Usually with players like that, you can also look at their stats away from certain players. One of the reason the analytics community liked Pulju so much last year is that McDavid produced more chances and allowed less when Pulju was with him. That wasn’t quite the case this year but just using it for an example.
That’s why looking at trends are so important and often guys like Jfresh base it off a 3 year rolling average.
Klingberg has been bad defensively everywhere and with everyone. That’s a sign that he is in fact, a bad defensive player. It could also be a sign that he plays way more than he should. Klingberg as a top 4 d gets blown up defensively. Now if he was on the third pair with sheltered minutes I’m sure it would go up.
The analytics are good and honestly are better than the eye test for the majority of hockey fans because there is so much that we don’t see or don’t realize it’s effective. Like Ceci. People think Ceci gets blown up against tough competition and is getting wreck d when in fact he isn’t. That’s not an objective thing, it’s the truth.
The eye test says he sucks and allows more goals when he is in the ice but it’s simply not true.
Again these are tools and are based to be a snapshot on how the player is performing. You can then start watching the player to better shape your judgement.
For most analytics the following is true. The guys at the 100% are the best in the league (McDavid is there for example) guys who are at the bottom (Jack Johnson) are bad hockey players. Now guys in the middle for the most part there is tons of nuance and deep dives into their numbers better shape it.
Too many people treat them like they are evil and wrong when it’s a tool.
I don't view them as evil. And I agree that they're a tool. They provide a compilation of stats that have been interpreted in a specific way by these sources of information. The issue I've had with them in the past is how they're interpreted here. They're commonly used as the be-all, end-all in a conversation. If a player has poor metrics, we rarely get a discussion about why, which is imperative.
Duncan Keith was a tremendous example of a player who was viewed as one of the worst statistical defensemen in the league when he was acquired by Edmonton. And not only did he come here to take a key role in our top four, he had a significant positive impact on a green Evan Bouchard.
When it comes to Klingberg, he's not some unique player. He's always been a puck-moving offensive defenseman. If you put him in a situation where he's playing with skilled forwards on strong transition team, there's a good chance he thrives. I don't agree that limiting a player's opportunity necessarily helps their game. For a player like Klingberg, it probably hinders it.
I just have to laugh at some of the conclusions that these stats have come to in the past. Like Adam Larsson 'benefitting' from his time paired with Caleb Jones. They get interpreted in very interesting ways.