I take the analytics team, just like 10/12 of the playoffs series.
Hehe, maybe it would work. With the technology used by the IIHF at the WCHs you will start to get big data that seriously could start to push it if hooked up to a
Watson.
NHL players are so complete and smart nowadays. It might not be that its as important to "handpick" a lineup. Looking at the other side of the spectrum, if you like coach 12 y/o's, one roster can literary lose by 10 goals against another roster one night and then win by 10 goals against the same roster two weeks down the road. I saw a team of 14 y/o lose 16-4 last fall and then win against the same team 6-0 just a month later. If your play don't work it don't work, and the marginals are really small, but its not as obvious in the NHL. Even if I don't think the world of all NHL coaches, they of course get the basics right. With kids the contrast is so obvious. Forechecking is instinctive and somewhat easy, getting up ice is hard. If a team isn't prepared to handle a situation, execute a break-out play that works against a fairly good defense, something like that, it will cost you every single shift. Even if you don't care that much or at all about winning when coaching kids, normally you really have to be on your toes because if you don't get it right the coming 3x20 can be such a long time... Hockey is a very unforgiving game in that sense.
The always and everywhere -- to some degree -- existent disconnect between fans and coaches is definitely a product of that. The coach is soooo focused on getting everything to work. Even in the NHL, you don't have to try to sabotage things that much to lose by 10-0 or more, every game. Players differs a lot. Will all lines have players with the presence of mind to think of X, Y and Z, every shift all game? And its not just 3 things, its easily 30 things that isn't a given.
A schoolbook example: if a defender goes deep into the attacking zone a forward is supposed to drop down and take his place. That will only happen if someone of the forwards is constantly aware if a defender goes deep or not. If it doesn't work you will get a 3 on 1 or 2 on 1 against you. So when you put together a line. and the entire lineup ultimately, you have to consider this. Do I have a guy on each line that always will have the presence of mind to drop down and take the defenders spot?
And its the same in so many other areas. If you have 3 different set of break-outs, it means that you also have 18 skaters that must do the exact right thing depending on which breakout that is chosen on the ice, what the other players on the ice do and how the defensive team lines up. Its the same on the forecheck, you have to adjust and make the right decision all the time all over. And besides the decision making -- you also have the ability part that is just as important.
When creating a line-up -- you have to ask yourself a whole bible of questions and feel comfortable with the sum of all positive answers, everything can't be perfect.
To further explain this, lets look at a
more realistic NHL example: lets say that you have a D that sucks at moving the puck, lets call him Dan Girardison. You play NJD and they want to be smart and go out of their way to disturb things for you, so before the game they say
listen you know our gameplan, follow it, BUT every single time Dan Girardison goes into the corner to fetch a puck, you shall not pressure him but instead take away all his passing options. And try to dump the puck as often as possible in his corner. We want him to be forced to skate the puck up ice as often as possible, he will wind up tripping over his own stick 1/3 of the time.
On NJDs side, you need players on the ice that can buy into the concept and is good at it, if that is your game-plan. Its a disaster if your forwards back down but all of a sudden a D freaks out and tries to step up on DG at the redline leaving a forward open.
On NYRs side, you must have guys on the ice that knows how to act in this situation. A solution can be to go really deep with two other forwards and curve towards Girardi, the defending team cannot really drop with two defending players down towards the net in the attacking zone if a third player has the puck and open ice in front of him. Most likely you will end up in a situation were a forward, probably the center, have to take a very big responsibility reliefing Girardi of the puck and then being able to skate it up ice.
The question a coach have to ask himself in relation to the above is -- can I play Girardi despite him potentially being exposed like this? If I do, can I surround him with players that can solve it if we face this strategy?
I can guarantee that when a coach plays a "4th lineer" on a "1st line" -- and a bunch of fans goes is he nuts, can't he see that the plug in question sucks at hockey? -- the reason for it is not that the coach can't see what the fan sees, its because the coach have asked himself questions like the above and come to the conclusion -- right or wrong -- that certain requirements were needed and that the plug provided those abilities.
The NHL game is very complex: Teams spends hours and hours coming up with and adjusting to strategies, and further hours and hours trying to implement everything. Its like directing a ballet. Its not good if someone don't know what to do or someone can't make a lift you want that someone to do.
My point is just, there is a tremendous amount of '
hands on work' when building a hockey team. Its not about finding the 18
best skaters and then just put them into a line-up starting filling in the best names at the top of the line-up. There is no such thing as the "best" player. I am exaggerating a ton of course, but somewhat think of it as building an engine for a car. You cannot go
l like the cylinders best of all engine parts so the only part I am ordering is 100 cylinders, it will make a heck of an engine...

Hockey is about scoring goals, I am getting 18 scorers.
But on the other side of the spectrum, hockey players are becoming more complete. They are so well educated. There are much fewer role players. I can guarantee that you 20 years ago not even remotely just could have put a random roster on the ice, of players distinguishing themselves in certain isolated areas. You could have a Cicarelli on a line, but if you had 2 it would have been good night.
I just think that I think we would benefit a bit from understanding the context and complexity of things better, a lot of our arguments comes out of things being oversimplified!