Quote:
Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper
Has anyone bothered to actually disprove my assumption? I may not have completed the in-depth research required to make it foolproof. But the numbers I have provided paints a pretty good picture for my argument. At the end of the day, I don't really care if I'm right or wrong, it's not that big a deal, maybe there was a bit of exaggeration in my thread, but until someone proves to me that I am definitively wrong, then why would I feel the need to back down? Maybe i'm just being stubborn, but find me a team with 1 game of legitimate production from their bottom 6 and I'll say that I'm wrong.
|
Okay, so I crunched the numbers. I took a look at goals from forwards and for each team I divided the player between the top six and everyone else. Since lines are always switching on most teams I decided the "top six" would be the six players with the highest average ice time per game.
Here's what I found:
So I'll say that your assertion was correct in that some teams bottom six are scoring double, triple or quadruple that of the Flames bottom six. In fact, the Devil bottom six has 25 goals compared to the Flames 6.
However, Tampa, Pittsburgh and St. Louis also have low production from their bottom six and I'm not at all worried about their ability to compete in the playoffs.
In fact, I'm not sure there are many conclusions I would draw between the percent of goal scoring by a teams bottom six and their overall standings.
Tampa is first overall in the league and has the worst bottom six production.
Columbus is second in the East and is getting more scoring from their bottom six than their top six.
Out West, St. Louis is first in the conference but 27th overall in bottom six scoring.
Arizona is dead last in the league but 6th in bottom six scoring.
So while I agree with your overall point that our bottom six scoring is terrible, it's not the worst and statistically speaking it's probably not the biggest of deals.