But you've soundly hit the nail on the head right here- despite Jackson shaking up nearly every other area in the short time since being hired, he hasn't touched goaltending. The same held true for Chiarelli and Holland, who were also brought in after Schwartz. Did all three men come to the same baffling conclusion that Dustin is the best possible hire? Or is something else at play here?
Here's where your argument falls apart: if this group's decision making was based purely on analytics, Skinner would've been replaced before last year's playoffs even began. He was 42nd in SV% above expected, 46 in GAA above expected, and 36th in Goals Saved above expected during the 2023-24 regular season. He's worse in all those areas this season, including 78th in Goals Saved above expected right now.
This is backed up by the actual numbers that do matter (GAA and SV%) as well as the plain old eye test. Skinner looks and performs like the second-best goalie on the ice most nights because he objectively is. IF there are proprietary analytics at play here, they are DEEPLY flawed and need to be revisited right away. That also doesn't explain why we've kept the same coach, if all he's doing is coaching the position. Something clearly isn't right here, and reflected as such with his previous pupils too. This isn't a new problem.
And yet other teams in the past ten years have seen fit to try and change the environments in which their goaltenders develop, the techniques they use, and so on. Except us. Why? It defies logical explanation. That leaves only some other external factor at play here.
I really wish it wasn't the case, because there's no fixing it if the org is allowing friendships/relationships to dictate their decision making. But to go back to your opening point, how do three separate and allegedly intelligent hockey executives all land on the same conclusion about Schwartz that isn't backed up by data or performance? The answer is, they don't, which means we're f***ed until things are allowed to change.