I don't know how relative the sets of empirical data is to my point...

First of all, I didn't say anywhere that the game was flawed and that would be the incorrect assumption. I did state however, I felt the game was based heavily on strength. According to how FUMBBL calculates the strength ratings,

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
MA -6 -6 -4 -2 -1 0 2.5 4 5 8 13 15
ST - 6 -3 0 6 9 12 18 20
AG -4 -2 0 2 6 8
AV -5 -5 -5 -5 -4.5 -4 -2 0 1 3

the strength stat at 4 is valuated at 6 points versus any of the other stats. The fact is, excluding movement, blocking is the most used action in the game making strength by far the most widely used stat. Because of that fact, it can be argued that strength is the one most vital? perhaps "desireable" statistic in the game.

Now, whether strength, agility, skills, or armor value determines the outcome of a game is a separate issue and very debateable. To evaluate what team performs better than others, you can look at it two ways. Practically, there are many crucial and intangible factors, for instance, coaching, luck (die roll), individual strategy and player selection. (as enron points out). These are factors that cannot be weighted, and hence can throw any game off.

If you want to look at empirical data, despite the fact that that empirical data is flawed since there are no control parameters, which causes unecessary inaccuracies, is that based on both sets of datas, you can see a relationship. Some teams are ranked better than others. Chaos dwarves, Wood elves, Lizardmen are consistently ranked high, Dwarfs, orcs and lizardmen in the middle, and halflings, goblins on the bottom.

The only thing for certain is that the teams clearly are not balanced. Goblins and Halflings will never match up statistically to their counterparts of the game. The reason is that each teams start off with different skills, stats, and cost. Some teams are better in the long run, and others are better at the gate.