I've just posted stats (both for this month and for the past three months) for the "full team method" (only count teams where all six pokemon were revealed). The percentages tend to be different, especially towards the tops of the usage stats, but the thing I think most people care about is the cutoff point (tiers). So here's the difference in tierings that I'm seeing between the two versions: Mamoswine falls to UU with Maestro's method, stays OU with the full-team method Tangrowth falls to RU with Maestro, Aerodactyl stays OU; switch that for full-team (Gastro is OU no matter which analysis we use) With Maestro's method, Kabutops and Ludicolo are RU; full team method has them as part of the initial NU As far as I can tell, these were the only differences. Granted, I just did a quick look. Let me know if I missed something. The point of this exercise is this: the more full-team agrees with Maestro, the better the chances are that both would agree with stats that had been compiled with the old method (remember: we *can't* compile stats with the old method right now due to the fact that the server doesn't collect the relevant info). So yes, that Hippo-Stoutland gap that Snuch pointed out is indeed an artifact in the methods I use. HOWEVER, I hope I've convinced him and anyone else that my methods are a little more "trustworthy" for determining tiers.