Honestly, I agree. And I get the disdain, but to be fair that probably won't play well here. Many sabermetricians remind me of that hipster that brags about reading Socrates, yet fails to discern the difference between knowledge and wisdom. I think this is a sloppy comparison. There are real technical and philosophical problems with many of the metrics sabermetricians espouse. From simply adding onbase percentage to slugging to the mysteriously derived coefficients that some metrics employ--this is hardly science. Not to mention defensive metrics. Sabermetrics is burgeoning in terms of its capacity for precision, much of it remains totally convoluted and very flawed. I scoff at the notion that sabermetrics is somehow as elegant or as scientifically hard-won as evolution. Sure statistical analysis is valuable, but only if its put into a larger context in which we can interpret that data. We should be guarded about anything that claims to totalize, anything that claims to quantify which before was abstract.