Originally Posted by WhiteSox5187
My argument would be that there is no such thing as a good stat or a bad stat (though I reserve the right to change my mind), all stats tell a part of a picture. Some stats might tell more of a complete story than another, but I would argue that even the good stats need to be taken within context. A guy with a high OBP and nothing else isn't that valuable, nor is a guy with a high K per 9 and a high ERA (like Carlos Marmol), even a guy with a good BABIP and low average isn't that valuable. A guy like Beckham has a good BABIP because he has so many weak groundouts to the shortstop or pitcher.
So even the "good stats" can be as misleading as the "bad stats."
Nobody is arguing that point with you. Notice how I did not say that a good stat doesn't mean it can be used in a vacuum without any context; it just means that it is a reliable and as accurate as possible quantification of a player's individual performance, as opposed to bad stats, which rely HEAVILY on the outside influence of other people or situations. Just because I think OBP is a good stat doesn't mean I think you can just rank all the players in the league by OBP and that's your list of players, best to worst, it means that OBP is a good tool to use in player evaluation.
Also, I don't think you understand how BABIP works, groundouts to anybody would still count against BABIP