This blurring of the lines between the statistic and what it means in literal terms verses the act it is trying to best represent is flawed. It is valid to say someone is statistically better than another. But it is invalid to then say that they are better than the other because of a statistic. There is so much more to the story than that which statistic is meant to represent. If you do so, you are guilty of defining a forest by its single tree and/or the attributes of few trees that you select. Rather than seeing the forest as a much more complex eco-system encompassing the trees, as well as, the space around, below and between them. Not to mention the other plants and animals living amongst them.
To quote David Friedman, "A "stat guru" thinks that a team of five Tyson Chandlers would be unbeatable because such a team would shoot almost .700 from the field while hardly allowing the opposition to get off a good shot; it never occurs to the "stat guru" that a team of five Tyson Chandlers would not be able to dribble the ball up the court without getting it stolen and even if the Chandler Five somehow managed to get the ball into a half court set that group would not be able to create the point blank shots that enable the real Chandler to have such a high field goal percentage. ..."
Life does not exist in a vacuum all else is not equal. Advanced Statistics, however, do and that is where they fall short.
In the end, as I mentioned before the only statistic I will care about is how many W's we have and how much fun it was watching us get those Ws.
If you don't understand what I mean see the formula below:
((Amount of Joy)* Playoff Wins * # of Championships/ Number of times cheered) * # of beers drunk / % of trash talking