The only ones changing their positions here are you.
You went from using outcomes in small samples to make broad conclusions, blame the coach and GM, and predict doom and failure, to now dismissing outcomes because they're small samples, praising the coach and GM, and predicting we improve as the sample grows, by pointing to underlying metrics and luck.
I went from acknowledging the small samples, avoiding making broad conclusions, avoiding blaming the coach and GM, predicting improvement as the sample grows, and looking at underlying metrics, to acknowledging the small samples, avoiding making broad conclusions, avoiding blaming the coach and GM, predicting improvement as the sample grows, and looking at underlying metrics.
I was just pointing out that comparing the entirety of Berube's tenure to a small outlier sample of Keefe's tenure is not a great comparison, and the conclusion that the individual drew from that didn't fit the facts of the bigger sample. Perhaps we should wait for the bigger sample from Berube before making proclamations and acting like Berube leading us to a 7-5-2 record in the regular season is some great success.
Our underlying metrics are a bit better than last year so far, and that's good, but they are still 4th best of the last 5 years, which isn't so good. And while we have indeed been a bit unlucky so far, the 1.61% lower that our GF% is than our xGF% has been a bit exaggerated. Our results have underperformed our underlying metrics on the PP so far, but our results have overperformed our underlying metrics 5v5.