Originally Posted by SI1020
Not only that, but is a constant Winston Smith like revision of history. I'm coming to the conclusion that many who defend the new stats have no idea what alchemy is used to compile them, and defend the whole process in order to appear trendy and hip.
Some stats are organic to the game. They don't necessarily tell you much, but they don't purport to. They are what they are.
I am more skeptical about newer fielding stats than I am about fielding percentage because fielding percentage is something I can see when I'm watching the game. I can see its limitations.
If you want to argue that Paul Konerko cost the White Sox x-number of games in a season, you don't take some contrived formulas that are not organic to the game and do the math. You find specific examples of games that were lost by his defense and balance them against games that were won by his defense.