Reducing turnovers will cause a team to win more. If every team in the league does it, it’ll cancel out because wins are a zero sum game, but it is still a relationship of causation. Ditto for shooting a higher percentage.

If you say A is correlated with B but does not cause B, then, by increasing A, you would have absolutely no reason to expect B to increase. That is what correlation without causation means. It isn’t debatable. It isn’t an opinion. That is the meaning. So, whether you use the term or not, what you are claiming is in fact a relationship of causation and not merely correlation. Otherwise, there would be no reason to recommend any course of action.

Now I’m not saying that playing your best players together does not cause more wins. I am saying that what is provided in this post is insufficient evidence to draw that conclusion. What seems much more likely is that putting better players on the floor causes more winning. So teams are more likely t win if they have their best (any number but in this case two) 2 players on the floor more often. So, having them play more often both causes more winning and causes them to be, on average, on the floor together more often. So those two results end up being correlated as they are both being caused by a common factor.