I don't post in this forum so I don't know what the standard etiquette for topics like this is, but the main reason I don't really care about advanced stats (aside from one time I looked up how valuable Jay McClement was to the Avs on behindthenet and got a headache) is because of the smugness of some people who treat them as the only thing that can truly tell you how good a team is, and mock anyone who doesn't immediately agree with them.
Why do so many articles about advanced stats have to sound so utterly condescending?
Of course, there's no chance in the future of any of the players changing, or improving. The Avalanche will just keep going with their assortment of #6 defensemen.
Wow! This article seems to come from a well-informed source! The team is exactly the same as it was four years ago even though there's only five players still remaining from then (two of whom have improved dramatically in O'Reilly in Duchene, one of whom is an irrelevance in Wilson). They play exactly the same way and have all the same strengths, weaknesses and styles of play.
It gets worse when you see an article as bad as this making a bunch of utterly redundant comparisons and assumptions. "They're only winning because of how good the goalie is!" Okay. isn't the goalie part of the team? Does this mean all the teams that have won a Cup with their goalie getting the Conn Smythe relied on him too much? "They're going to regress eventually, they can't play the way they are and keep winning!" Roy has said as much as this many times this year, and I'm sure he knows better than anyone the deficiencies of his team (as I would expect of any coach).
I also think it's patronising to dismiss coming from behind in games or games with a great defensive effort to win as lucky. Look at game 1 for the Avs in the playoffs, they're down by two quick goals the previous period to start the third, a team with very little collective playoff experience, and they don't give up. They keep pushing at it, playing their game, and then tie and then win it. To dismiss that and the results all year as "luck" in the face of some of the adversity the team faced just makes my blood boil, because it completely ignores why the team is successful while contradicting the stats that some people cling to as the only thing that can tell them what teams will and what teams won't succeed.