I like stats. I really do. But only to an extent – and only when they're used properly. When properly used to validate a point or strengthen an argument, statistics (in any application, be it baseball chat, a courtroom, a boardroom, whatever) can be a great tool.

On the other hand, they can be misleading when thrown about recklessly. In no sport does this occur as frequently as baseball. Baseball has all these math nerds with limited knowledge of the game running around crunching numbers to tell you who is good, who's not, who is worth what and why. Now, you can assume that judging blindly based on numbers is purely objective and there can be no human element and thus no bias. That's all good and well, but how the numbers are skewed means everything.

For instance, let's say I ... an unabashed Cubs fan, were to have an argument with a friend of mine who, hypothetically, is a diehard Cardinals fan. I say the Cubs are better. He says the Cardinals are better.

I say the Cubs are better because they just took two of three from the Redbirds.
He says the Cards are better because they won the last one.

We're both correct in our facts, but who is truly better is still up for debate.

I could say the Cubs have won 6 of 9 against the Cardinals this year, thus making them the better team.
My counterpart could then reply that the Cardinals have a better record overall and lead the division while the Cubs toil near the bottom.

Again, both stats are correct, the facts are in order, but there's no clear determinant of who the better team is. Could it be the Cards' record is better because they have played a weaker schedule? They can't consistently beat the Cubs, so the Cubs have to be better, right? But if the Cardinals are beating the same teams the Cubs are losing to, then the boys from St. Louis have to be superior, correct?

Well, for one, it's all in your definition of "better". For another, it's in which stats you choose to look at.

I could go back through history and note the Cubs lead the all-time series against the Cardinals – therefore making the Cubs better than the Cardinals.

Any wise Cards fan would then bring up World Series titles. If winning the World Series is the determining factor in ultimate greatness, then the Cards are better.

There are countless other examples, those that are probably much stronger in supporting my point, but suffice it to say numbers lie.

Which segues me into this, my inspiration for throwing this out there right now:

In his latest work for ESPN (must be an ESPN.com Insider to read), Buster Olney discusses the Cards' plans for the immediate future with the development of Albert Pujols' pending DL stint.

One thing Olney notes is "The Cardinals already have enough problems. Jim Edmonds is out, and St. Louis' left fielders rank 30th in the majors in RBI, the right fielders rank 21st ..."

Now, we've already established that I am not exactly the biggest Cards supporter around. So if it sounds like I'm sticking up for their guys here, I vehemently apologize. I just don't like careless usage of stat.

Ol' Bussa Buss here is trying to tell us that, despite their proximity to the Mississippi River, it is apparently Doo-Doo Creek that the Cardinals are dangerously treading thanks to their subpar corner outfielders.

But he's using a faulty stat as a reasoning point. What other teams need and get/don't get from their corner outfielders isn't necessarily the same as the Cardinals. And, what the Cardinals get from other positions and thus need from their corner outfielders is going to be different than other teams. All right and left fielders are not created equal, and all situations are not created equal. You don't have right and left fielders playing in a vacuum. There are other factors at play, and to look blindly at positional rankings is a little careless.

The stat he mentions is Runs Batted In. Apparently the Cards' LFs and RFs do a bad job of batting in runs, since they rank so low, right? Well ... how many other teams have a guy who has single-handedly accumulated 65 RBI so far this season? Not many. If your 1B is knocking everybody in, there aren't a whole lot of RBI opportunities for your other guys, particularly guys like Juan Encarnacion and So Taguchi.

Look at that lineup and where those guys typically play and you tell me why they don't have a ton of RBI. They are, particularly Taguchi, table setters. They're the guys that get on and are the R that guys like Pujols, Rolen and Edmonds are supposed to BI. Sunday's game for instance ... Taguchi bats second and only drives in one run. However, he scored three. Shows he did his job of getting on, and the guys behind him did their job of driving him in. The guys he gets a chance to drive in are at the bottom of the order, and they're there for a reason. He's not going to get a ton of chances.

And then you take Encarnacion. He batted fifth. What did he do? Drove in a pair of runs and picked up two hits while batting .500 for the day. If you bat .500 every day and drive in two runs every day, you're a stud. So in all, not a bad day for Mr. Encarnacion. He showed the ability, at least for a day, to drive in runs. Can he do that consistently? Who knows?

Olney talks about the loss of Edmonds being a problem – like he's some great hitter. Well, Encarnacion has more runs scored and more homers than does Mr. Edmonds. Does that mean he's a better player? Obviously not. Does the fact the Cards' RFs rank 21st in the majors in RBI make him a bad player? Of course not.

Ichiro has a robust 16 RBI this season. By Buster's methodology, the Mariners are in trouble there. Heck, even Encarnacion is better than that. Obviously, most of us would take Ichiro over Encarnacion in a nanosecond, but if you're just looking at RBI ... you got to go with the Juan.

I don't really have the desire to delve too deeply into this, as I am not paid to do so (and I have the first class of the summer in an hour and 10 minutes), but I would like to see where the Cardinals' RFs and LFs rank in terms of RISP avg. What are they batting with runners in scoring position? Where do they rank in terms of men left on base? What percentage of RBI opportunities have they converted? Rank those things, and that, moreso than a raw RBI total, will give you a much more accurate representation of the quality of those players.

Look no further than your NBA Finals. The Dallas Mavericks will throw a couple guys like Erick Dampier and DeSagana Diop out there to do battle with Shaq. In baseball, the team with the most runs wins. In basketball, the team with the most points win. So, using that logic, I would say points scored in the basketball equivalent to baseball's runs batted in.

That being said, the Mavs have 6-foot-11, 265-pound Dampier and 7-foot, 280-pound Diop to do battle with The Diesel. However, those two only combined to average 8 points per game during the season. Phoenix, on the other hand, got 18.7 points per game out of part-time center Boris Diaw by himself. Now, I don't know about you, but I think I'd rather try my hand at slowing down Shaq with what Dallas has than what Phoenix has.

Basically, all ranting aside, my point is this: comparative positional stat rankings in team sports to determine a player's worth is probably not the best way to go about things. And, one should be careful when using or interpreting stats, as numbers have a way of being twisted the way you want them.