I enjoy reading about analyitcs, because it is an attempt to be more objective in evaluations, and to try to remove some of the emotion involved in evaluations.
MG took one issue (fatigue) and decided that he would try to do something about it to see if that would not only improve the club’s performance, but also achieve the goal of winning the SC. He certainly could have picked some other issue (and actually has, scheduling for example). The issue picked may or may not turn out to be relevant to winning the SC.
Then he and others pick some way to try to evaluate the success of what is being done related to both the picked issue, and the goal of winning the SC. While it would be pointless to use an evaluation method that is not relevant in terms of the goal you are trying to achieve, that can certainly happen. It generates media attention for example, which does nothing to help you win the SC but might be considered good in other ways (it may keep the fans happy about regular season success....oooh, we are winning more third periods and we have won two President’s trophies..... and tolerant of post season failure for example).
It is certainly possible to pick an issue(s), successfully improve it or them, but discover this success does nothing to help you achieve your goal. In this case, you picked the wrong issue(s), or perhaps the wrong evaluation method, or both.
I see no point in comparing the Canucks to all the other NHL teams. The comparison should be with other teams that have a good core and could be expected to have a comparable result to the Canucks, but who aren’t doing the same degree of stuff (like having a sleep doctor) that the Canucks are. Compare apples with apples as it were, and see how the Canucks stack up.
If the Canucks are doing better in the playoffs than those teams, then MG’s stuff is being successful, and likely a SC will come. If not, then he is keeping the media/fans entertained until he can do something about the real issue.