Before I start, I'm going to say a lot of the stuff said, especially about stage choice and positioning, hits some true points some people don't get. Anyway...
"Don't approach" is perhaps oversimplifying it. I'm remembering a somewhat famous match that was on some livestream, Dojo's Meta Knight versus some WC Falco on Battlefield. The match went like this:
1. Dojo gets a small lead
2. Falco shoots a lot of lasers
3. Meta Knight jumps and airdodges
4. Time runs out; Dojo wins
What I get from your post is that you'd support the way the Falco was playing. He was, in fact, not approaching and making it as obnoxious as possible for the Meta Knight not to approach. I don't support the way the Falco was playing not out of some misguided ethical complaint but rather because he didn't win.
The bigger lesson I think is to change your tactics depending on what works. Staying back and spamming lasers, while safe, simply was not working. Most Meta Knight players would cave in and approach against that, and that would be fine. This one did not, and the Falco player never adapted to that fact, instead choosing defeat. What Falco should have done was approach far earlier (or at all even). Sure it has inherent risk, but consider the options. He could have had a chance at victory via risky tactics or no chance at victory via safe tactics. The risk was better. Then, maybe if the risk paid off and he got the lead, he could have gone back to shooting lasers. Or maybe if it worked really well he could have kept being aggressive and taken his win that way. After all, if it works, why wouldn't you do it?
In general really, the whole analysis speaks from positions of strength. If you're in a position of strength, taking almost no risks and playing super conservatively is great. However, you have to be real with yourself. If you're in a bad matchup or even a matchup that isn't bad in the abstract but is one you're not comfortable with, you start the game in a position of weakness. If you are losing by a non-tiny amount (like let's say you're down 50%), you're in a position of weakness. If both players play simple, conservative, risk-free games, you lose. Your opponent, if good, doubtless knows this and will play that way. So, you have two choices. You can go along because it's "smart play" and basically agree to lose, or you can do something "bad" and be aggressive and have at least a chance at winning. Taking that sure thing 8% over the risky 30% is perhaps the the key point of it all. The 8% is just another step toward inevitability if you're in the position of strength, but if you're in the position of weakness, that 30% is hope that the 8% really doesn't represent. Land that 30% a few times and suddenly your position of weakness might not be so weak anymore. Then you can afford to play it safe, and maybe you can actually win something you're "supposed to lose".
Sure by playing a high tier character and being careful from the start you can minimize the times you are in a position of weakness (a good thing!), but you can't avoid being in such positions. The original post's advice is great if you need to merely help along inevitability, but if inevitability is going against you, disruption and crazy play are likely the best you can hope for.
