Winning position stats from hand histories, suprising result

Curious about the table position play advice dispensed by the gurus, I collected the table position for 270,000 games, the surprise by far the small blind won most often, on all table sizes. Perhaps the forced commitment makes the blind positions play harder.

Under the gun had lowest wins but just slightly lower than late positions.

Here are the percentages, though the graph is more dramatic.

Position-->BigBlind smBlind -- UG ----- 4 ----- 5 ----- 6 ----- 7 ----- 8 ----- 9 ----- 10
players:10 11.28% 13.45% 8.99% 9.15% 8.97% 9.33% 9.6% 9.53% 9.85% 9.85%
players:9 12.65% 14.7% 9.94% 9.88% 10.38% 10.3% 10.4% 10.63% 11.13%
players:8 13.81% 16.52% 10.82% 11.54% 11.67% 11.56% 11.69% 12.37%
players:7 15.46% 18.4% 12.31% 13.1% 13.07% 13.51% 14.14%
players:6 18.04% 20.92% 14.92% 14.51% 15.65% 15.95%
players:5 20.63% 24.3% 18.15% 18.26% 18.66%
players:4 25.8% 29.7% 21.87% 22.63%
players:3 33.56% 36.36% 30.08%
players:2 50.63% 49.37%

(hope it fits here)

This data was extracted from the IRC "No Robot Holdem" database of games played 1998-2000 by a couple of thousand players. Including some current pros. The average (monopoly money) pot per player was $40

This isn't terribly important. All it means is that there are usually less people in the pot from lp / binds and therefore they win more pots. Winning more pots doesn't necessarily translate into winning more money.
Also most players there played way too many hands oop, nobody seemed to be positionally aware and the HU and short handed stats don't make any sense at all.
It would never look like that even in the lowest stakes cash games.