I think this post illustrates why statistics and sabremetrics never tell the full story. The basic concept of competition is such a mystery to the Brian Kenneys of the baseball world... It can't be quantified. Stats (as in data, not the poster!) are important and have their place, but different guys can have similar stats and yet be completely different competitors on the field.
Case in point... Jack Morris pitches through the first ten years of the steroid era and his ERA is a little high by HOF standards... so the sabremetric camp of writers keep him out of the hall. But anyone who watched the man pitch throughout the 80s knows he was a dominant competitor who could and did shut down the best in the game... And always when it counted most. He's a HOFer IMO... one of the very best pitcher in the game for 10+ seasons. His stats don't tell the story. How Blyleven can be enshrined (by stacking up a lot of numbers in mostly meaningless games) and Morris likely won't be shows that numbers are playing too large a role in evaluation. Which guy would you rather have on the bump in the proverbial game seven, Morris... Or Bert Blyleven? Not that Blyleven wasn't a great pitcher as well, he was.
BTW Stats (the poster, not the data), my point probably has nothing to do with your intent in posting... Just a tangent. But the premise of your post made me think of how stats should always take a back seat to scouting in terms of evaluating "the next level". I guess I see the HOF as the final "next level".