If I seem hostile, it's because many of the point you posted have been addressed repeatedly (i.e. move usage, prediction, keeping meta threats in check) and instead of addressing those counterarguments, you rehashed the arguments after the discussion became buried in the thread. You personally brought up move usage and keeping meta threats in check already, and yet you insist on bringing them up again without any new light on them as though no one has spent time addressing those arguments already. This strikes me as you ignoring everyone who addressed your argument just because you disagree with them. To me this is disrespectful to everyone in this thread who tries and hold a decent debate.
The mods have already said that usage is a factor, so that idea is not invalidated as you say.
I went ahead and checked the forum to find the context of this:
Haunter said:
To end this dispute: yes, usage statistics (especially from the high end of the ladder) definitely matter and are the only objective parameter we can use to evaluate the impact of any given Pokémon on the metagame however, they're not the only deciding factor
You aren't using usage data to show the impact of Greninja on the meta game. You're using them to determine the odds that Greninja is packing a move. The usage of Greninja's checks might be one thing, but what you are arguing is fundamentally different. You are arguing that because HP fire is not used as often, it can be ignored. Unless I am mistaken, this is not what Haunter meant when he said that usage statistics matter. Further, good players that check usage stats can easily abuse this logic by packing the moves with the lower usage because even the lower usage ones usually have a base power of 90 or higher thanks to Protean. This is what I meant when I say that move usage is irrelevant.
And forcing a switch is not about the prediction game, from your point of view you can never win any game and all Pokemon should be banned if you can't switch in a Mon ever. The point is to bait an attack like ice beam when you send in something like conk, then they are forced to switch or die. I guess if they over predict you then whatever but that can happen with any Pokemon and is the fault of the player, not Greninja.
Ginganinja addressed this pretty well, but just to add to it, I am not saying that Greninja is broken if you get every prediction right, therefore he is broken. My point is that NO side, pro ban or anti ban, can use the prediction argument
because it goes both ways.
Let's go back to your counter arguments. Rotom is 2hko by Dark Pulse. Okay, if he absorbs a hit from something like say, Hydro Pump or HP Fire, then he can take the hit from Dark Pulse come back with a Volt Switch and safely bring in a priority user or scarfer.
Once again, prediction argument goes both ways.
HP Fire is less viable because it only hits 2 Pokemon really, and the speed hit is bad, but if you send in a Ferrothorn again to absorb something like a Hydro Pump, you will have to eat a Low Kick, but can come back with a Power Whip which will more than likely land the KO.
Ignoring the prediction argument bit, HP Fire hits Scizor, Klefki, Ferrothorn, and Skarmory while having a large number of splash over targets it his if you don't run Low Kick. Further, the speed hit is 1 point. That means that you're outsped by other Greninja, i.e. something you tied with in speed. Yes, auto-losing speed ties suck but let's not pretend that losing to 1 more threat is worse than being threatened by at least 3 or 4 mons that clearly threaten your team if you're considering HP Fire.
Fearing less viable moves and not sending in smart switch ins is like not sending in Azumarril on CharX because you fear Thunder Punch. Sure, it's possible you could eat the lure move, but you can count on the enemy wanting to run the more viable sets.
Thunder Punch hits 4 OU viable targets harder than its STAB Flare Blitz and Dragon Claw. There are even fewer relevant things it hits if you use Outrage. The reason no one fears Thunder Punch CharX is simply because almost no player would ever want to even drop EQ, let alone Roost, just to hit 4 targets. This is in no way comparable to the range of targets that Greninja hits with just about any coverage move it chooses, including HP Fire.
The bandwagon is strong on this one, but objectively and analytically Greninja is less of a problem than it is made out to be.
I won't deny that Greninja is certainly one of the weakest suspects to date for either XY or ORAS, but honestly, you can't objectively determine that something is or isn't broken. Determining whether something is "broken" is derived largely from observing how a meta has adapted to a threat and asking whether or not that meta is desirable. We can use data to show trends and identify potentially unhealthy elements, but there are so many things that can only be determined by battle such as trends in playstyles, the ease of which you can actually deal with threats, etc. Interpretation of these events is entirely subjective, and yet a huge part of determining whether something is broken comes from this subjective data. Thus you can't truly "prove" that something is broken because broken is a subjective term unto itself that is supported for the most part by subjective information.
