Zeke the problem with the way you come to conclusions or justify things is that you use 1000 different metrics with 999,999 possible ways to slice it and then just say, here see! This is why, there are problems, remember when you said Marincin is the end all and be all? Then you watch him and his stats don't tell the story. It's like that with a lot of statistically good players. You could have probably found an argument for Clarkson being a good pickup if you spent the time.
Real life is complicated, unfortunately.
You see it as "too many stats", but really it's actually "context".
So we take points and then we are context - what kind of points were they? What amount of opportunity was needed to produce them? What situations were they produced in? What kind of competition did they come against?
Then we go beyond just offensive production, and use impact stats to get a sense of how the player impacts the run of play while on the ice beyond just scoring. And then we try to remove factors like quality of teammates, quality of competition, zone deployment, and such and such from biasing those numbers too much.
So what you see as too many stats is really just two major types of stats, with a whole crapload of context added in.
