums would ever have, but you know how I remember him most? Not only as a successful player, but a nice a polite guy with a constructive attitude.
If you’ve gotta learn from the best, maybe learn something from this example?
That was my statement, not Kassadin’s.
Rest assured, I don’t care for your sort at all either, so to speak. Anyway, that doesn’t preclude me from admitting that you’ve had a point in this topic… and acknowledged my statement, which I believe to be logically and factually true — so there’s that.
But anyway, back to the substance of the matter — the data. By the way, sorry — unable to keep up with the rest of the discussion yet. I’ll quote some examples of a general point about the win rate of the ‘most succesful’ and ‘top’ players, then respond to that with a data argument.
One could look, for example, at this kind of data from D0nkey:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=978i-YTm2Hg
Yes, I know there’s a tracker bias and all that, but I’d think it’s not that significant if you look, for example, at top 100 Legend — one could reasobably assume that many of them in that league are running one and it doesn’t provide a significant advantage on its own.
So, what have we got there? People from top-100 legend running a particular tracker enjoy a winrate of about 51 or 52 per cent — those ‘extra one or two percent’ (alright, maybe three, although the errors are larger for a smaller sample size) I was talking about. By contrast, suspiciously high win rates in other leagues have been linked with the bot infestation.
If a guy tells me of a ‘global winrate’ of 58,5% and easy 11 stars, I suspect something isn’t quite right here. It doesn’t mean a person is lying — it could be bots or something else, but such a figure itself in a game like this isn’t right already.
Besides, I’d had some unfortunate experiences with free 11 stars when Classic was hit by bot waves (the first time was different, though: after returning to the game and thus having no bonus stars whatsoever, I had to ‘grind’ so hard and win so many games, that the win rate was skyrocketing, I guess; during other months, even landing in top-50 or so would guarantee nothing — and they say the bonus star is determined more by your win rate than by rank…), so yeah… I can’t rule out this possibility as well.
Alright, probably gotta take a break here…
PS One more obvoius thing: of course, a single ‘outlier’ random event is also possible (if I remember correctly, some would-be discoveries e.g. in particle physics at the ‘three sigma’ level of confidence, if you know what I mean, disappeared at ‘five sigmas’) — my point was that in general such numbers look very suspicious.