Agreed that the goals scored can be affected by a variety of factors, including luck. However, when averaged over the season, the goals scored numbers point to something that is likely meaningful.
Two examples:
1) LAFC scored 5.9 goals per 70 minutes that Ramos plays, and Ramos himself scores 2.6 of those goals per 70.
Could interesting/meaningful to look at team goals per 70 when a player is on field minus player goals per 70 to ID players who contribute to goals scored but don't score goals themselves.
2) Salazar from 2017-18 LAFC had 6.54 team goals per 70 minutes that he played, but only had .83 player goals directly scored per 70, so he may have been a big indirect contributor - i.e. assists - to LAFC offense in 2017-18.
However, Salazar also had just over 500 minutes across 23 games played, and just one start, despite the 6.54 team goals per 70 number. So LAFC obviously did not see him as core player. To be fair, there's likely lots of reasons for this, including that the team just happened to score more in the situations when Salazar was on the field (eg, for example, maybe he only played against weaker teams). I get that correlation is not causation.
However, a pet peeve of mine is the subjective, often opaque nature of a lot of the "soccer" decision making by teams and coaches. Reminds me of the Moneyball movie where the scouts were talking about baseball players. "He's no good. Got no confidence. Ugly girlfriend."
Figuring out key, meaningful metrics to look at and make broadly visible - other than goals scored per game by individual players which is what is tracked right now - would probably help everybody... players, parents and teams.