I have never looked at total battle count as a metric that was relevant to tiering. The council for the years before I was leader did not either. NU did not when I was leader, nor when I was on the council before I was leader. BW, SM, and SS have not when I was on their respectove Old Generation Councils over the years as well.
It is a cool stat overall and people like Freezai have done awesome jobs contextualizing it through media and conducting root cause analysis, but the question "am I going to play this metagame in my spare time?" has minimal overlap with the qualified question "is this metagame competitively balanced?" as anyone can answer the former, but only a fraction are capable of answering the latter.
There are also outliers. People play a metagame frequently during its infancy as it is new. New things are appealing while old things lose appeal to some. Metagames are least balanced and most volatile in their infancy due to lack of regulation, but they are always most popular. Things like this make it so that battle count is not something I have ever tracked or cared for. In addition, I woud rather people try new formats like National Dex or VGC than just play OU -- I run OU, but I frequent BW and SS. Our hobbies are what we make of it and there is no binding allegiance.
It is a bit sad this has to be expanded on and the false correlation in this thread has been repeated so many times, but I hope this clears things up for a final time.