In this commentary, we examine Braverman's insights into the trade-offs between feasibility and rigor in evaluation measures and reject his assessment of the trade-off as a zero-sum game. We, argue that feasibility and policy salience are, like reliability and validity, intrinsic to the definition of a good measure. To reduce the tension between feasibility and measurement rigor, we argue that evaluators should make greater use of existing data, identify ways in which improved measurement will result in improved program management, and "thickly" invest measurement resources in areas where questions are most important and evaluation is most needed.