Bottom line, regular season stats go out the window in the playoffs because:
1) the two play styles are different
2) the stats are against all teams played whereas the playoffs is a best of 7 where two teams play against each other repeatedly
This may intuitively make sense, but a little extra thought to it throws it into question. Especially the idea that all regular season stars are meaningless. Of that's the case, why not allow all 32 teams in the PO and just make up randing match ups? If the RS stats are meaningless then 32nd seed should have an equal shot of winning as the first seed.
Perhaps you mean to say that the PO, by their very nature, can expose teams who benefitted from the less intense RS? The Kent Nilssons/Mike Gartners of team success?
Re: match ups
One thing your line of thinking neglects is that it is indeed a short series and random chanxe is a much greater factor- including slumps which are inevitable. So what may appear to be choking is in fact mere inopportune slumping.
In some cases, inexperience may be a factor. So the stats are meaningful but a "mismatch" may be due to simply not understanding that the PO is going to require an extra gear
If stats are meaningless, then odds makers, brackets, and kind of prediction would be at best a complete crap shoot.
Therefore the game is about series matchups played in the playoff style. There are many important roles that if one team has a player correctly slotted in that role and the other team does not, the team with said player will have a great advantage.
What are the most important roles?
1) the roles where players have the most influence in the flow of the game through the ice…typically down the middle such as centers and 2-way defensemen
2) the roles that spend the most time on the ice since they will have more opportunity with more time to be more effective…for example, top centers, top defensemen and goaltenders
Everything else is meaningless.
Your argument is roles better filled = better team.
So, if team A is the higher seeded team against team B but team B has thr better fitted roles, the question that begs to be asked is if they have those roles so perfectly slotted, why did they finish with a worse record than a team they are supposedly better than?
I think you've come up with an ad hoc explanation that just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.