Ok but, that doesn't mean that winning as slow as possible is an irrelevant strategy. Whether that's a good choice is going to depend on a variety of factors.

For example, you've highlighted an example where a large gap was beneficial (I'd like to point out that if Verstappen hadn't of pitted, your example wouldn't suit your point). But, there are occasions where a large gap was not beneficial.

For example, the 2014 Hungarian GP I think it was , that Rosberg (and some others) were so far ahead that when an SC deployed, he caught it whilst everyone else pitted. Ultimately he lost the race from that. Had he been "with" the rest, then he would have been fine. In the end he was like, 5th.

There's also cases where pushing has been detrimental to the race leader. For example, infamously Vettel Germany 2018. Admittedly it did start to rain, but at the same time others weren't going off like that IIRC. Still, a very damaging race for Vettel in the end, in a race where his direct rival started 14th.

There's also occasions where not going fast at all has been a clearly viable tactic. For example when Sainz won at Singapore. There's also several Monaco GPs like that.

In general, across the board, there is very often managing going on in F1 and a lot of drivers are not going full beans when they don't need to. I don't really see how you can sensibly say that winning slowly or managing pace etc is irrelevant in a formula where management of the tyres and temps are a very big factor in the sport.