The real data would show a ranking from most used to least used with the bulk of Windows accessories near the bottom and the Start Menu of course above them. To remove the Start Menu but not all other less-used items proves the arrogance and willingness to lie from Team B&S.
The folks at MS seem to be confusing "frequency" with "importance." It does not follow from the fact that I use something rarely, that I am better off (or even just as well off) without it.
In any case, if the idea is to eliminate functions that are being used less, then supercharging the Start Menu into an aggressive, in-your-face Start Screen that supposedly does the same unimportant thing is the OPPOSITE of what the number-crunching would call for. The whole explanation is simply incoherent, and reeks of after-the-fact rationalization.
Bottom line: now I have no idea whether MS removed the Start Menu because metrics showed that it was losing importance and therefore few would miss it (as they'd said before), or because (as the new line goes) metrics showed that it was losing importance and they were trying to salvage it. I don't give a hoot what the reason is -- JUST BRING BACK THE START MENU.