The short answer is no, I (not we) are not looking at this.
The article seems to apply very arbitrary 'measures of impact' and ranks plugins in an arbitrary manner too. For example, compare the data in the first table for Subscribe2 and for W3 Total Cache.
Subscribe2 uses the same amount of RAM in the admin area and no more than that on the front end, the same number of SQL queries (0) loads in the backend faster and uses significantly less hooks. Subscribe2 is red and W3 Total Cache is green. That makes no sense to me.
Additionally, there seem to be no factoring for the complexity of the plugin. bbPress massively changes the function of WordPress from a blog into a bulletin board - of course it's going to slow things down.
If the article had given specific recommendations for exactly WHERE things can be improved as opposed to drawing a line in the sand and saying this side is good and this side is bad then I'd happily take a look but frankly I feel this analysis is meaningless without any consideration of what the plugins are actually delivering.