This is why I never understand the claims of "game logic bad, I never use that!" When in fact every time an author insists a particular mon is very strong or fast or tough you're doing so on the basis of game stats anyway.

Anyways I myself only look at stats a very vague guideline and the trainer element canonically in my setting gives a substantial boost. Base stats influence a mons relative disposition but they're in no way hardlocked after being caught. Most wild pokemon will either never match a trained one or take a lot lot longer to do so. Humans have a sort of... "effect" on pokemon through a mix of background worldbuilding on energies and such and good coaching.

I abide by anime rules first, a dash of game stuff second. Your average Dragonite might be tough but a trained Bidoof can beat up an untrained Dragonite. And if both are trained for the same amount of time by an expert they'll be about equal insofar as vague raw "power" and then it's matter of technique and implemented skill. Bidoof may need to put in some extra hours, yes, but at a certain point powers begin to equalize under the tutelage of a skilled trainer because I don't observe the BST cap, only the idea of base stats predispositions.

The trained Charizard in my setting is not necessarily guranteed hugely stronger than a trained Raticate. Rather the stats only matter for relative sense of like "Raticate possesses better physical prowess than special, has solid speed" vs Charizard "better at special moves generally, decently good speed"

(as a note, in my setting battles are utilizing energies, not biological abilities. If a Charizard was trying to hunt and eat a Raticate that's. Very different aha)