Who's saying analytics are the only thing? Not me. Not anyone. That's one of your strawman saying that.
The first four paragraphs in my original post that didn't reference analytics at all: 1) The Jets' defensive gameplan changed; 2) Colorado's hard forecheck caused lots of problems; 3) the Jets lost composure and panicked; 4) Hellebuyck did not play well; and 5) the Avs used analytics and smart gameplanning and Bones' gut feelings couldn't figure out a counter. If you read all that and come away with "it was all analytics" then maybe go back and re-read the post?
Sorry, when did this become THE point I was supposed to be addressing? You mentioned the Avs had MacKinnon and Makar and got .919 goaltending out of Georgiev. But then the Jets got completely manhandled at 5v5 by everyone aside from those two.
When Miles Wood and Ross Colton are outshooting you 40-20 that seems more like strategic victory for the Avs, and a strategic clusterf*** from Bones and his assistants who spent 4 straight losses just shrugging their shoulders. It was more of a strategic failure that than just being overwhelmed by the Avs' generational talents, anyway.
Of course the abysmal penalty killing and powerplay were to be expected, but again, IMO, these are also more strategic issues than talent disparities.
And now you're back on this bullshit again!
You've created your own ridiculous strawman argument that doesn't stand up.
You can't just claim "if more analytics staff doesn't mean better results, then analytics is a sham!" and think you've proven something (or whatever it is you're trying to say - the goalposts move around a lot). It's a one season snapshot of 32 teams' staff numbers - can you infer anything useful from that?
...but since we're here inferring things anyway, I will point out again that the 14 teams employing more than the average number of people in "data-related roles" have made the playoffs with greater frequency in the last two seasons than the 18 teams with fewer than average data-related staff (64% vs. 39%). The Top 14 have averaged 94 points/season vs The Bottom 18 with 88 points per season over that time period as well. Not cherry picking, but small sample caveats and all that.
What exactly am I wrong about? Please refrain from deploying your strawman army. I didn't say any of the stuff you say I did. "We played like dogshit" doesn't add anything...it's not an argument, not debatable. Why did we play like dogshit? Because the Avs had our number(s) - specifically in a spreadsheet...