Stats borrowed from Claws and Fists' excellent post and recap here: http://clawsandfists.blogspot.com/2012/01/throne-of-skulls-final-standings.html
Oh the fun you can have with metrics. From an average score standpoint: Xenos own 4 of the top 5 slots. Xenos and Chaos own 7 of the top 10. But soft scores count: "you also get points based on how many of your opponents nominated you as their favourite opponent of the weekend" - with that taken into account, it's possible to infer that Xenos and Chaos players are more fun to play against. SinSynn should have a field day with this one. I'll give the Imperial sc.. uhm.. players a break and make the disclaimer that this was only one tournament, and won't try to make a grand claim that it's a result of finally getting to play against a more diverse field, instead of the usual higher volume of Imperials. An opportunity for a higher number of people to play armies they enjoy playing, vs. those they play simply to win with. For ToS, 73 of 128 players were Imperial, just shy of 60% so not a huge disparity. One could argue that this is 'working as intended' going back to Jervis' WD article about the format encouraging diversity by scoring by codex rather than straight up ranking. Probably the most interesting metric of all? Zero Sisters of Battle. How's that White Dwarf codex plan working GW?