No problem here with the new statistic. As others have pointed out, it's not always a measure of playing quality, but I disagree with those that suggest that the ability to analyze and synthesize information faster than the next guy isn't something valuable.
Like all statistics, this new one must be used in conjunction, rather than instead of, other stats.
As old timers like me recall, balls per inning was considered the true measure of a 14.1 player once upon a time, but if you took it as gospel, you'd have greatly underrated Irving Crane, who played more defense than his professional counterparts, and whose scoresheet, consequently, always had a bunch of zeros on it. I know, for I kept his scoresheet on several occasions.
I have said this many times on the forum but I'll say it again. The only real measure of a player is wins and losses and the only real measure of greatness is titles.
Still, I'll embrace the introduction of this new stat. Yes, the new stat has limitations, but it's our responsibility to interpret it properly.
Like all statistics, this new one must be used in conjunction, rather than instead of, other stats.
As old timers like me recall, balls per inning was considered the true measure of a 14.1 player once upon a time, but if you took it as gospel, you'd have greatly underrated Irving Crane, who played more defense than his professional counterparts, and whose scoresheet, consequently, always had a bunch of zeros on it. I know, for I kept his scoresheet on several occasions.
I have said this many times on the forum but I'll say it again. The only real measure of a player is wins and losses and the only real measure of greatness is titles.
Still, I'll embrace the introduction of this new stat. Yes, the new stat has limitations, but it's our responsibility to interpret it properly.
