I know where you're coming from with this. Goldberg makes me cringe full stop but the 'significant strikes' count does my head in. American sports in general does have this sort of obsession with statistics so I guess it's a natural progression to include something like this, given the audience is so used to it. It works with sports like baseball and cricket a lot better because you either score or don't score. But, to me, the easiest way to make an exciting, emotional sport into a dull and clinical one is to throw a lot of statistics at it.
I realise it's part of the scoring criteria but just counting "significant strikes" is completely misleading as it ignores the quality of the strike and the damage (if any) that it's caused. The fact that the in-fight stats are inaccurate makes it pretty pointless imo - wasn't it the Condit v Diaz fight that had a huge discrepancy between in-fight and post-fight figures? I think it also skews the angles the commentators are coming from as well and the way we experience the fight.
I guess with accurate stats it can be quite useful in post-fight analysis but all it ends up being is fodder for internet arguments and turns a good, healthy argument into some weird game of top trumps.