[WorldMaker]

Sure, but when vetting a baseball player you check the batting average; when handicapping a horse you check the races they've lost for conditions they can't handle as well; when comparing Halo player stats you check the kill/death ratio.

Vetting a VC only by wins is missing quite a bit of information, presumably. It can at the very least tell you about potential blind spots and some idea how much actual skill may be involved versus luck or even "a broken clock is right twice a day" scattershot portfolios.

[ccostes]

I think the analogy breaks down somewhat due to the relative scale of their misses vs. hits. A batter can only get so many runs with one hit, but a good investment can make all of the misses look like rounding errors.

[WorldMaker]

Then maybe you are unfamiliar with my analogies?

A batter can help win a series, especially the World Series, and make all their losses look uninteresting. But you still are going to at least check their batting average if you are looking to trade them.

A horse can win a major stakes race, such as the Kentucky Derby, and bring in a massive purse (and eventual stud rights) that makes any losses look like warmup rounds. But before heading to the betting window you are still going to check if they've lost any big rainy races if it's raining on Derby Day.

A Halo player can win a championship or tournament and no one will question any losses they've had. But you still are going to want some idea of their kill/death efficiency before scouting them for your team in the next deathmatch.

[aaavl2821]

And batting .300 is considered good -- high rate of failure doesn't necessarily mean something is bad. The metric VCs are judged on is financial return. If they invest in one company that gets them 200x return and 20 that lost all money, they've still done well at their job

[WorldMaker]

I'm only arguing that the stats matter if you are trying to compare VCs, establish baselines of VC ability. I'm sure that they might be skewed, but that doesn't mean they aren't potentially valuable information.

That .300 is considered good today based on the current environment of the sport and in comparison among peer groups. That same .300 looks shabby in a previous era or in particular sub-leagues or among particular types of batters (your benchmark for designated hitters might be higher given their only focus is hits, for instance).