Well there’s 30 (now 31) teams and 27-28 are run by “old school” GMs who have been around for the entirety of the past decade vs 2-3 “analytics” GMs who have been on the scene for the last 3-4 years only.
Is it really surprising that the “old school” GMs have won all the cups? The odds are kinda in their favour here, no?
It's not really about analytics for me. I think analytics - whether you call it big data, or business intelligence, or evidence based practice, or metrics, or key performance indicators, or sports analytics or w.h.y. are an essential part of modern management in just about every industry. Ignoring data seems to only work in politics. But at least in the case of Arizona, hire a GM who done something in his life more significant than a few years of junior hockey, an undergrad commerce / business degree and running a sports analytics blog for a few years. His lack of experience in basic things like contracts, negotiations, budgeting (10's to 100's of million dollar budgets), HR/performance management, player development, scouting, coaching, risk management, etc., etc., etc., are gaping holes that can be filled with skilled hires, but this usually only works when the guy at the top is a genius in a really core area like leadership / vision or has deep knowledge of the business operationally. Anaytics are important, but are a technical skill that is better hired than placed in leadership. Little wonder hes' floundering.