This is a misanalysis. In particular, it misstates how a blend of numbers usually works. If a vintner blends several very different wines together, ones that have little in common except that each of them has an alcohol content of about 8-16%, the fact that they share this common feature does not mean that the resulting blend has its alcoholic content "inflated into the stratosphere". Are you claiming that any of the components of SDI is like blending Everclear into a wine batch, with regard to Errors? We are long past the days where Fielding Percentage, basically an inverse measure of Error frequency, is how anyone seriously judges fielders. Range, and the deficiencies of the Error stat itself, are among the reasons to move beyond. No serious analyst places Errors higher than, probably, the 12% level of the wine example above. But that is not the same as saying Errors, as noted by Official Scorers, are without meaning. It is not remarkable if people who have independently studied the question of fielding come to an independent conclusion that Errors need to figure into a defensive rating. With that rebuttal to this tangential swipe, I'd like to suggest taking discussion of the merits of any stats (WAR is another one that disrupts threads) to a separate thread, if you feel so moved.