Man, that thing is a real doozy. It really could use the FJM treatment. He keeps referring to it as "sabre-metrics." (Though, he also uses "saber-metrics.") So it is definitely some sharp analysis.
I also enjoyed this part:
Am I nuts or do I remember virtually everyone picking Boras’s beloved Nationals to win The World Series last year? How did that work out?
Here’s the problem—among many—with sabre-metrics: they can’t possibly account for the human side of the game (any game). They can’t account for how a player performs under pressure (oh wait, I know, there are computers that now say there’s no such thing as a ‘clutch,’ player. Yeah, right.) or how his presence affects his teammates for good or for bad.
If you looked at sabre-metrics, you’d probably want Jonathan Papelbon on your team. Except for one thing: sabre-metrics can’t account for the fact that Papelbon has been a cancer everywhere he’s been.
He then goes on to talk about all the championships Derek Jeter has won. So, yada yada yada, stats don't matter as much as your "presence."
I'm just extrapolating here, but I believe what he is implying is: The Nationals were loved by stat nerds last year, but they couldn't win it all because Jonathan Papelbon was a cancer. So, though you nerds may love Papelbon because of his stats, he isn't a winner in my book because of his presence. That
is why the Nationals didn't win it last year.
Except... from a cursory glance, it appears that Papelbon was the only pitcher on the Nationals last year that has ever won a World Series. So, maybe it was the rest of the team's presence that actually brought down Papelbon's championship presence.