This stuff really rustles your jimmies, huh?
It wasn't intended to be as a literal comparison as you took it.
The point was, that a reception, in a similar way to a hit in baseball, is a non-trivial individual accomplishment within their defined position role that may or may not benefit the team in any tangible way, and whether or not is does can be largely dependent upon other team members, game situation, coaching decisions, etc.
So a hit that doesn't advance runners or produce RBIs is still an accomplishment, in that the batter did what he was asked to do effectively, regardless of outcome. Similarly, a receiver who catches a pass has achieved his goal of doing what he was asked to do in the context of the play that was called.
As an example, let's take Spav's third down screen passes to Kirk since you brought up yardage points. CK is asked to step back and catch the pass and then try to find room and advance the ball. The fact that this play was telegraphed, called at inappropriate times, executed ineffectively, and poorly blocked 90% of the time was in no part CK's fault (usually, he did drop some). He did what he was asked to do, and caught the ball and attempted to get YAC. I think a half point is an appropriate reward for that, whether or not he actually gets those yards. Sure, it'd be great if he broke it for 90 and a TD (and he would be awarded additional appropriate points for those accomplishments), but getting open, getting to the place where was asked, and catching the ball is an execution of the play that is worthy of some level of point compensation, IMO.
I won't convince you, and you won't convince me, though I can see your point about the discrepancy for RBs... Maybe they should get partial points just for a carry. I've seen plenty of good RBs with chitty OL work their butts off for no gain. But there is a bit of a difference to me in their fundamental job description that justifies it IMO. RBs get the same 0.5 PPR that WR do on a pass play, after all, regardless of yardage gained.
