Worst Bottom 6 in the NHL (Statistically, It's Not Even Close)

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by stone hands

I think people would be less inclined to keep ribbing this thread if you would accept you made an unsubstantiated claim, used fake news to prove it, then continued to try and use said unsubstantiated fake news even in the face of real evidence

You could just say my bad I over exaggerated and move on, but you insist on continuing to use your disproved ‘facts’ as an argument. Just stop

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.

[JerryUnderscore]

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.

[Karl]

Originally Posted by JerryUnderscore

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.

Although this is true, it is a big deal for Brouwer and Stajan.

[JerryUnderscore]

Originally Posted by Karl

Although this is true, it is a big deal for Brouwer and Stajan.

Sure. And you could argue that in a system where salary management is the biggest factor in winning a Stanley Cup, having Brouwer and Stajan sitting at zero goals each will always be problematic.

My point was more that we don't need to stress about where the goals are coming from as much as if the goals are coming. It doesn't matter if it's your top six, bottom six or back end. Goals are goals.

[jlh2640]

Man I like most of our bottom 6 but we need more production. Or better defensive play. The 4th line especially is all a huge minus. Brodie and Hamonic need to figure it out soon too.

[Karl]

Originally Posted by JerryUnderscore

Sure. And you could argue that in a system where salary management is the biggest factor in winning a Stanley Cup, having Brouwer and Stajan sitting at zero goals each will always be problematic.

My point was more that we don't need to stress about where the goals are coming from as much as if the goals are coming. It doesn't matter if it's your top six, bottom six or back end. Goals are goals.

Yes, but with those two, it's more to do with the fact that Brouwer totally looks like he'll never be the player that he used to be anymore and could be heading to a buyout. And Stajan is now done.

So my point is, I don't think you can rely on Brouwer to do much to turn his season around and you really can't with Stajan.

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by JerryUnderscore

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.

Thanks for doing some additional research. To me, even if the goal totals are similar, I still feel that totals are still misleading. If 3, pure bottom-six goals came in 1 game (St. Louis), then it's hard to be confident that these guys are going to be there to contribute when we need them to. What happened last game, top 2 lines were shut down and we were shut out. That could be a common story line as the season goes along. I do hope they can start to produce consistently though because we're going to need it. Jagr and Jankowski do at least look somewhat consistently dangerous.

[JerryUnderscore]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

Thanks for doing some additional research. To me, even if the goal totals are similar, I still feel that totals are still misleading. If 3, pure bottom-six goals came in 1 game (St. Louis), then it's hard to be confident that these guys are going to be there to contribute when we need them to. What happened last game, top 2 lines were shut down and we were shut out. That could be a common story line as the season goes along. I do hope they can start to produce consistently though because we're going to need it. Jagr and Jankowski do at least look somewhat consistently dangerous.

Sure, but that ignores the fact the the bottom six is currently shooting at just over 4%. That is despite their career average being closer to 9%.

The bottom six is currently scoring at a rate of less than half what they should be scoring. They will eventually turn it around. Most of them are shooting the puck around the same amount as they always have been, it's just not going in. That's puck luck. Sometimes you get the bounces, other times you don't.

[Yrebmi]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

Thanks for doing some additional research. To me, even if the goal totals are similar, I still feel that totals are still misleading. If 3, pure bottom-six goals came in 1 game (St. Louis), then it's hard to be confident that these guys are going to be there to contribute when we need them to. What happened last game, top 2 lines were shut down and we were shut out. That could be a common story line as the season goes along. I do hope they can start to produce consistently though because we're going to need it. Jagr and Jankowski do at least look somewhat consistently dangerous.

I still think that is somewhat unfair to Jankowski's line which has not been assembled in its current form for very many games yet.
Discounting 3 goals because it is a possible anomaly from a single game is still not fair either. Who's to say non goals and crossbars in a few games isn't the anomaly instead? It is not as if those goals were so ugly or fluky either. Qaulity goals from a (mostly) young line still learning and getting better.

The 4th line is bad. I actually do not hate Brouwer on the 4th and he does add a tough guy element. Still it is an old line and declining.

[taco.vidal]

Fire GlueGun!

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by JerryUnderscore

Sure, but that ignores the fact the the bottom six is currently shooting at just over 4%. That is despite their career average being closer to 9%.

The bottom six is currently scoring at a rate of less than half what they should be scoring. They will eventually turn it around. Most of them are shooting the puck around the same amount as they always have been, it's just not going in. That's puck luck. Sometimes you get the bounces, other times you don't.

Well realistically, has that 4th line shown you any sign that they’re ready to break out? Brouwer has multiple 20 goal seasons which raised his career shooting%. But at the moment, im not sure he’ll everscore again with his current performance. The 3rd line is doing solid work creating chances, but that’s seemingly the story every night. As Treliving said, it’s a “do it league” and we need our bottom guys to execute right now because if they’re not scoring and giving up goals like the game winner last night, then they’re hurting the team.

We’re fortunate that the 1st line is carrying this team on their backs and Johnny is on pace for 127 points right now. But what if he slows down or if he was only on pace for a 70 point season, then we’d probably be a lottery team right now. I hold faith that eventually the chances will go in for Jagr’s line, but it’s a dog race for a playoff position right now and trying just isn’t good enough at this point.

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by Yrebmi

I still think that is somewhat unfair to Jankowski's line which has not been assembled in its current form for very many games yet.
Discounting 3 goals because it is a possible anomaly from a single game is still not fair either. Who's to say non goals and crossbars in a few games isn't the anomaly instead? It is not as if those goals were so ugly or fluky either. Qaulity goals from a (mostly) young line still learning and getting better.

The 4th line is bad. I actually do not hate Brouwer on the 4th and he does add a tough guy element. Still it is an old line and declining.

As I said above, this is a line that’s playing effective hockey and creating scoring chances. But it’s a do it league and we just lost 2 close games because we’re getting out of this world scoring from 1 line or 2 lines. I don’t hold much hope for that 4th line that struggles to create a decent scoring chance, but we need execution right now. The difference last night scoring wise ended up being that the Stars got goals from their bottom 6 and we didn’t. It’s been a story almost every game and until it’s rectified, it’s going to be a grind just to win games.

[Gaskal]

Something that doesn't help the situation is that the choices of 4th line centers are: an aging slow Stajan, energizer bunny Lazar who doesn't seem to understand how hockey works, and Familton, who is OK but definitely not ideal.

Versteeg-Jankowski-Brouwer would actually be an OK 4th line if Versteeg isn't in la-la-land, but there's no one to take the 3rd line forward spot. Unless someone goes on waivers and Treliving calls up Eat Bread or trades for Kane. Might be approaching that point...

[GranteedEV]

Personally I would like:

Versteeg-Bennett-Jagr - This line was dominant but didn't get much time together
Mangiapane-Jankowski-Hathaway - This line was dominant in the AHL. No reason that can't bring up that chemistry

You have a mix of PKers (Hathaway, Jankowski, Bennett, Mangiapane), PP (Jagr, Versteeg, Bennett, Jankowski), and generally players who work 5-on-5 (everyone except Versteeg and maybe Hathaway).


I wouldn't lose much sleep if Brouwer, Stajan, Lazar, Familton were out of the lineup.

[JerryUnderscore]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

Well realistically, has that 4th line shown you any sign that they’re ready to break out? Brouwer has multiple 20 goal seasons which raised his career shooting%. But at the moment, im not sure he’ll everscore again with his current performance. The 3rd line is doing solid work creating chances, but that’s seemingly the story every night. As Treliving said, it’s a “do it league” and we need our bottom guys to execute right now because if they’re not scoring and giving up goals like the game winner last night, then they’re hurting the team.

We’re fortunate that the 1st line is carrying this team on their backs and Johnny is on pace for 127 points right now. But what if he slows down or if he was only on pace for a 70 point season, then we’d probably be a lottery team right now. I hold faith that eventually the chances will go in for Jagr’s line, but it’s a dog race for a playoff position right now and trying just isn’t good enough at this point.

Brouwer has had a shooting percentage of 7.34% and 9.84% respectively in each of the last two seasons. While I get that he's going to regress as he gets older he probably isn't going to regress to a shooting percentage of zero.

Furthermore, he has 15 shots this season averaging less than 9.5 minutes per night. If he was shooting at 7.34% he would have exactly 1 even strength goal this season.

To answer your question more directly, no the way the fourth line is playing I don't see them suddenly having a breakout and scoring 3-4 goals per night. But you don't expect that from a line that plays less than 10 minutes per night.

The middle six is where we need to see more scoring from and, once again, their shot rate and shooting percentage lead me to believe they will eventually find the back of the net again.

The reality is that very few players score at a consistent rate throughout the year. Rather most players score in chunks. It's been a down few weeks for the middle six but they will turn it around.

[GranteedEV]

I did a chart

TOI - 5v5 Time-On-Ice
xGF - 5v5 on-Ice goals expected by Flames
GF - 5v5 on-ice goals scored by Flames
ixG - 5v5 goals expected by player
G - 5v5 goals scored by player
dGF - difference between 5v5 goals scored and 5v5 goals expected by player



From the fourth liners (Lazar / Brouwer / Stajan / Versteeg / Hamilton / Hathaway / Glass / Versteeg ) that is a total of 6.67 goals expected, and 2 goals scored.

From the third liners (Bennett, Jankowski, Jagr), that is a total of 7.88 goals expected, and 4 goals scored

From the second liners (Tkachuk, Backlund, Frolik), that is a total of 9.36 goals expected, and 8 goals scored

From the first liners (Gaudreau, Monahan, Ferland), that is a total of 12.03 goals expected, and 18 goals scored.

On a whole, that's a total of 35.94 goals expected, and 32 goals scored.

What's real crazy is how quickly Jankowski is climbing up that expected goals chart. Leads the team in iXG/60 minutes and is one of only two guys (himself and Ferland) to be over 1xG / 60 minutes. The quality of chances he's getting is legitimately dangerous.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

How did you get the expected goals number? Is that an advanced stat you pulled from somewhere? And if so, how is that calculated? Shots vs avg shooting pct league wide or something? Does it account for the quality of shots?

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

How did you get the expected goals number? Is that an advanced stat you pulled from somewhere?

It is a statistic from corsica.hockey. Here is the formal definition:

xG stats are by-products of assigning goal expectancy to shots. In my mind, this ability to assess shot quality is most important, though supplying information with which to devise better evaluative metrics is a welcome benefit. The model is similar in nature to that of @DTMAboutHeart,3 with some important distinctions. The most important difference is his inclusion of regressed shooting talent. I chose to exclude shooter talent not because it isn’t an important factor, but rather because I fear players may unfairly benefit or suffer from their linemates’ aptitude. Here’s what my model does account for:

Shot type (Wrist shot, slap shot, deflection, etc.)
Shot distance (Adjusted4 distance from net)
Shot angle (Angle in absolute degrees from the central line normal to the goal line)
Rebounds (Boolean – Whether or not the shot was a rebound)
Rush shots (Boolean – Whether or not the shot was a rush shot)
Strength state (Boolean – Whether or not the shot was taken on the powerplay)5

And if so, how is that calculated? Shots vs avg shooting pct league wide or something? Does it account for the quality of shots?

In a nutshell, yes, but you can read up more on it here:

http://www.corsica.hockey/blog/2016/...d-goals-part-i