...They also fail to take into account changes in the game...
...They were putting a premium on offensive skill...
Good post, sorry to edit so much of it out. First of all, I don't think adjusted stats are complete failure. As a tool, they can be useful.
But back to the intended topic. Yes, changes in the game. Definitely agree. Every level of hockey, right down to on-ice coaching, has evolved like a business. Evolution towards focusing on control, limiting uncertainties, and prolonged return taking minimal risks. Perhaps a main reason why a lot of the observable changes in the game seemingly revolve around keeping the puck out of the net (obvious emphasis on responsibilities of forwards in all 3 zones, "the trap", defensemen must be more mobile and aware than tough, goalie gear has been allowed to balloon out of control, likely under some reasoning of safety, etc), rather than putting pucks in.
In fact, despite the average player being much better trained, developed, and reputedly skilled than generations before them, a recent barrage of rule changes and adjustments to tolerances in defensive play have been necessary to increase goal scoring in today's game.
Ultimately, if any discussions or comparisons across eras are going to be attempted, some kind of tool is going to be necessary to give context to player accomplishments. Since there is no way of separating elements such as increase in goals due to elimination of the two-line pass, or effect due to increase in roster size, or number of teams, effect of the trapezoid, effect of "the trap" etc, we're left to "adjusted" stats to help us. For example, if you're discussing scoring, average league scoring in one year versus another is certainly relevant. Sure, lots of elements are tied into it, but that's why it's a "tool", and not "proof".
Are adjusted stats perfect? Not even close. But even having watched a LOT of hockey over the past 20+ years, I need a tool to reconcile an doubts/uncertainties and the fact that I have had access to MUCH more hockey (and hockey knowledge) over the past 10+ years compared to the previous 10+. These kinds of stats certainly help. It doesn't facilitate the level of comparison actually watching provides (how sure are their passes? how quickly do they change direction? how strong are they in the corners? how often do they seem to find themselves in the right place at the right time? do they go down before the shot more often than they "should"? etc.), but there is still a place for them in discussion imo.