I do enjoy reading these kinds of threads because it's fun to see how people rally for their favourites. But I don't really think creating a Tier List is something that should be done subjectively. It ought to be objective, removed from personal bias, and mathematical.
So here is the current tier list for Standard format. Past three months, what do people prefer to play and how has it performed. Give me the raw results and we can extract the data from that.
You could tweak some of the filters on this to have it run longer than 3 months, or give more weight to a deck that has performed well recently compared to 'used to be' good, that would boost things like Zoro/Weavile. Or maybe it ought to run on some kind of percentage rate where each deck is deemed by the percent of itself that won compared to was played. I'm not sure on that. Either way, it's a much more realistic snapshot of where the Tiers are than an argument. It's not a million miles away from the OP either, but you can see differences like where Gard/Zoro should be, the complete lack of Leafeon or Glaceon impact (in Standard), etc. etc.
Do keep arguing though, it's fun to watch
So here is the current tier list for Standard format. Past three months, what do people prefer to play and how has it performed. Give me the raw results and we can extract the data from that.
You could tweak some of the filters on this to have it run longer than 3 months, or give more weight to a deck that has performed well recently compared to 'used to be' good, that would boost things like Zoro/Weavile. Or maybe it ought to run on some kind of percentage rate where each deck is deemed by the percent of itself that won compared to was played. I'm not sure on that. Either way, it's a much more realistic snapshot of where the Tiers are than an argument. It's not a million miles away from the OP either, but you can see differences like where Gard/Zoro should be, the complete lack of Leafeon or Glaceon impact (in Standard), etc. etc.
Do keep arguing though, it's fun to watch
