I am not totally against using it, I am suggesting guardrails on it's usage in discourse that was not intended to be a hard analytical look at a topic.
Well, that's not what you said. You said that data analysis should not be permitted in B&R discussion threads. You said "I think data driven discussions are healthy and have a place, but I don't think you can have them in the same thread."
That's a pretty extreme position given the centrality of the role of data in DCI B&R decision making, which you seemed to be pretty ill-informed of until now.
In any case, no one ever said that the DCI ONLY uses data to make it's decisions - but it is absolutely the case that a good deal of what you said wasn't true. Data plays a significant role in the DCI's decision matrix.
To take an extreme case, if there was a deck that was consistently 60% of Top 8s for more than 6 months, and also had a 60% win percentage, is there any doubt that that deck would have a restriction, regardless of any of the other factors you mentioned? There is no doubt in my mind.
It's like coming into a post about which classical artist was more relevant to a person, Da Vinci or Michelangelo, and having someone walk into that post and say that Da Vinci had more popularly known pieces and is thus the definitive correct answer.
Magic is a game with performance metrics. Artwork is not. We can measure market share of Magic decks just like we can measure corporation's market performance and market share or like we can measure sports teams performance and dominance. It's not the same thing as saying that a poem or sculpture is objectively superior to another.
Saying that a deck is dominant in Magic and needs DCI intervention is absolutely no different than the US government's argument in 1999 that Microsoft was a monopoly and needed antitrust intervention for the same reason. It's a policy choice based upon market dynamics. It's not about right/wrong or beauty and aesthetics. It's about consistent application of a policy based upon precedent, past policy decisions grounded in certain policy values, like promoting a diverse format and maintaining competitive balance.
I truly believe that workshops (and some other cards but most egregiously workshops) is the reason that the format has X amount of viable archetypes and not X+Y. Tournament win percentages and representation will not show you what decks are not viable to bring to an event, just how the things that were there did.
Actually, the main point of Chubbyrain's post was to show that Workshops are too good in this environment. I agree with him. It sounds like you do too.