Analyzing Pokemon

When it comes to pokemon i feel like I'm on a strongly opposed side in comparison to majority of the community. When it comes to really trying to debate against fellow pokemon players i find it hard because my views on pokemon take a more in depth approach compared to how others think. My ideologies take time and research to get a true straight answer while others take a simplistic answer with no depth to them, making it very vague and doesn't truly solve the reasoning for their claims. Because of this I get the usual claims that I'm deluded by the anime logic of power of friendship or anything can be useful when that's not even what I'm saying. In this I'm going to try to explain exactly how I feel pokemon should be compared and looked at before labeling them. 

When comparing pokemon to me there's much much more to it than simply viewing it in one angle. In this type of game where you have a team of 6v6 singles or 4v4 doubles or whatever format there's one factor that people seem to not really look at which is team capability. Normally when people look at pokemon they look at the stats and typing for the most part to clarify if it's even usable to begin with. They also look at pokemon as an individual strongly to see if it can actually stack up by itself in the first place. While these two things are actually good analysis for basing pokemon that's only just a fraction of the process to clarifying the usefulness of pokemon.

Honestly when analysing a pokemon there's a lot of things you have to think about and consider if you want to label it unusable, decent, or good. I'm just going to go through what I personally look at overall. I basically look at everything and i mean everything. Outside of what is seen possible on the pokemon's page there's things you have to theorize such as good/bad matchups, synergy, ev/iv spreads, your playstyle, ect. To put even more depth explanation than that simple answer you have to think of what pokemon and their own complete sets can work in sync with this pokemon and its certain setups. What kind of pokemon is it good to throw out against. What roles can it dictate and which is the best for this team. What moves with its role is best among its movepool. How do I distribute the stats to fit its roles. What does this pokemon excel in that stands out to the others. What items can work with this pokemon. 

There's probably a lot that i missed out on but when you read this you're probably going "But wait doesn't everybody already think of these things?" Yes most good consistent players do think of these things but the problem is that all pokemon are different in terms of difficulty when measuring their usefulness. For example it's easy to look at garchomp and call it a usable pokemon rather than looking at hitmontop and scratching your head for a moment. The problem a lot of players in the modern have is that I feel they are way too quick to judge things without properly going through the actual time to analyze how useful a pokemon is and what they can actually do in comparison to others. Trainers are getting more and more comfortable with the set meta that was created and stick to the same formula for years and havn't really tried to evolve further from it to show how strategic players could get if they really wanted to. To me I see it as lazy and ignorant of our players and it really shows how inadequate players truly are. Sure they are skilled at battling but do they really know how to do anything strategically outside of the same formula that they're used to? To me that's a more impressive feat imo.

Since my point might be confusing to understand let me give an example of comparison. My main comparison for awhile now is comparing the pokemon Swanna and Pelipper. Both of these are water/flying pokemon but in the meta Pelipper is seen as the superior and outclasses that of Swanna. However, I disagree. You see when comparing pokemon one of the hugest mistakes I see is that they primarily just look at the stats and call it a day or look at how it was picked up as a trending source on teams and go with what they're used to especially when comparing two pokemon of the same typing. Pelipper was picked up because it has a really strong ability called drizzle for the most part otherwise it wouldn't have even been looked at at all. However there's strong ignorance when viewing what possible feats swanna itself has for itself over that of pelipper. When looking at them side by side statwise you see that pelipper has decent defence and special atk and low everything else while swanna has average Hp, atk, special attack, and speed over pelipper. So statwise already strangely enough it seems Swanna is the better water/flying pokemon given it has 473bst over pelliper's measely 440bst but we're not done yet. Swanna doesn't have any stand out lone abilities that can compete with pelipper's drizzle so this scores a point for pelipper in my book. Now here's the real fun part which is comparing the movepools. 

When comparing pokemon the movepools are the most important part in my opinion because it dictates what the pokemon actually is capable of doing in resonance to their stats, ability, and team. Picking out what sets them a part really can narrow down specific roles the pokemon can do that stands out over the other. Here's what I've narrowed down for both pokemon:
-Pelipper can utilize hurricane along with drizzle for 100% accuracy making it more consistent. The rain from drizzle also adds more power from its water moves. It also has access to knock off which can remove a hold item from the opponent. Also has soak to remove the STAB from opponent or setup for another pokemon to kill. Can utilize wide guard for doubles. Very useful for rain teams because it's the only pokemon other than politoad that has the ability.  
-Swanna is faster and has the ability to either be physical or special. Can more reliably utilize defog and tailwind due to its speed. Has a priority move to utilize. Has access to me first and mirror move which both have good Z side effects in addition to its base effect. 

Honestly both of their analysis is just based upon what i initially see from just their movepools and how they are overall useful from just that page. If i were to theorize however on what pokemon they are good with and ect. I'd be taking up much much more time but I'm hoping you get the picture on that note. Basically however based upon my analysis you can see that both pokemon clearly have different uses for teams meaning they can't really be labeled over each other. They are better for certain types of teams but as overal pokemon they have their own uses. Also a big thing ppl also don't pay much attention to is the types. I mainly feel if you're going to try to compare if a pokemon is better than another it has to be in the same range as the typing or actually better yet be within the same type MU range bc for a pokemon's use on a team that's also a factor you have to think about because if you want to say this certain fire type is better than this water type then that's kinda dumb because they are completely different types of pokemon so how they can benefit in battle is totally different from each other.

In conclusion that's for the most part I would like trainers to actually try to look with all pokemon so we can truly understand and know the potential of pokemon and see different teams with different strategies that we havn't see yet. I know the pokemon community is capable yet they stay blind and don't seem to care enough to even give it an attempt aka lazy. Which honestly there's nothing wrong with that a community does what they want and does what they seem to overall like but i at least would like for them to realize how ignorant they can be sometimes. Now also to clarify to people that i don't think every pokemon has the capable means of top level play and some are indeed outclassed is one of my favorite pokemon Furret. Furret is outclassed by pokemon of it's same type and a lot of pokemon in general in overall stats, movepool, and abilities. It has nothing unique that a lot of other pokemon can do in exactly the same manner. 

So yeah let me know what your honest opinion is on how you think pokemon should be analyzed. This is also kinda a subjective topic as well just to make that clear so don't rage out on me about "You're trying to push your ideals blah blah." Also if you have questions or whatever feel free to ask away because i probably didn't really explain this all too well still.

When it comes to measuring a Pokemon's worth it's definitely not a simple task to just give Pokemon ranks across all 800+ Pokedex entries as some ever-changing factors need to be taken into consideration.

Firstly, you have to figure out whether this Pokemon is well designed and given the properties it deserves by the developers to begin with, in some cases Pokemon are just a little bit shy from being equal to the competition without some kind of team support in having a needlessly below average base stats total or lackluster movepool that doesn't quite take advantage with the stats and attributes it was designed with.

Second, from a practical standpoint you have to consider whether the Pokemon can be built in a way that counters Pokemon that see a lot of play in the current meta. Realistically what you're gonna be playing against given our community's most common mindset of using top OU Pokemon because they're deemed the most viable is, well, the most OU Pokemon. It's wishful thinking to come up with crafty strategies that cannot be used outside of theory because the meta isn't quite diverse.

However, these factors are only indicators of a Pokemon's practical worth, as in its likeliness to achieve win in our current competitive setting.
You must ask yourself a question, do you want to play strictly in a way that makes your win more likely? Playing safe gets rather stagnant over time in my own experience and sometimes you wanna take a risk with builds that are less practical and more daring to a reasonable extent that doesn't make you completely helpless and unable to interact with the opponent due to the game being one sided in their favor.

Striking a good balance between what you enjoy aesthetically or find appealing and having a pragmatic viewpoint on how you should be handling battles in a way that doesn't completely hinder you but also isn't awfully desperate to score wins is the best way to play in my opinion. And that doesn't only apply for Pokemon but rather a spot or competition of any kind where options are provided.

In the end I would like to stress and argue that Pokemon below the Uber tier and possibly some inside it are pretty close in competitive value generally and while some admittedly outrank others given the reasons above, their rank doesn't generate that an unfair advantage that completely invalidates and makes the others unplayable. Team support is a vital aspect of the game after all and I'm sure you could pick up the pace of not so fortunate Pokemon with good teammates if you like them and wish to see them shine in battle.