I'm just gonna copy-paste this comment under every new Pokemon where it applies, if you feel the need to design Pokemon that hit above their own HP, then their own HP should be higher.
Especially for Sableye that usually has some kind of gimmick or utility in the TCG to compensate for its low HP. This one has none.
I entirely agree with your supposition, but with the caveat of roleplaying the viewpoint of a player who only sees cards as game pieces, while in reality I'm very much also a collector. (because why not have your cake and eat it too?) Playing devils advocate, we have to also consider additional factors to the reality of selling a product, I'm sure at this point their basic strategy is to purposefully make non-chase cards obviously un-meta, which is traditionally sound for a TCG. Only cards with higher rarities are allowed to be good, and even then, not every chase card can be equally good, importantly the mascot of the given set must be #1. At best, they experiment on ideas and theorycraft using non effective 1 prizers before bringing the base idea to fruition in an actually viable card somewhere down the lines, along with a small handful of very purpose designed support Pokémon that are basic or stage 1 in any given set (Prelease Promos). If they start making simply Rare cards good, while higher rarities noticeably underperform them or even simply match their effectiveness, they've just soured a good portion of their monetization strategy as the set experience suffers for #GoopyGamblerBrain reasons.
Likewise its easier to practically design "good"(pick your poison, players or collector) sets when any given single-prizer out of numerous potential options cant throw kinks into your meta, and instead serves mostly as flavor and filler to round out the set experience. Its easy to design bad but flavorful cards and let the artists shoulder all the concerns of quality. If given only 2 choices between a set where a small percentage of cards are viable but really well designed, and a set where all cards are potentially viable but balance across multiple sets is all over the place, I'd take the former, which benefits from this logistic strategy of card design. But therein lies a problem, being that additional, albeit expensive choices do yet exist, but obviously a company intending to make money values efficiency.
...Not illogical, but also un-ideal for players who simply want to enjoy playing with as many Pokemon they personally appreciate as possible, and as has been said, stage 2s as the "Meat" of the franchise" are woefully under-represented. Considering all that I would yet argue that there is still a more ideal version of the game, where single prize stages 2s are not complete garbage, while basic rule boxers are kept in check, AND Stage 2 rule boxes can thrive, all without interfering with the corner stones of TCG monetization.
I suspect that in order to achieve that, 1-prizers have to be regulated to the support role so as to not overshadow 2-prizers as the direct way of actually winning a game, but in order to do that their HP gains have to be even more drastic, energy costs low, while their offensive level be kept par. In theory, single prize Stage 2s become incredibly sticky walls that make for great boons to the user but terrible targets for the opponent to KO/bother with, all without providing too much offensive pressure. This would still necessitate the need for rule boxes as attackers that directly influence the win condition, but prevents 1-prizers from being complete wastes of time for their much more expensive opportunity costs, while Stage Two 1-prizers and 2-prizers with the same opportunity cost compliment each other rather than directly compete for the same role in the game.
