@@fulltimeslackerii8229 if it's balanced for the tier but only really used in niche applications or strategies, its winrate should be expected to be quite volatile, easily swinging to realy high or really low values. It goes doubly so if the tourn itself doesn't have many matches. Let me use this year's NDPL as an example. Necrozma is widely agreed to be a fine mon for NDUU. It's mostly a HO abuser, and HO is a good playstyle, but not the preferred one. In spite of that, it had a whopping 85.71% win rate in the tournament. Does this mean that Necrozma is a hidden OP unbeatable mon? No. Necrozma had a very high win rate, but its use was quite low - just under 13%. That still seems pretty wild, until you consider that the NDUU side of the torunament was quite small. Necrozma had a grand total of 7 appearances, and happened to win six of them. Considering how explosive and volatile HO as a team style is, many of those victories were a 50-50 or a good prediction away from being defeats. Furthermore, some of those games Necrozma was carried by mons that are actually problems and often discussed as issues, between the now-banned Porygon-Z and the always-dangerous autotomize meteor beam celesteela, meteor beam speed-bosting Nihilego and the resurgence of Mega Sharpedo as a cleaner some teams weren't quite ready to deal with. tl;dr: winrates point to unbalanced mons when those mons get high enough usage to actually justify a deeper look.
Winrate is forced closer to 50% with every instance of both players bringing the same Pokémon to a matchup. It's a misleading statistic by itself due to this (imagine a Pokémon in a tournament brought 10 times but only ever battles against an opponent team which also brings the same Pokémon. Its winrate is guaranteed to be 50%)
The funniest thing is when people say that "oh it has a bad winrate" while the Pokémon has an extremely high usage rate. Leading to games where both sides have said Pokémon and one has to lose a game and make the winrate for the Pokémon worse.
Only like 10 minutes in so far so you might cover this later but theres also the fact that certain players may favor certain pokemon over others. With the aero example, if there is one guy who loves using aero teams and he happens to have a poor tournament then that can skew the results. Also as usage rises to high levels you have the circumstance where two teams will both have a mon which gurantees both a win and loss which will always pull the win% towards 50 (extreme view of this is something like rby and gsc lax which rock 100% usage so they have 50% win rate all the time)
Y'all judge pokemon winrates in isolation rather than matchup and based on what teams it's on? Goddamn, this is what leads people to say "island is the best card in Magic"
I kind of appreciated this overview of some games even if I could barely keep up with what you were talking about. I like to watch some stuff about competitive pokemon, but it always tends towards a more general overview. ie starmie is a fast pokemon with a lot of special attack and access to lots of strong moves. make it go zoom and fire huge beams at the opponent like t bolt, ice beam, water stab, etc. oh and also it can use rapid spin to remove hazards. starmie has always been a very good pokemon in whatever meta it was in. and however much success starmie has had in different generations, its actual success will depend on how its built, its team, and how the player actually used it in games. I always just thought about it as a pokemon that's really good at outspeeding and ko-ing a lot of opponents, but this video points out so many intricacies about how it's used in a game. maybe it doesn't ko anything but it made a sacrifice or another move that was still valuable to the player. or the starmie team lost because of some luck, or mistakes. a lot more to think about than I initially suspected, on whether a pokemon is 'good' in a given situation.
A Pokémon with the Ability: "If you have this Mon in your team you instantly win unless your opponent also got this Mon" would obviously be broken with 100% usage (even people who normally try the craziest things would be forced to use it as they would get an instant loss 99.9% of the time) and 50% winrate until it is banned. Its winrate would be perfectly normal if you just looked at the winrate but it would be so restricting on teambuilding anyone actually playing/knowing their shit would want it banned.
I feel like win rate is one of those things were it’s only useful if the number is super high like 80% or low like 25% and even then it just tells you that the teams those mons are on are high. Not the actual mon itself.
Winrate in pokemon is basically useless from its statistical conundrum: Singles Elimination Matches: Artificially lower game-rate format for a tournament. Common Usage: The higher its usage, the more likely it will average towards 50% since both players are more likely to bring it. Low Usage: The less a pokemon is used, the less data there is, meaning its win-rate is also basically meaningless. Any dataset where both more and less data makes its conclusions less statistically helpful is an obviously bad method. That's before considering anything else, like teams, RNG, Players, etc. Not uSeLeSs, but bad.
In defence of the loss for starmie at 22:00, the type of game play it facilitated to enable a win (that wasn't taken), was also the type of play that requires the player to keep track many things at once. I'm talking about the residual damage many turns in advance, and remembering exactly how many more switch ins it will allow/disallow. While it enabled a win, it was a complicated win. This might go some way to explain its 50% win rate, since while it is very good it requires a lot of concentration to make the best out of it.
Further to the point about small sample size, there are only around 10-15 players per tier, so each individual’s preferences in terms of team/mon choice will greatly affect usage statistics. We can see this by comparing SM stats in SPL 12 to the current smogon tour. In spl, garchomp was only used 3 times for a 3.33% usage rate (with 100% win rate), but in any given round of a live Stour you will see multiple chomps.
The main reason why winrate is misleading is because of the small sample size. If the sample size is significantly larger than the number of SPL games we have, I'd argue that winrate is a useful metric if we observe at a significant sample size a winrate that deviates more than 1 standard deviation from 50%. That would indicate to me that the Pokemon at hand might be better or worse than players are giving it credit for at that point in the metagame. At significant sample sizes, luck and misplays should even out so that individual instances of said events apply to all Pokemon.
Would be helpful if you could make a video on how to “properly” analyse a game. What are you looking for? How to spot what the weakest link is and probably tens of other things I can’t really think of
I also imagine Mons like Gen 1 Big 4, Gen 2 lax, Lando-T and Heatran generally wouldn’t be able to get great win rates since odds are really good that in a given game they’re on the team that loses as well as the team that wins.
Not related to video Idk if theorizing about this is interesting but I would love to see a series looking at a 'what if' scenario where a single pokemon is introduced into an older metagame. Exploring the implications it might have on a different teamstyles, what pokemon it would be able to counter, what other threats would rise to counter it in turn, etc. A lot of newer pokemon especially have been introduced which almost certainly could have an impact on a previous Gen OU, but didn't because power creep over the course of several generations ensured it was doomed to be outclassed. Probably the biggest example I can think of is Duraludon. A Steel / Dragon type with a 535 BST alone would make a huge metagame impact in at minimum gens 1-4, but powercreep now has it residing in PUBL. I'd love to see what it could do in an environment like Gen 3, where it's innate traits would be good enough to make movepool experimentation worthwhile.
Usage statistics tell us a much better and more detailed story. I'd love for you to make another video on that! And if I'm wrong about how good and actually useful this stat is then I'd love to hear why as well! Great vid man
The easiest way to show this off is by looking at extremes. Example 1: the small sample size. If a Pokémon is used exactly once, by the result of that game, it’ll either look like the best or worst mon in the meta (either 100% or 0% winrate) when only looking at that statistic. Example 2: the large sample size. If a Pokémon is truly SO broken that it’s featured on every single team, its winrate will be exactly 50%. Despite being so good that it’s a “must use,” by the definition of the results of a Pokémon battle, it could never surpass a 50% winrate.
i try to take win rates with a grain of salt, but when something has like a ~70% wr over like 80 games, i think thats a big enough sample size to make u scratch ur head. something like 10-15 games though i wouldnt think too much about
If there was a sabermetric like, say, “True Win Rate” that mostly focuses on instances where the mon in question is on only one side in a match, while also properly accounting for the possibility of that mon appearing on both sides, then it probably would be better than nominal win rate
Ahh the classic dumb guy's supposed smart informed statistic-backed argument. I have one specific data set, stripped of context, that superficially could support any argument, therefore I am correct. Love it when that happens, all it does is tell you that the person making said argument is a total waste of time to engage with.
If your sample size is big enough, it definitely shows if a pokemon is bad within that current meta. But obviously sometimes (like with hidden power coverage) the meta shifts directly against certain pokemon and the meta isn't the same at all skill levels, and it can't show how good a pokemon is because you'd get a nearly forced 50% at some point. So it doesn't say whether a pokemon is actually bad or not.
Stats are one thing. How you read and interprete them absolutely another one. Never try and justify what you're saying by stats only, you'll only look like a fool, who knows number but nothing else about a metagame. Sure, knowig that Infernape has the lowest winrate in SPL DPP might be a good trivia, but it won't help you face an actual Infernape in tournament.
One critical thing for win rates to look at is also usage. A deck in MtG that is tier 1 should really only be winning about 55% give or take as it'll commonly see mirrors and thereby drag itself back to 50% as one copy always loses. If something is high win rate while being heavily used then it is in fact incredibly succesful but even around 50% is impressive
i think the only statistic that matters is the win% of entire teams combined, you cant look at the performance of an individual pokemon by itself since it might still be the best fit possible for your combination of pokemon.
From what i heard, ORAS became more HO focused, and serperior gets screens and glare, along with that juicy speed tier for support, while contrary leaf storm does its thing as per usual. Solid enabler for scary mons like volcarona, while being able to pressure others. Iirc, top megas rn are megabro and megagross, and those love serp's support too.
People think the winrate statistics in league of legends and how they balance the game around that and use it as direct comparison to how it pokemon should be balanced in smogon. It's moronic.
I agree that the sample size is way too small for one tournament, but winrate is an effective tool if you have enough data. All of the hax and misplays evens out if there's enough data. The argument that its a team game doesn't wash if there's enough data. It can effectively highlight Mons which you thought were good, but aren't. Mons which are underused and actually performing well that you didnt realise. You've also got to remember that 50% is a good win rate. So if a pokemon you dont rate, has a 50% win rate, you might want to think again. All that said I agree statistics should be used like you said. Once they've highlighted something, you need to find out why. And as we know with pokemon, X might be a bad, but it can be good with the right team. I think revenge killers are a really good example, where they might have a bad win rate, but know you'll just lose certain games without them and you need to decide if the better win rate in the other matchups is worth it for your particular team.
I will say that as a scientist statistics / numbers can and do lie based on what you said, context. People for example will use what they think is important bits of data but with context they are actually statistically insignificant or at the very least poorly represented.
You really gotta write a script for essay-style videos like this. Or at least a detailed outline. You ramble and jump all over the place every time you post one of these
Yeah I’m not saying any of the stuff he says is bad. quite the opposite in fact- I really learn a lot from these videos. I’m just saying the information could be presented in a more organized and effective manner
@@Gluh9829 that's entirely fair, and I think if BKC was going for a more focused video series he could do that, but part of the appeal of these videos I think is the relatively laid-back podcast-y feel of them, which involves a lot of going over things repeatedly, something that works well if a lot of viewers have the video playing in the background/are doing something else while listening to it (or watching it out of the corner of their eye or something)
I can't really decide if this video is podcast like. Yeah Kevin loves narrating excessively but I still think the visual aspect of this video is pretty necessary, What do you guys think?
In my opinion, most Pokémon naturally hover around 50% win rate. If I see 55% I’m assuming something is getting nerfed soon. I think usage rates are way more important for you to see what the most common threats your team is going to have to manage are and build your team around that Knowledge
The more data you include the more significant the difference is. When you have tens or hundreds of thousands of games the randomness comes out in the wash and there's a big difference between 51% and 50% win rate, let alone 66%. To say you can't use win rate coz "maybe this one time the Pokemon wasn't responsible for the loss" would mean to totally discredit all stats. This will video was vague and unnecessary.
While winrate isn't a very good indicator, there's likely room for more advanced statistics to determine a pokemon's effectiveness (I think of sabermetrics in baseball)
How can GSC Snorlax be the best mon in the meta if its winrate is only 50%?? Checkmate atheists
If Caterpie had 100% usage rate then it would have 50% winrate
I feel like any mon that is balanced for the tier should have a win rate around 50% regardless of usage %
FullTimeSlacker II not really it depends on the team and how someone plays the mon and how easy it is to use for a team
@@amphilol8579 and being blessed by RNGsus
Gen 2 snorlax moment
@@fulltimeslackerii8229 if it's balanced for the tier but only really used in niche applications or strategies, its winrate should be expected to be quite volatile, easily swinging to realy high or really low values. It goes doubly so if the tourn itself doesn't have many matches. Let me use this year's NDPL as an example.
Necrozma is widely agreed to be a fine mon for NDUU. It's mostly a HO abuser, and HO is a good playstyle, but not the preferred one. In spite of that, it had a whopping 85.71% win rate in the tournament. Does this mean that Necrozma is a hidden OP unbeatable mon?
No. Necrozma had a very high win rate, but its use was quite low - just under 13%. That still seems pretty wild, until you consider that the NDUU side of the torunament was quite small. Necrozma had a grand total of 7 appearances, and happened to win six of them. Considering how explosive and volatile HO as a team style is, many of those victories were a 50-50 or a good prediction away from being defeats. Furthermore, some of those games Necrozma was carried by mons that are actually problems and often discussed as issues, between the now-banned Porygon-Z and the always-dangerous autotomize meteor beam celesteela, meteor beam speed-bosting Nihilego and the resurgence of Mega Sharpedo as a cleaner some teams weren't quite ready to deal with.
tl;dr: winrates point to unbalanced mons when those mons get high enough usage to actually justify a deeper look.
Winrate is forced closer to 50% with every instance of both players bringing the same Pokémon to a matchup. It's a misleading statistic by itself due to this (imagine a Pokémon in a tournament brought 10 times but only ever battles against an opponent team which also brings the same Pokémon. Its winrate is guaranteed to be 50%)
GSC Snorlax, must be a coin toss XD
@@gallowpole9455
Well in the last week of SPL in RBY snorlax had a 50% win rate because it had a 100% usage rate
@@thepunisher6674 that was the joke all along
@@gallowpole9455
Oh I’m dumb ignore me
The funniest thing is when people say that "oh it has a bad winrate" while the Pokémon has an extremely high usage rate. Leading to games where both sides have said Pokémon and one has to lose a game and make the winrate for the Pokémon worse.
Yeah lol any Pokémon with a usage over 50% is getting mostly noise from usage.
the most egregious example of this is snorlax in gac
Old Man Yells At Statistics
jk great vid kev
Only like 10 minutes in so far so you might cover this later but theres also the fact that certain players may favor certain pokemon over others. With the aero example, if there is one guy who loves using aero teams and he happens to have a poor tournament then that can skew the results.
Also as usage rises to high levels you have the circumstance where two teams will both have a mon which gurantees both a win and loss which will always pull the win% towards 50 (extreme view of this is something like rby and gsc lax which rock 100% usage so they have 50% win rate all the time)
genius
@@diophantine6677 blessed with the presence of gsc master dio
BKC's thumbnails look like what would be on the cover of a conpetitive pokemon college textbook
They truly are art. Simple, yet effective.
"This argument made me want to rip my hair out" like you had any :>
Just kidding Kevin love u
"There are 3 kinds of lies: Lies, damned lies, and statistics."
This is the pokemon equivalent of "Yo Jameis Winston had 5,000 yards passing and 33 Touchdowns, he must be an ELITE quarterback"
Jameis ain’t as bad as everybody saying
Also known as the Blake Bortles effect, a bad qb with garbage time stats makes for a great fantasy qb
@@faucetmn cap
Never thought I would ever hear a valid football take in a Pokémon UA-cam comment section 😂
@@freelancermeta that 2015 garbage time Bortles was the GOAT of my FF playoffs
Today I discovered something I never really thought possible.
Philosophy in Pokemon, Hell even placebo's and misinterpretation.
pokemon is surprisingly an accurate representation of life itself
In the words of Mark Twain: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
Y'all judge pokemon winrates in isolation rather than matchup and based on what teams it's on? Goddamn, this is what leads people to say "island is the best card in Magic"
I kind of appreciated this overview of some games even if I could barely keep up with what you were talking about. I like to watch some stuff about competitive pokemon, but it always tends towards a more general overview. ie starmie is a fast pokemon with a lot of special attack and access to lots of strong moves. make it go zoom and fire huge beams at the opponent like t bolt, ice beam, water stab, etc. oh and also it can use rapid spin to remove hazards. starmie has always been a very good pokemon in whatever meta it was in. and however much success starmie has had in different generations, its actual success will depend on how its built, its team, and how the player actually used it in games. I always just thought about it as a pokemon that's really good at outspeeding and ko-ing a lot of opponents, but this video points out so many intricacies about how it's used in a game. maybe it doesn't ko anything but it made a sacrifice or another move that was still valuable to the player. or the starmie team lost because of some luck, or mistakes. a lot more to think about than I initially suspected, on whether a pokemon is 'good' in a given situation.
Sees ttar has ~40 % winrate
Nothing more to elaborate
A Pokémon with the Ability: "If you have this Mon in your team you instantly win unless your opponent also got this Mon" would obviously be broken with 100% usage (even people who normally try the craziest things would be forced to use it as they would get an instant loss 99.9% of the time) and 50% winrate until it is banned. Its winrate would be perfectly normal if you just looked at the winrate but it would be so restricting on teambuilding anyone actually playing/knowing their shit would want it banned.
>Do you mean Gen2 Snorlax
I always appreciate how thorough you are 🙏🏽
I feel like win rate is one of those things were it’s only useful if the number is super high like 80% or low like 25% and even then it just tells you that the teams those mons are on are high. Not the actual mon itself.
Imma put a like on this before the video even begins. Come back to it later.
Based move
Winrate in pokemon is basically useless from its statistical conundrum:
Singles Elimination Matches: Artificially lower game-rate format for a tournament.
Common Usage: The higher its usage, the more likely it will average towards 50% since both players are more likely to bring it.
Low Usage: The less a pokemon is used, the less data there is, meaning its win-rate is also basically meaningless.
Any dataset where both more and less data makes its conclusions less statistically helpful is an obviously bad method.
That's before considering anything else, like teams, RNG, Players, etc.
Not uSeLeSs, but bad.
In defence of the loss for starmie at 22:00, the type of game play it facilitated to enable a win (that wasn't taken), was also the type of play that requires the player to keep track many things at once. I'm talking about the residual damage many turns in advance, and remembering exactly how many more switch ins it will allow/disallow.
While it enabled a win, it was a complicated win. This might go some way to explain its 50% win rate, since while it is very good it requires a lot of concentration to make the best out of it.
Further to the point about small sample size, there are only around 10-15 players per tier, so each individual’s preferences in terms of team/mon choice will greatly affect usage statistics.
We can see this by comparing SM stats in SPL 12 to the current smogon tour. In spl, garchomp was only used 3 times for a 3.33% usage rate (with 100% win rate), but in any given round of a live Stour you will see multiple chomps.
The main reason why winrate is misleading is because of the small sample size. If the sample size is significantly larger than the number of SPL games we have, I'd argue that winrate is a useful metric if we observe at a significant sample size a winrate that deviates more than 1 standard deviation from 50%. That would indicate to me that the Pokemon at hand might be better or worse than players are giving it credit for at that point in the metagame. At significant sample sizes, luck and misplays should even out so that individual instances of said events apply to all Pokemon.
more games still wouldn't fix the issues of winrate as higher usage rates force the winrate closer to 50%.
Never knew people looked at the winrate lol. Usage is the much more important statistic both for deckbuilding and moveset choices.
im using this video to study for my ap stat exam in a week, thanks bkc
p < .05, am I right
@@BKCplaysPokemon if the p is low reject the Ho
It's worse when they use this line of reasoning for bands on Smogon. When the metagame has barely had time to become established.
Would be helpful if you could make a video on how to “properly” analyse a game. What are you looking for? How to spot what the weakest link is and probably tens of other things I can’t really think of
I also imagine Mons like Gen 1 Big 4, Gen 2 lax, Lando-T and Heatran generally wouldn’t be able to get great win rates since odds are really good that in a given game they’re on the team that loses as well as the team that wins.
Gen 2 has 2 big 3s on offense and defense respectively
Not related to video
Idk if theorizing about this is interesting but I would love to see a series looking at a 'what if' scenario where a single pokemon is introduced into an older metagame. Exploring the implications it might have on a different teamstyles, what pokemon it would be able to counter, what other threats would rise to counter it in turn, etc. A lot of newer pokemon especially have been introduced which almost certainly could have an impact on a previous Gen OU, but didn't because power creep over the course of several generations ensured it was doomed to be outclassed.
Probably the biggest example I can think of is Duraludon. A Steel / Dragon type with a 535 BST alone would make a huge metagame impact in at minimum gens 1-4, but powercreep now has it residing in PUBL. I'd love to see what it could do in an environment like Gen 3, where it's innate traits would be good enough to make movepool experimentation worthwhile.
Usage statistics tell us a much better and more detailed story.
I'd love for you to make another video on that! And if I'm wrong about how good and actually useful this stat is then I'd love to hear why as well!
Great vid man
The easiest way to show this off is by looking at extremes.
Example 1: the small sample size. If a Pokémon is used exactly once, by the result of that game, it’ll either look like the best or worst mon in the meta (either 100% or 0% winrate) when only looking at that statistic.
Example 2: the large sample size. If a Pokémon is truly SO broken that it’s featured on every single team, its winrate will be exactly 50%. Despite being so good that it’s a “must use,” by the definition of the results of a Pokémon battle, it could never surpass a 50% winrate.
i try to take win rates with a grain of salt, but when something has like a ~70% wr over like 80 games, i think thats a big enough sample size to make u scratch ur head. something like 10-15 games though i wouldnt think too much about
Statistics doesn't lie, but it sure is hard to read.
If there was a sabermetric like, say, “True Win Rate” that mostly focuses on instances where the mon in question is on only one side in a match, while also properly accounting for the possibility of that mon appearing on both sides, then it probably would be better than nominal win rate
Would be interesting to see pairing statistics. A percentage of what poke is paired with what other pokes.
I think pairing stats are on pikalytics
@@pc31754 pretty sure thats just vgc
there are those statistics
in fact they're shown in "combos" and "moves+teammates"
Ahh the classic dumb guy's supposed smart informed statistic-backed argument. I have one specific data set, stripped of context, that superficially could support any argument, therefore I am correct. Love it when that happens, all it does is tell you that the person making said argument is a total waste of time to engage with.
If your sample size is big enough, it definitely shows if a pokemon is bad within that current meta. But obviously sometimes (like with hidden power coverage) the meta shifts directly against certain pokemon and the meta isn't the same at all skill levels, and it can't show how good a pokemon is because you'd get a nearly forced 50% at some point. So it doesn't say whether a pokemon is actually bad or not.
Can we just talk for a second about how snorlax has 100% usage in the first gen ou? Like I knew it was good but damn
I personally don't use it on all my teams I always see Tauros and Chansey as the Pokemon that come up in every match
normies are just too good
Winrate is probably more important in doubles but it’s never end all be all.
Stats are one thing. How you read and interprete them absolutely another one. Never try and justify what you're saying by stats only, you'll only look like a fool, who knows number but nothing else about a metagame. Sure, knowig that Infernape has the lowest winrate in SPL DPP might be a good trivia, but it won't help you face an actual Infernape in tournament.
👍
New to the channel, what does BKC stand for? And do you have something against gens 6-now?
Blaze Kicking Chicken.
One critical thing for win rates to look at is also usage. A deck in MtG that is tier 1 should really only be winning about 55% give or take as it'll commonly see mirrors and thereby drag itself back to 50% as one copy always loses. If something is high win rate while being heavily used then it is in fact incredibly succesful but even around 50% is impressive
i think the only statistic that matters is the win% of entire teams combined, you cant look at the performance of an individual pokemon by itself since it might still be the best fit possible for your combination of pokemon.
Wait what the hell happened to oras ou while I wasn't looking?
Serp has been great for a while but when did it become number one?
From what i heard, ORAS became more HO focused, and serperior gets screens and glare, along with that juicy speed tier for support, while contrary leaf storm does its thing as per usual. Solid enabler for scary mons like volcarona, while being able to pressure others. Iirc, top megas rn are megabro and megagross, and those love serp's support too.
why are there ex-yugoslavic ads on smogon
how does winrate work when both teams have a particular mon
Brings it towards 50% by adding one win and one loss
People think the winrate statistics in league of legends and how they balance the game around that and use it as direct comparison to how it pokemon should be balanced in smogon. It's moronic.
Can someone win a tournament rq with some obscure never before seen mon and get a 100% winrate rq? Asking for a friend
I agree that the sample size is way too small for one tournament, but winrate is an effective tool if you have enough data. All of the hax and misplays evens out if there's enough data. The argument that its a team game doesn't wash if there's enough data. It can effectively highlight Mons which you thought were good, but aren't. Mons which are underused and actually performing well that you didnt realise. You've also got to remember that 50% is a good win rate. So if a pokemon you dont rate, has a 50% win rate, you might want to think again.
All that said I agree statistics should be used like you said. Once they've highlighted something, you need to find out why. And as we know with pokemon, X might be a bad, but it can be good with the right team. I think revenge killers are a really good example, where they might have a bad win rate, but know you'll just lose certain games without them and you need to decide if the better win rate in the other matchups is worth it for your particular team.
love your videos :D
I think useing stat is better to show if it is good.
What does a 100% winrate really mean?
When making a persuasive video, I'd recommend writing a script or at least a thorough outline to create a organized presentation
thanks but I loathe scripts so I'll pass
@@BKCplaysPokemon These aren't scripted?
Christ no
I will say that as a scientist statistics / numbers can and do lie based on what you said, context. People for example will use what they think is important bits of data but with context they are actually statistically insignificant or at the very least poorly represented.
You really gotta write a script for essay-style videos like this. Or at least a detailed outline. You ramble and jump all over the place every time you post one of these
it's the signature bkc style
He's the goat of pokemon so we still listen he has some knowledge and perspective that's valuable to pokemon players regardless
Yeah I’m not saying any of the stuff he says is bad. quite the opposite in fact- I really learn a lot from these videos. I’m just saying the information could be presented in a more organized and effective manner
@@Gluh9829 that's entirely fair, and I think if BKC was going for a more focused video series he could do that, but part of the appeal of these videos I think is the relatively laid-back podcast-y feel of them, which involves a lot of going over things repeatedly, something that works well if a lot of viewers have the video playing in the background/are doing something else while listening to it (or watching it out of the corner of their eye or something)
RBY Snorlax with higher usage than GSC snorlax. Clearly GSC snorlax needs a buff to be viable.
wow! so cool...
Are people moronic enough to say that win rate determines if a pokemon is worth using or not? Sometimes I worry about the state of humanity
I can't really decide if this video is podcast like.
Yeah Kevin loves narrating excessively but I still think the visual aspect of this video is pretty necessary,
What do you guys think?
This seem like one of them videos you make after having an argument on discord xD interesting anyways
In my opinion, most Pokémon naturally hover around 50% win rate. If I see 55% I’m assuming something is getting nerfed soon. I think usage rates are way more important for you to see what the most common threats your team is going to have to manage are and build your team around that Knowledge
Snorlax in gen 2 has a 2:1 use:win rate? Fucking terrible Pokémon overrated af. Highly inconsistent
The more data you include the more significant the difference is.
When you have tens or hundreds of thousands of games the randomness comes out in the wash and there's a big difference between 51% and 50% win rate, let alone 66%.
To say you can't use win rate coz "maybe this one time the Pokemon wasn't responsible for the loss" would mean to totally discredit all stats.
This will video was vague and unnecessary.
Algorithm
Okay so Ariados has a 0% winrate in ADV. This just means it can be played better.
Got it 👍👍👍👍
amazing point really good awesome
Statistics ABSOLUTELY lie. I'm an engineer, give me any stat and I can tell any story I want it to tell.
While winrate isn't a very good indicator, there's likely room for more advanced statistics to determine a pokemon's effectiveness (I think of sabermetrics in baseball)