Absolutely not. The ELO system should symetrically reward/punish players for winning/losing, so it doesnt create inflation. After so many games, the average player will have 50% win rate at the average rating (usually the starting one. i.e: 1000 ELO for 1v1), and you can then use the ELO to compare players.

Players with 55% WR after a significant number of games should only be found at the very top of the ladder. Players with 45% WR would be found at the very bottom.

The fact that the below happens, means the system is broken and these players are overrated.

Leaderboard |
Rank |
Rating |
Highest Rating |
Games |
Streak |
Wins |
Losses |
Win % |

Team RM |
#471 |
2852 |
2874 |
893 |
-2 |
394 |
499 |
44% |

After 900 games and a -100 games deficit, this ELO should be 49-51%. The fact that it is 44% means this player is facing stronger opponents frequently. How did he get +1841 points if he loses more than he wins? This player is clearly not at the same level as the other 2800 that have 50%+ WR and the fact that the system is not punishing when losing (but seems to be rewarding when winning) means even though he loses more than he wins (by a significant margin! 12%!!), he will continue to climb. Now we cannot compare players because the ELO is inflated and there is no baseline.

There are 76,447 players with an ELO of 1000+, and only 6,147 with sub 1000 ELO for TG. Basically if you play, you ramp up.

As for me… Yes, I am the outlier, too, because of this inflated system. I have to climb 1600 points so its going to take 100 games. On the 1v1 Ladder, as its not as inflated, I only had to climb 600 points (20-30 games).