In a message of  to David Lentz (1:2613/313@), you 
wrote:
 DL> In the case of exotic statistics, you simply mean refer to those
 DL> statistics which do not support one on your conclusions.
 EG> No, I don't. Runs created is a recent statistic (more recent than saves)
 EG> and I don't refer to it as exotic. I refer to the recent attempts at
 EG> fielding evaluation as exotic because they try to do something without
 EG> taking into account factors that bias them toward certain 
ields/pitching
 EG> staffs.
So what?  Offensive statistics don't take into account certain field 
conditions either, but we accept that, too.  Yes, there are adjustments that 
must be made regarding plays made (range factor), but you have to make 
adjustments to hitting statistics also, or else every "best" player is going 
to be a Colorado Rockie.
The zone percentage statistic is one attempt at taking out the influences of 
ballparks and pitching staffs, but of course, you don't like it because it 
doesn't agree with your thoughts/observations.  You have pointed out some 
possible problems (specifically possibly not counting every hit ball) but 
overall, I find zone percentage to be a very acceptable observation, 
especially the way Project Scoresheet (or whoever's doing it now) handles it, 
with multiple recorders/observers at each game.  Your argument against it 
seems to center on that Roberto Alomar and Ken Griffey dont come out too well 
in the calculations.
--- The-Box Edit 1.10- PC
---------------