I wouldn’t say you can “buy outcomes.” OJ had good lawyers, but that alone would not have resulted in acquittal. A lot of things had to line up, including a prosecution that really couldn’t get to the point. (If you can’t prove your case in 8 weeks, you don’t have a case).
When I was a public defender, we tried a lot of cases. More than a few were acquittals. I only defended one murder case at trial, but that guy got a vigorous defense. Unsuccessful, sure, but that’s not for lack of good lawyering.
Absolutely not. These delays he have absolutely nothing to do with his strategy, they only succeeded in delaying the cases because the judges (or a minority of them, but in some important places) making the decision were appointed by the defendant. Defendants who were not having their case heard by judges who they personally employed would not have delayed their case by a minute but would have burnt through a lot of billable hours and pissed off a lot of judges.
The exception to that I think might be the issues with Georgia case. I think any good lawyer would have used the relationship between the DA and the prosecutor to delay the case (I mean, maybe not as possibly that would have career implications beyond just losing the case? IANAL how is bringing up that kind of thing about fellow lawyers treated among the lawyering community? Will it blot your copy book? I imagine it’s a pretty small world)