"That';s a pretty limited category." -- well the scenario of goal line and 4th is limited. The stat I used matches that. In this case limited does nothing to take away from the point.
I disagree with your assessment of what's objective versus subjective. If you're basing your assessment of a player primarily on what your eyes see you are being subjective by definition.
As to your problem with raw unexamined averages, some metrics by definition do not fall into that category. For example the Success Rate metric. It's not a raw metric. It's actually taking stats and translating them into a measurable number. It's saying 'what does this player do on 1st and 10? 2nd and 5? etc. across a game or season' By definition, it's examining stats.
Sure, Akers has things DH doesn't. That's not remarkable since DH has things Akers doesn't. You can look at skillset
only if you want. Focusing on traits only is the type of error that got Snead in trouble with GRob. You also need to look at the bottom line results of how a player takes their skills and translates it onto the field. That's where objective stats and metrics are helpful.
