Totally fair. I was more speaking to the fact that there’s a general disdain for them at times here even when the team we all cheer for clearly sees their value. Yanetti receives almost universal praise here and he mentions how useful they are in scouting in the interviews he does.
In terms of examples with the big club, I think targeting players like Arvidsson and Danault show an analytic basis. Arvidsson’s had bad shooting percentage luck and should positively regress, whereas Danault’s offensive play-driving impact is clearly valued here and with the org even when he’s not always putting up box stats.
I know this discussion is crossing like three separate threads right now so putting it here:
I think the thing with Dom in particular is he's the biggest EK cheerleader ever, and it's terrifyingly easy to pinpoint the exact moment he went from "wow maybe Drew Doughty is better than we thought based on what the analytics say" to riling up his colleagues about how badly ek was snubbed and how bad drew is without bothering for accounting for anything but 'the model'.
I'm with you that they're largely panned here, but I've given up on Dom ever recovering to good faith discussion on
anything Kings-related for years now, he's the prime example of misusing stats to create whatever narrative he pleases. See the Quick example if the Drew one isn't good enough. Hell, he's come as close to anyone I've seen as disrespecting Kopitar, too, saying something to the effect of sure glad they're paying him like matthews to just be sean couturier with a bigger name.
In short, there's no analytic for being a f***ing tool.
But as you point out, one other apparently positive aspect of Blake is he's at least receptive to the information with the integration of Vollman, who is HUGELY respected.