Saying that shows Klimala to be "bad" indicates that you have no idea what those numbers mean and how data analysts measure competency.
It means Klimala drastically underperformed his expected goals output. There are two ways to interpret that. One is that he's a shit finisher. The other is that he was making good runs and getting into good positions but got extremely unlucky. The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle. Data analysts at RBNY like Sam Goldberg have access to much more indicative data, mainly post-shot expected goals based on shot trajectory, goalkeeper positioning, etc. That will tell a better story. Is it that his shots sucked or that GKs were making great saves?