Closers, the All-Star game and overrated stats

As you're finishing up Moneyball, pay special attention to the sections on how certain statistics are overrated. In almost any sport, there will be certain categories that announcers and "traditional" fans tend to think as more important than they really are. You'll recall that Billy Beane took advantage of the fact that other GMs believed saves to be the best measure of a closer. From page 126,

"Finding pitchers who could become successful closers wasn't all that difficult. To fill the hole at the back of the bullpen Billy had traded to the Toronto Blue Jays a minor league third baseman, Eric Hinske, for Billy Koch, another crude fireballer...Billy knew that barring some disaster, Koch would gain a lot of value as an asset. Koch would get his saves and be perceived by other teams to be a more critical piece of a successful team than he actually was, whereupon the A's would trade him for something cheaper, younger and possibly even better."

Yet five years later, players and managers still overrate stats like saves and wins (which often have little to do with the pitcher's ability). Look at this some of this year's All-Stars:

• Colorado Rockies relief pitcher Brian Fuentes, among the league leaders in saves, who was chosen for the team on the same day he was demoted from the closer's role.

• Cole Hamels, who leads the league in wins but whose ERA is almost twice as high as that of Chris Young (not on the original All-Star roster)?

• Ben Sheets, also tied for the league lead in wins but whose ERA is a run and a half higher than Chris Young's

Why do you think this is the case? There is empirical evidence which suggests that wins and saves are overrated stats, yet still this is how many players, announcers, etc measure performance. Why? Do you think it's mere stubbornness to accept a new way of viewing baseball?