Arrogant in your ignorance, as ever. Do you think that hockey teams spend excessive amounts of time in their own defensive zone playing keep away?
I'll try to explain this real simple for you: in hockey, the puck starts in the middle of the ice, and then the players move it around after that. Sometimes a good way to do this is by using your hockey stick to pass to other players on your team, but another way to do it is to put the puck as faaaaaar down the ice as possible, then chase it and set traps for the other team. It would be considered "successful" if you were to generate scoring opportunities and goals for your team, and less "successful" if you don't manage to do that.
Now here's where this gets complicated, I know. The first method is what you would call "possession" traditionally, but it doesn't account for the fact that everything done in the second method is as intentional. Teams don't score from the defensive zone, so traditional "puck on stick" possession times don't matter when they count every failed breakout and well-defended, shot-less shift. Your scenario, which totally "happens all the time", well what's even all that wrong with it? You would complain non-stop if Lars Eller cycled for a minute without getting the puck off the perimeter, then gave up a quick chance going the other way. You definitely wouldn't think Eller deserves a pat on the back for a good effort and shrug your shoulders at the rest.
I used to say the same crap he says about "possession" maybe 10 years ago (when there were few caveats or alternative fancy stats), until I realized a few key factors:
1) It's mostly a semantic argument about the word "possession" and therefore more nitpicky and pedantic than clever.
2) There appears to be some value in accumulating shots, despite the outlier stories to the contrary (like the Caps vs MTL series). In the long run, with shooting percentages fairly stable the more you shoot (normal shots, not stat-padding) the more you should score, and the more you score the more you win (especially with the rest of the league trending that way, too).
3) Olde Tyme Hockeye with perpetual grinding is generally dead or on life support, and all the teams are using advanced stats to some degree (including official NHL stats), so no use in clinging to useless nostalgia like some angry old guy on a porch with a newspaper and landline who "doesn't do email or texting".
4) You don't have to join the "possession cult". You can pick and choose how you want to apply stats, if at all. It's not an all or nothing proposition anymore, as people are figuring out that you can't just construct stat-based lineups like it's a video game. Eye test + some stats + intelligent analysis = best case scenario.
5) Any team or player that just shoots bad shots to pad stats is operating outside the model the stats apply to and will be exposed when the losses and failures stack up. If during the course of NORMAL play, with no gaming of shot stats, most players have a range of shooting percentages then the increase in shots will also increase the quality of scoring chances that are being generated (by the players, system, coach, etc). Guys who are just shooting to shoot will be taking bad shots and find themselves with obvious red flags in their comparative stats when the pucks aren't going in, especially if they're shooting outside the team system which can lead to chances the other way and therefore no shot stat advantage.
6) Very few teams are ever going to have "real possession" 60 or 70 percent of the time, nevermind for a whole season, so looking at the finer details within that near-even split might be where some of the gamechangers are found. The line matchups and randomness of hockey means there will be shifts in flow all game long, including opportunities both ways. You hardly ever see an NHL team totally shut down the other team while playing keepaway all game. So does "real possession" really matter that much? Or is it more about tilting the ice to your advantage slightly and getting shots on net within a system that creates decent scoring chances so good things can happen?
7) Everyone has heard it before. Nobody cares.
