Played two terrible reno warlocks in a row. One guy dirty ratted me on kurve and then couldn't remove my board which eventually snowballed and killed him.
The second renolock decided not to tap on turn 2, clearly advertising the lack of reno in his hand and giving me the go-ahead to go all-in with face damage.
This forum isn't the place to get a fair look at the strengths and weaknesses of that card. It's an article of faith around here that Patches is the Most Broken Card to Ever Be Released in the History of Hearthstone and dissent from that viewpoint is not tolerated.
Notice that the other card in that farcical deckbuilding guide is Kazakus, yet any suggestion that Kazakus might be overpowered is met with scorn and mockery, the same as anyone who doesn't worship at the altar of Reno Jackson, which is apparently the only well designed card in the whole game and anyone frustrated by playing against nothing but Reno decks is clearly lying because besides the people who post here the entire meta is people playing "unfair" Pirates decks.
It's almost like it's only okay for Control decks to get overpowered cards, but anything that enables aggro is inherently unbalanced. Hmmm.
To your point, Patches is overpowered. You had to spend resources (mana, a card, a trade, something) to remove something that cost your opponent literally nothing to summon. To your other point, it's a fucking Stonetusk Boar so at the end of the day who really gives a shit? Not me. If it wasn't for Small Time Bucaneer, Patches would be a niche card choice in bad warrior and rogue decks.
All opinions on Patches are tolerated as long as they are done in a respectful, educated manner and not in a shots fired way. This post is filled with so much bias and not even talking about the actual question until way later and even then it's not giving the entire picture.
To answer the question:
Patches is wonderful because in over 70% cases you paid no cards, no mana to play a 1/1 with Charge which is a Pirate. Speaking from an objective mathematical point of view that is in fact the most powerful card in the game. It is NOT a Stonetusk Boar, a 0 mana Stonetusk Boar would be insanely poweful and one that does not use up a card from hand would be even moreso. Hearthstone is a snowball type game and every incremental advantage you can get at the start is monumental. Small stats like an extra 1/1 are massive at the start of the game, a 3/4 with initiative played at the beginning of game has way more impact than a 3/4 played on turn 3. The one free damage is very relevant as it can kill a Doomsayer you may not be able to kill on turn 2 otherwise, give you the extra damage to close out the game a turn earlier (again monumental) or ping something off the board in an aggro mirror match. Patches has pushed decks like Hunter and Zoo out because Patches allows domination of the board from turn 1 and decks that need to have the board from turn 1 like Zoo can't keep compete against that. If it takes a hero power ping, card or a minion trading into it and it protects your other Pirate then it has WAY more than covered its "cost" which is already negligible. In many match ups and situations the card ends up doing more than 1 damage and remember that this is all for free. .
Now as for that joke of a flow chart diagram about Kazakus... let's talk about Kazakus again and why Kazakus is FAR below Patches in power level. Starting off Kazakus is a tri class card versus Patches being a neutral card. That means that based on HS's own formula, Kazakus should be stronger than Patches because it is available to less classes. You can't play Kazakus in Control Warrior or Control Paladin but you can play Patches in Shaman and Hunter despite being non Pirate classes. It's one of the reasons why Dr Boom was considered so powerful versus Tirion because it was available to more classes. Next let's look at the deck restrictions. Kazakus has a massive up front cost to making it playable which is that you can't have duplicates in the deck (you can but it's not practical). You are greatly sacrificing deck consistency and certain combos/interactions to even play Kazakus. For Patches you just need a few Pirates preferably 1 drop Pirates... that is objectively a far less stringent cost to play than Kazakus. Now without even evaluating the effects of each cards... Kazakus SHOULD be MUCH stronger than Patches based on class availability and deck restriction, otherwise the game card balance is bad.
But now let's look at the cards and stats plus effect. Patches in most cases gets played for 0 mana, costs no cards and has Charge with Pirate tag. That's probably the most cost efficient card in the game. Let's look at Kazakus now. 4 mana 3/3 body, right off the bat you are playing a bad statted minion and losing tempo. Based on how Kazakus's options work out, 1 mana spells are super efficient for their cost and are in fact insanely good... so at 5 mana Kazakus plus 1 mana card you generally make up the cost of playing Kazakus. At 5 mana you lose out more efficiency but the 5 mana card is still far above the power level and that's the most frequently used option. It's still a 9 mana play, either on one turn or played across two turns (playing across two turns means you had one bad turn and one great turn versus playing it on 9 mana which is generally a good play not necessarily game breaking). 10 mana spell is essentially a 14 mana play and it better be damn good. Value wise it's good but card efficiency wise it's a lot lower unless you get the polymorph board spell especially in Wild or if you roll high on getting 3 Resurrects. 10 mana card is probably either around or maybe slightly below the curve if you also factor in Kazakus' cost and is generally only picked in slower match ups.
None of these options actually mathematically compares to Patches when you break it down. You are still paying mana for all these cards and you slight art off weaker before you get stronger. So if Kazakus is mathematically weaker than Patches but has far heavier deck restrictions ... why is Kazakus being put on the same level as Patches? It's not even about control vs aggro here, it's about math, game impact on cost and on turn played vs deck restriction. Maybe I am doing the math and evaluation wrong here and someone can enlighten me.