Everything that can be counted does not necessarily count; everything that counts cannot necessarily be counted. --Albert Einstein
It seems that you chose the path of those things easily counted rather than things that count. The most important *team* defensive statistic (it is a team game, after all) is opponent's scoring efficiency (points/possession), but only steals and rebounds make their way from that calculation into your individual statistics. Even blocked shots is on its own a misleading example - a shot blocked into the stands is worth much less than a steal or rebound, as the opponent gets to continue the possession (albeit with less time on the clock, of course). But most importantly, players like Patric Young, who holds his assignment to a low shooting percentage without the aid of double-teams, or Scotty Wilbekin, who keeps point guards from getting into the lane for assists and easy points, (to name the 2 best defensive players on the best defensive team in the SEC) get no props in your system. Wilbekin gives this effort and lowers opponents' scoring efficiency *on every possession* - not just once every 4 minutes - so the cumulative value of "solid defense" is generally much more than defensive stats, which you have focused on for ease of counting. You should acknowledge this huge flaw in your method rather than hiding behind pablum about "numbers" being more objective than "eye tests."
People who actually try to use numbers *well* to gauge individual defensive performance include things like assignments' shooting percentages, assignments' assists/possession, double-team percentages, etc. in addition to rebounds, steals, and blocked shots. Yes, this is generally the province of NBA teams that have dedicated personnel tracking these "non-official" stats, but it's one thing to say "my scheme is objective" and another to say "I don't have the time or inclination to do this well - sorry."
I want to apologize to you for not hiring a staff of scouts to go out, watch each SEC game, and grade "hidden" stats that can't be found elsewhere.
I want to apologize for stating how OUR system worked and for admitting that it wasn't perfect. You're right... that's just not good enough. And I clearly answer to you, the wronged commenter.
I also want to apologize to most of our readers for ever deciding to allow comments on this site. The vast majority of our readers do what I do on other sties -- they read a story, agree or disagree, and then move on without ever leaving a comment. Much less an insult-laden one from someone who -- to my knowledge -- could start his own site and provide just the type of statistical analysis he demands from me... on his own dime and time.
After all, If you're going to insult our admittedly straight-forward methodology, you could at least set out to do better. You know, rather than saying, "I don't have the time or inclination to do this well -- sorry."
Thanks for visiting,