I don't know man. You are making a lot of assumptions here, like that his opponents were not good players, that luck was consistently with him, etc. 100 matches is a pretty good sample size.
Even if it is "luck", you also have to consider how luck effects different decks differently. If you are lucky enough to win the coin toss for instance, shops is absolutely the deck you want to be seated with since it capitalizes on it so well. Dredge for instance is a deck literally designed to try to mitigate luck by running 4 Serum Powders, and it does not pull out staggering win rates like shops does in this example.
Also, so what if he is a good player? Shouldn't we be judging the format based on the fact that there are good players? We are talking about the highest level play here. There has never been a large vintage event where there have not been "bad" or just budget players in it, so are we going to discount those as well, having skewed the opening round results in favor of good players? If anything, judging the results of good players is more important, because they are going to be the ones who reveal the weaknesses inherit to the format in their high level play and have the potential to skew the format and keep others away. The average use case for a card is not the same as the best use case for the card. Ancestral is a broken card but in the hands of a novice player can literally be turned into a liability, but its upper level play is what got it restricted, not the results of a bunch of casuals messing around with it in the early 90s. Cabal Therapy is a shockingly powerful card when used correctly by a good player, and can be literally the worst thing a starting player can play if they do not understand the nuance of it.
An aside. Years and Years ago I played a different CCG, the Warcry CCG which was based on Warhammer Fantasy. I was a very good player. In the first year I swore up and down to people that the game contained a completely broken card, a card called Onwards. Without going into details about how the game played, it basically let you take extra attacks every time you played it, which if I was to draw a parallel as close to Magic as I could, was akin to a time walk where all your creatures kept all the bonuses they got from combat tricks on turns prior. I swore up and down it was a broken card, but the community at large did not entirely agree for various reasons, in part because there were "bad players" as part of the community. They kept citing use cases where the card was bad, to which I replied that you should not be judging the power level of a card based on sub-optimal play.
I took a deck to the world championship at Gencon that year that was built around exploiting the brokenness of this card and won the title, went undefeated in 11 rounds of play. There were other people playing the card at that event who did not do well, but it was not because the card was not inherently broken, it was because they were some "bad players". When they decided to restrict the card after the event, they cited my performance as an example of what the card was capable of and why it was a broken card and problematic even for future events and releases, even though many people prior did not get the results I did. Most people did not care too much, because it was a 5 dollar rare and they were not invested into a deck centered around it (harder to do in that game) which is where I think some of the reluctance around shops comes into play,
Additionally, if anything what this analysis shows is that the deck helps enforce is that between a match-up of equally skilled players, "who ever goes first wins", a mentality and/or perception of which is also not a checkmark in favor of shops and one of the stigmas of the format.