Carlsen’s title match stats in comparison

“It is very impressive, but doesn’t include his draws which split the point“
Looking at the draws really shows how much the game has changed over the years. Steinitz has a very even wins/losses ratio as most other World Champions, 43 wins vs 43 losses, but only 29 draws. That is 25% vs Carlsen’s 77%.
“i think the competition Karpov, Kasparov and Botvinnik were tougher”
At least Kasparov and Karpov certainly had comparatively tougher opposition, in that both faced one of the greatest players ever in 144 match games. But if a player scores good results it is often explained by the competition being weak, if it’s more even it is the player that is weak compared to other World Champions.
Looking at Kasparov, who is an unavoidable GOAT candidate, his matches include some comparatively unimpressive results. He was #1 when he went 0-5 down and 3-5 when the match was stopped. In 1987 he had to win the last game to draw the match, and in 2000 he was winless when losing to Kramnik.
This is not a case against Kasparov as the GOAT, more an example of how everyone playing a few matches will have some bad results. Lasker and Alekhine only had one each, but then they could pick Janowski and Bogo instead of having to play Candidates winners. Botvinnik had to face qualified opponents, but then he also won only two of his seven matches.
#1
"this is how the wins/losses stats look"
++ A match is about winning the match, not about winning more games.
Winning 1-0 or winning 4-0 is basically the same.
The player who first loses a game must take risks and that often leads to more losses.
A player who has lost a few games may become disheartened and that may cause more losses.
That even counts more now with 14-12 game matches as opposed to 24-30 games in the past.
“A match is about winning the match, not about winning more games. Winning 1-0 or winning 4-0 is basically the same”
In a way it is, especially with the short matches of today. Still I think for example Carlsen beating Anand 1-0 in 2013 or Nepo 1-0 in 2021 would have been seen as unconvincing.

Losing 2 games in 5 matches is of course amazing. On the other hand, winning just 11 games in 5 matches is still incredibly low. What we can conclude is that Magnus takes much less risk than any other world champion ever. Good for the results, not good for us spectators.
#8
"Magnus takes much less risk than any other world champion"
++ No not at all. Magnus takes more risks: e.g. gambiting pawns against Nepo.
The skills are so high now, that it is hard to win a game at top level against a physically and mentally fit opponent.
“Losing 2 games in 5 matches is of course amazing. On the other hand, winning just 11 games in 5 matches is still incredibly low. What we can conclude is that Magnus takes much less risk than any other world champion ever”
Or rather that chess is more drawish nowadays, 11 wins in 56 title match games isn’t extreme for a modern player. Kasparov had 4 wins in his first 56 title match games. Anand had 8 wins in his five matches for the undisputed title, 11 if one includes two split years matches. Kramnik 8 wins in his 52 title match games if one includes the split years titles. Since Fischer no World Champion actually comes close to Carlsen’s win percentage in title match games. And his latest challengers both have 0 wins in title match games…

#8
"Magnus takes much less risk than any other world champion"
++ No not at all. Magnus takes more risks: e.g. gambiting pawns against Nepo.
The skills are so high now, that it is hard to win a game at top level against a physically and mentally fit opponent.
It is quite normal to play a pawn sacrifice line that you prepared and found good. Nothing unusual or risky about it.
The second part of your post is very dubious. The candidates tournament had 23 wins in 56 games. The previous one had 25 wins in 56 games.
#11
"It is quite normal to play a pawn sacrifice line that you prepared and found good."
++ It is very unusual and very risky in a World Championship match. Carlsen almost lost game 2.
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=2122755
"The candidates tournament had 23 wins in 56 games."
++ A tournament is no match. If you win 1 game and draw the rest, then you win a match, but you end up in the middle of a tournament. Tournament chess demands taking more risk.

What's the total match games Carlsen has played, 59?
Also, didn't Lasker, Alekhine, Capablanca, Euwe, etc, all play undisputed title matches?
Oh, you just chose matches from 1937 onward. Why that specific year?
”Oh, you just chose matches from 1937 onward. Why that specific year?”
Two reasons, I got tired of counting, and before FIDE took over things were a bit different. Easier to score good results against Janowski and Bogo than against players that won Candidates.
To round it out:
Steinitz +43 -43
Lasker +45 -15
Capablanca +7 – 6
Alekhine +43 -24
Euwe +13 -18
One can see from the stats that Lasker and Alekhine not only were great players, but that their numbers probably look a bit better thanks to being able to pick opponents. Lasker had 16-0 against Janowski and Marshall, while Alekhine had 19-8 against Bogo. With the same qualification system as today it is also probable that Steinitz wouldn’t have played the match in 1896, where Lasker scored 10-2.

Picking a challenger by a series of qualification tournaments is clearly better than cherry picking opponents.

Laker, Capablanca, and Alekhine definitely took the pick and choose and sometimes just not play approach. But props to Steinitz for regularly put his title on the line against top contenders. And to Euwe for giving Alkehine a quick rematch.

And just for another metric I'm going to add back in the four split-title matches that most people consider to be fairly legit (Kasparov-Short, Kasparov-Anand, Kasparov-Kramnik, Kramnik-Leko)
Carlsen 11-2
Anand 9-14
Kramnik 10-10
Kasparov 31-23
Karpov 31-28
Fischer 7-3
Spassky 12-15
Petrosian 13-11
Tal 11-12
Smyslov 19-18
Botvinnik 26-29
Euwe 13-18
Alekhine 43-24
Capablanca 7– 6
Lasker 45-15
Steinitz 43-43

“Losing 2 games in 5 matches is of course amazing. On the other hand, winning just 11 games in 5 matches is still incredibly low. What we can conclude is that Magnus takes much less risk than any other world champion ever”
Or rather that chess is more drawish nowadays, 11 wins in 56 title match games isn’t extreme for a modern player. Kasparov had 4 wins in his first 56 title match games. Anand had 8 wins in his five matches for the undisputed title, 11 if one includes two split years matches. Kramnik 8 wins in his 52 title match games if one includes the split years titles. Since Fischer no World Champion actually comes close to Carlsen’s win percentage in title match games. And his latest challengers both have 0 wins in title match games…
What you neglect is that, many of those old timers played 24 games each match. Magnus' matches were consisted of 12 games at most, 60 games in total at most.
Whereas Spassky for example played 69 games in 3 matches, Kasparov played 96 games in 5 matches alone, Petrosian similarly played 70 games in 3 matches.
In five undisputed title matches Carlsen scored 11-2 in wins in classical and 5-0 in rapid. His four closest predecessors all played more than one match for split years titles, but counting only matches for the undisputed title this is how the wins/losses stats look:
Carlsen 11-2
Anand 8-10
Kramnik 4-6
Kasparov 21-19
Karpov 31-28
Fischer 7-3
Spassky 12-15
Petrosian 13-11
Tal 11-12
Smyslov 19-18
Botvinnik 26-29
Few players line up clear wins in title matches. Even if Carlsen had played Nepo again and lost 0-7, he would have a better wins/losses ratio than all his predecessors participating in title matches after 1937, apart from Fischer, who only played one match.