Look, it would be easy to say that Kevin Bieksa doesn't believe that the numbers tell the whole story because his numbers tell a story that - depending on perspective - would fall under the genre of 'horror' or 'comedy', but put yourself in his shoes for a second. How would you like people spreading fictional, critical narratives about your poor play by supporting them with quantifiable arguments that don't take into account all that super important stuff that you're good at it that just so happens to be immeasurable?
Has anyone else pondered whether the statistics of which all these hockey mathematicians are speaking have been tainted? Some say that numbers never lie, but what about when the sample size is small and insignificant? Like, for instance, the entirety of 82 games (+playoffs)? Is a season's worth of data detailing all the predominantly bad things that happened during every single second he spent on the ice supposed to be considered proof of Kevin Bieksa's struggles or something? Is that really what we are implying here?
HOGWASH! The Ducks' fans that wish their third pairing defenseman didn't have a no trade clause might pray for the day he becomes addition by subtraction, but the brainiacs that support their theory with indefinite division and multiplication should put aside their arithmetic and focus on the real "calculated" issue at hand...manipulation.