.
When you end your post with "rather it is yet another deficiency with modern analytics." you clearly carry the implication that you started with a belief that analytics are faulty and deficient, and that intangibles are real and impactful and then interpreted the available facts so your hypothesis and conclusion could meet in the middle.
Well, yes. Forgive me if I merely implied it, because it was meant to be a statement of fact. Modern baseball analytics suffer from a myriad deficiencies, most notably, imo in how they measure defense and high-leverage BP work. These aspects are being improved upon, but they are still lacking. Baseball analytics are still in their relative infancy, and are, as we speak, being worked on. To argue that they are yet deficient is...foolish. Likewise, intangibles are real, as we all seem to agree on now, and if we're to
yet reliably measure their influence, that is indeed a deficiency that may or may not be addressed in the future.
And the fact that all you took from my comment was that the mere mention of a mythical creature in it somehow serves to devalue the statement I was making reflects more poorly on your ability to logically reason things
Not at all, in fact I addressed your point in detail. Perhaps you missed my post addressing you, because the post you quoted did address a different poster...