With the Pitchfork track listings the only relevant issues isn't whether the track is singled out for "Best New Music" track status, but rather whether the track reviews will culminate in an album review.
I don't know if they keep a statistical inventory of the numerical relationship between the number of bands in the "tracks" section that DON'T get a subsequent album review, but from simple arithmetic it must be substantial: 1200 plus album reviews in a year, but they must be up to ten tracks a day, which is twice that number of tracks- 2400. Then the only issue is to subtract out repeat appearances in both figures.
The preceding paragraph is written not to criticize anything, let alone Pitchfork itself, but merely to point out the difference between getting a song posted as a track vs. having Pitchfork write an Album review: Even a terrible album review spurs the kind of opposing viewpoint that an Artist wants vis a vis Audience reception. And if a bad Album review does come out, and no one responds to it, what can you do?
When you are talking about the "New Artists" on both lists you are talking about Artists that Pitchfork is covering for the first time, so I would suspect a fair number of those are major label hip hop and electronic Artists, so the number of new indie Artists that get an Album reviewed on Pitchfork shrinks proportionately.
If you are an Artist who fits in that last category, the play list is a big deal, for everyone else on the Album review list it is either unimportant or just another marketing tool in the run up to an LP release. Cold Showers does fit in that last category, so you'd have to say that the odds of Pitchfork reviewing an LP of theirs is high.
Pitchfork results for Cold Showers. (PITCHFORK)