An ATD 2nd line of
Vic Hadfield - Connor McDavid - Yvan Cournoyer
vs.
Smokey Harris - Russell Bowie - Blair Russell
Which do you take?
The way a player is used doesn't necessarily mean he isn't capable of doing something "more". It's a matter of styles. Gretzky didn't play defense in a non-systems era because that made no sense. Would they have won more Cups if they played a different style? Who knows, it's a can of worms (if that can exists). Defense becomes an abstraction when you have the greatest offensive mind on earth. Why put a shovel in his hand?
Architecte-Hockey uses data sets and then boils it down to player styles. Styles tend to change year-to-year for some players as a team changes focus, gets a new coach, etc. One year a player will be told to forecheck (a component of defense), another year a player will defend entries better or be better in their own zone.
I find the ATD doesn't give leeway for the different ways the game was played. We concretize the style a player had and transpose it to this era and then say that just because he didn't play a certain way that he's incapable of it. ATD wants to capture exactly what a player did as it is essentially a history project, but also allow a participant to make a persuasive argument so he can create his own world. The same way we adjust for height/weight of proto-players, because the standard heights of humans has increased. Why not allow for a hypothesis that says Yvan Cournoyer could play a different style? It's actually thought that he did become a competent defensive player as his career progressed, but the Canadiens were also in the midst of another dynasty in the late-60s when he was a rookie, so they were very strict in their defensive approach. If Cournoyer had started in the late 70's would he have had free reign like Lafleur? Maybe. And maybe you have Connor and Roadrunner just go flat out- who in history would be able to handle that? Or maybe is that too many apples in the same basket? That's part of the analysis. If you are going to play an aggressive offensive style in the ATD, does your team not need to measure up to a higher standard?
Back to styles. Some eras preferred two-way play, some wanted their skill guys to run loose and score. Was Bowman right about Lafleur or was Lafleur right to want more flow in his game and leave the checking to others since he had Lemaire and Savard on the ice? When he was a rookie he was meant to complement the Mahovliches, not the other way around. Bowman did an interview in the 90s saying Lafleur had been right and that he had held Guy back for several years - suggesting that he might have broken out earlier in his career. There is an advanced stat chart that shows Bowman was swayed as he used that line strictly for offensive zone starts and often double-shifted Lafleur on lower lines and used those lines in an offensive way as well (at least allowing Lafleur to roam). Why play two-way hockey when you can cut loose and blow teams away (and in their case still put up excellent "defensive" numbers for their top unit)? But then was Lemaire right later on in the 80's when he thought a diminished Canadiens needed to play more conservatively when he put a leash on Lafleur, who rejected it and opted to retire? Probably, since they didn't have the talent to keep up with the Islanders and Oilers. But then they had to get bigger players, which dragged them down to the trenches.
The same logic applies to Connor right now, but in a very strict systems era. Does he not want to play defense? Is he bad at it? Or has he just been deployed that way? His faceoff numbers have also been criticized, but I saw some stat that showed he was good on the draw in his own end- which would boost his defensive rating. And just LOOK at Connor play. No other player in history is able to do that, just as no goalie outside this era is able to do what Price does - and he has been the best at it if you adjust for setting (there are articles on this as advanced goalie metrics are not perfect). blah blah blah
