Quoting fantasy Rugby stats to support arguments?

Oh do shut up, you tedious little bore.
If you don't like Fantasy Rugby then just don't play it but stop bleating and blubbering about the Fantasy scores. I promise you there's not a single Fantasy Rugby manager among us who gives a flying toss what an ignorant rugby noob like you thinks about the scores.

Rooipoes if you are doing well in it, this is further evidence of how far from reality this childish game is.

 Sharkbok
Stats is not the alpha and omegs of performance evaluation - but they do give an overall indication of performances.   They indicate both positives and negatives and as you say they need to be interpreted and they are by referring to issues like missed tackle ratio's,meters gained per ball carry, etc.   
Qualitative stats are not readily available - so if stats is to be used - it has to be carefully assessed.  It is therefore unwise to use stats based on single matches - but to look at it over a series of games.   It is also unwise to make deductions from such stats other than to try and identify specific trends in player performances.   If in say five games a player shows similar tendencies in each game - it is evident that the player concerned has a tendency to for instance to miss tackles, give away penalties and lose ball possession.   If it happens only in one game and not repeatedly in the other five games - such a tendency is obviously not established.
You obviously have a problem with the fact that I referred to Foxsport stats on the performance of Francois Steyn.  I have no doubt that Steyn is not performing up to the standard of other centers in the competition.  The system is equal for all centers and has it weaknesses as well - but in the end it equalizes the performances of players in a specific position - since all the players in that position are subject to the same conditions.   Steyn is heavily penalized by the system for his high missed tackle ratio, his losing of ball possession and the high number of penalties he gave away.  You may argue about the tackle issue - but you cannot argue about the fact that he loses more ball possession than average centers and he gives away more penalties as well.      
Basically all the stats confirm one thing about Francois Steyn - he performed poorly in all of the last five games he played in - other than his kicking at goal. He showed no penetration in attack and his passing was inaccurate and ine ffective.   
 
         

"Rooipoes if you are doing well in it, this is further evidence of how far from reality this childish game is."
Well I'm not actually doing particularly well in the Foxsport comp . . . ABasquefan is kicking our collective arses . . .  but note that "childish" would be the sad and pathetic little loser having a pop at the people playing the game that he was too chicken to enter. A bit like the snivelling little crybaby who runs to mummy in tears because he's too much of a wimp to join the other boys in their game so mummy has to reassure the little dear that the game the other boys are playing is no fun anyway!  

 Fantasy rugby stats are based on specific processes of players based on the specefic stats that accumulate in Fantasy, its all stats, but stats dont tell the whole story. Stats like Tackles Made, Tackle Busts, Trys, etc. You would expect the canes to score big in, seeing they can be very irratic at times, particularly in broken open play. Clearly stats dont cover the primary roles of a player, like Retilluck for example has struggled in the lineout, a primary function of a lock. But stats tell a different story, because hes a very good ball runner, makes heaps of metres, gets around the feild, makes several tackles, busts etc. These stats are just as important as catching the ball in the lineout. So while in the case of the canes, while it may seem like againgst stronger tight fives, they are being dragged around haha, the tight five are still working away at these processes and specific stats more consistently. So they can be very misleading in two ways; 1. May seem like canes for e.g. Struggle in the tight, but they still do well in their processes, as we know in the modern game players particularly forwards, are more like backs these days. So using the argument that these stats don. T tell the whole story like their primary functions (lineouts, scrumagging etc.). Is also misleading as forwards who can also play like backs are always going to score big in those specific stats, so its no surprise canes lead the way their. Canes have the most underrated backrow in the comp imo, and their tight five is improoving and held its own againgst an almost all ab tight five. And beleive well hold on againgst the bulls.

 For the most part the FF stats bear a close correlation to onfield performance ,like Mikey said you have to look at it over more than one game ,beats the hell out of a bunch of dry stats anyday !