Needless to say, I disagree. It can be straight-up misleading to report means without including a more nuanced view of the distribution. You don't need to use a bunch of fancy statistics, but you do need to consider whether your results could have arisen by random chance. That's not a distraction; it's accurately reporting what you found.

Here's one frightening example of spurious performance results in CS: https://www.cis.upenn.edu/~cis501/papers/producing-wrong-dat...