About UZR, it says: 'Once you get to one and three-year samples, it’s a relatively solid metric but defensive itself is quite variable so you need a good amount of data for the metrics to become particularly useful.' Says right there a one year sample is a solid metric and Cameron has said the same thing in his chats. Thing is, it's not when trying to figure out a player's true talent level because, like offense, people have good and bad years on defense. But it is okay to use to look at how a player did for a specific year. Now if you're pointing out that the UZR primer says it's not 100% accurate, well, few things are. I've never said they are 100% accurate or that WAR is (or that wRC+ is). Only that they are the best we have to try and determine overall value of a player. But I've gotten to the point where, depending on where I chat, I'm not going to try and continue to convince people to go away from their devotion to traditional stats, cause most like to say since the advanced ones aren't perfect, they shouldn't be used while ignoring how flawed the traditional ones are at telling the story of a player's talent. Traditional stats are a cozy blanket coated in tradition and memories. I'll just point out why I think a good chunk of them shouldn't be counted on to tell the story they've been led to believe they tell them and why I think another stat does it better. Nothing more to do after that. And I don't know why OPS is being brought up at all. OPS isn't a defensive stat. But what has been pointed out is that OBP is very undervalued in the equation for OPS.