Why? I'm not trying to argue here, just looking to get a grasp on some of this stuff. My understanding is that all of these metrics are used not only to predict outcomes but especially to do so in certain situations. Like the further we can break things down, the better the predictive ability we (should) get, no? Yes? Maybe? So using Counsell as the example, why would you ignore (or assign lesser importance to) those metrics that point to his "clutchness"? I don't think small sample applies, as lengthy as his career was, or does it? I certainly don't know. What I'm wondering now is if all (or most) stat guys would also choose the guy with the better overall numbers, as you would, or would they choose Counsell? I'd choose Counsell, but that's probably mostly because I'm a fan and a homer and he's from Milwaukee. More seriously, I'd still choose the guy with the better "clutch stats" even if it wasn't Counsell, although I can't really say why I'd choose that way. I guess just a gut feeling. Others?