Why can't I? Again, it's a really simple analogy. In football, goals are good. In life, happiness is good. Do we have perfect metrics for how many goals players add to a team (as scoring a goal obviously is just a part of the goal itself), or for measuring happiness in a country? No. But do high ratings in these 'good' things suggest that something is not very bad? Yes.
Man, they don't. It's not at all comparable. Actually, WAR, which is the stat which is used so much in baseball which you would no doubt tell me is superior to some of the metrics we have in football (I'm sure it is, I don't know that much about baseball, but I do tend to find that those arguing for the importance of the new statistics are those who are a bit more open-minded and in tune to thing than those who are arguing for the old ways), comes from runs added, if I'm correct. Runs would be the corollary to goals in football. WINS and SAVES, I don't know, that would be something like these shit statistics where you post the teams record with that player and without without any other context, and saves would be something like how many goals he scores in added time without any context. Surely you can see the difference...It's literally nothing like defending Wins and Saves...
This doesn't contradict anything I've--or anyone, really, minus a4tt has-- said from the start, has only re-affirmed and agreed with it.
Btw, football stats are getting better and better, and I think you are underrating them a bit. There are good, and predictive (the most important question of whether their worthwhle or not) stats and statistical models coming out, and to reject them outright is a bit to run the risk to be on the side of those 'good old days' baseball fans that I'm guessing you are not a fan of.