A. That's not what the original post indicated. What I was responding to indicated that metrics said we were outplayed, but score adjusted said differently. That's more like a "duh", metrics said bad but, oh look at the score, good.
B. I get what these things say, but I get tired with the analytical looks at games that seem to ignore what we watched. You win games by outscoring the other team, if you keep doing that you're going to win. Sometimes it's not pretty and sometimes a player or two overcomes his teammates and yes the goalie is part of the team.
And so is the PP and PK.
But "what we watched," is subjective. We each saw different things or had different interpretations of those things. You've heard of coaches being upset after a win because such-and-such wasn't good enough? Bill Parcells and all, saying how even wins used to eat him alive? Why do you think that is?
Analytics help tell the story of a game, even wins where you weren't very good. And just like there were wins that were not sustainable before analytics, analytics help express those wins-where-you-still-need-to-get-better. Sometimes you win but someone smarter than you or I - a coach like Bill Parcells, for example - would say "You gotta get better at this or you aren't going to keep winning."
The concept isn't new, just the recording of the measurements are.
The analytics aren't necessarily "ignoring what we watched." Maybe
you are just not seeing the bad things during some of these wins. Like, maybe "poster on a message board of a team he likes is glossing over his favorite teams flaws?" Not possible? Odd because it happens on the boards on this website for the Flyers, Devils, Islanders, etc, all the time.... And it comes off as pretty "Old man yelling at clouds," to be complaining about analytics in this day and age when most of the teams have departments devoted to it.
*to be clear, I am not referring to our 2-0 start, I had many complaints about our 5v5 play last year though and I will stand by that it was very well founded criticism.