I've gotten in trouble a couple times this year talking about "verification" and "performance" of storm systems. Let me just defend myself by saying I think models and forecasts being wrong is one of the top factors that makes severe weather such an addictive hobby/career. It's the process of trying to make sense out of something that is, by its very nature, chaotic and unpredictable. The STPs and VTPs are algorithms that calculate the most important parameters for tornado genesis, yet we regularly see isolated supercells enter areas with maxed out STPs and VTPs and produce nothing.
Of course, meteorologists can usually find the answers in hindsight, but foresight is much more important. Broyles is so respected because he's the best there is in that regard, and even he doesn't have a perfect batting average. There's still so much we don't fully understand, and trying to is a fascinating process. There have been some extremely nasty events this year, and past experience tells us even those could've been much worse based on the variables that were in place. To me, it seems like the only difference between this year and 2011 is the fact that very few events this year have come close to hitting their max ceilings, whereas almost all of the systems in 2011 seemingly did.
edit:
It also seems like last year was as prominent as it was because a ton of systems actually over performed significantly. Not sure if this is an accurate assessment, though.
