Ranking and Discussing the Top 6...

[Enoch Root]

There is always so much talk about what is a legit top 6 player?; do we need another top 6?; Backlund isn’t a top 6; etc.etc., that I thought I would run some numbers and start a discussion.

Now, I am not going to claim that points are the be all, and end all for defining who are the best top 6 players – hell, we need look no further than our own Mikael Backlund to see a perfect example that there is more to the equation than just points. However, points DO matter, and it is a starting point for discussion.

I should also note that I did not factor in injuries (for example Taylor Hall in NYJ) and time off - first, because it would have been impossible, and second, because one player’s injury is another player’s opportunity. So it is what it is.

The first thing I did was rank the top point producers (#1s), the 2nd highest point producers (#2s), through to #6 by points. Then did some quick analysis on those rankings. I think it is important to comment that, by the time we get to the #6 guy on each team, they may well not even be in the top 6. Also, some 2nd line guys are there for defense, so points aren’t fair. But again, we have to draw lines somewhere. So here we go…

I started by looking at #4 and #5 on each team because so much talk revolves around Backlund, and because again, I think #6 can be misleading. I found the results a little bit surprising.

Flames’ rank for #4: 1st Tkachuk with 77 points (avg 47.8)
Flames’ rank for #5: 4th Backlund with 47. Kane led with 56 (avg 39.3)

Yes, Mikael Backlund was ranked 4th among #5 forwards around the league. Kane in SJ was tops with 56 points, and Gallagher was the only other guy that breached 50. I was pretty sure that Backlund’s 47 pts was going to be top half of the league, but being 4th surprised me. And not only was he 4th, his 47 points equalled the league average for the #4 forward. So he was an elite #5, and an average #4. Pretty impressive for a guy that didn’t get a sniff of the top PP unit (Kane had 11 PP points and Gallagher had 7).
Excluding PP points, Backlund actually ranked #1 for points among #5 forwards, and was well into the top half of the league for #4s.

So, in my opinion, the debate about whether Backlund is a legit top 6 is over. He is, and it isn’t close. He is a legit #4, and an elite #5. And that doesn’t even factor his elite defensive play into the equation.

Tkachuk led all #4 point getters, and the league average was 30 points less than him, so there isn’t even anything to say on this. Tkachuk is a top line guy, playing on the 2nd line. The average #2 forward had 69 pts and the average #1 had 80. So Tkachuk's totals put him in those conversations.

Expanding from there, we can look at lines. A lot of the talk around the Flames is that they are a one line team. Do the numbers back that up? What I did was rank each position, so we can look at the ranks for 1, 2 and 3, and see how they stack up.

The Flames (Gaudreau, Monahan, Lindholm) come in at: #6, #7, and #3. All 3 are elite, and only TBL (#1, #2, #1!!!) were better. The Oilers were #2, #1, #10 (2/3 elite). And BOS was #4, #9, #2 and the 3 guys had identical points to the 3 Flames, so we’ll call them a tie.

Okay, what about the 2nd line? This is where it got a bit surprising:
Flames: #1, #4, #8. Not just good, but elite. In fact, 2nd best in the league. SJS were #5, #1, #1. TBL was #14, #4, #2. And for ####s and giggles, EDM was #23, #31, #31 lol (and people wonder why Neal is getting every opportunity in the world!)

So when we look at top 6, the Flames top line was in the top 3 (arguably 2nd), and their 2nd line was also 2nd best. For the top 6 overall, the top 2 teams were, without question, TBL and CGY (which matches the standings). SJS had the best 2nd line but were decidedly average with the top line (#18, #15, #11 – and they have lost Pavelski).

How about the cup winners, and the teams that went deep in the playoffs?

STL: #17, #17, #17 / #17, #16, #11 – they couldn’t be any more average if they tried. And amazingly, the Flames were better at all 6 spots, usually by a pretty wide margin

BOS: #4, #9, #2 / #2, #11, #16 – elite 1st line, a little above average 2nd line

SJS: #18, #15, #11 / #5, #1, #1 – average top line, best 2nd line (also elite 3rd line)

CAR: #14, #11, #18 / #22, #18, #24 – made the final 4 with an average top line and a below average 2nd line.

Again, points are only one factor. But going by points, the Flames are one of the 2 best teams in the league for top 6 forwards – both the 1st line AND the 2nd line. And the only team among those that went deep in the playoffs that were even close to them was BOS. The other 3 were no where near at the Flames' level.

Obviously, getting more talent is always welcome. But there is a thing called the cap. And to me, these numbers say that top 6 talent isn’t the Flames’ problem. IMO, their two biggest problems last year were:

#1: goaltending (below average)
#2: toughness / grit, whatever you want to call it (almost non-existent)

Thoughts?

[pepper24]

Good info. I think Flames are really fortunate to have 4 elite top 6 players at good cap hit. Gaudreau, Monahan, Lindholm and Tkachuk. I like Backlund but I still wish we got Kadri to have him and Backlund as our 2/3 centers. That's good depth at center but Backlund works for now and maybe we see Lindholm fit in. Hopefully Mangiapane can settle in at wing on 2nd line and possibly Dube eventually.

Gaudreau-Monahan-Lindholm
Tkachuk-Backlund-Mangiapane

Gaudreau-Monahan-Tkachuk
Dube-Lindholm-Mangiapane

[Enoch Root]

Those numbers included Frolik of course. And yes, if Mangiapane can step up and be a better #6 than Frolik was, then the Flames 2nd best (by that one metric) top 6 only gets better.

And it does so without spending money on a UFA or assets on a trade.

One of the things I want to look into is the cost of the top 6. I would guess that the cost of the Flames' group is probably very good value, even with Frolik in there. But taking out Frolik and putting Mangiapane in (assuming he can handle it), only makes them that much more economical.

Total cost of the 6 (including Mangiapane) is $31.04M. I doubt there are any teams that are even close to their talent level at a remotely close cost. TBL, by comparison is $40.216 (subbing Palat in for Miller)

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

...Obviously, getting more talent is always welcome. But there is a thing called the cap. And to me, these numbers say that top 6 talent isn’t the Flames’ problem.

Thanks, Enoch! These echo my precise sentiments that I have held for a long time. I think all fans get deluded into thinking that their favourite teams's top-six forwards have holes because of how utterly impossible it is in a cap world to construct a truly elite top-six. (Every team's fans, that is, except the Oilers; Oilers fans are most often convinced that their scoring forwards are among the best in the League.) Every team will make sacrifices and attempt to compensate, and it looks from this that the Flames have done an excellent job of that.

I am curious about the rankings of some teams often regarded as possessing elite-level depth that did not arrive in the Conference finals? Most specifically, what of VGK, TO, and Colorado?

IMO, their two biggest problems last year were:

#1: goaltending (below average)
#2: toughness / grit, whatever you want to call it (almost non-existent)

Thoughts?

I tend to agree more-or-less, but I wonder if "toughness/grit" is the right descriptor. I maintain that the Flames's biggest issues down the stretch and into the playoffs was that they too quickly abandoned their own game when other teams made things difficult. Perhaps that is "toughness," but to my mind it is predominantly psychological: the Flames best players got into their own heads too easily and too often. They made mistakes and struggled to overcome them.

[Enoch Root]

BOS: $33.78 would also be great value

SJS: $30.6M with Karlsson in for Pavelski, but that isn't a fair comparison

EDM: $37.6M lol

TOR: $47.39M lol

[CF84]

Great work!!! This helps to show that the claims of some posters were as preposterous as I thought they were. It's really nice to see that the second line is as elite offensively as they are defensively.

Thanks for this

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Thanks, Enoch! These echo my precise sentiments that I have held for a long time. I think all fans get deluded into thinking that their top-six forwards have holes because of how utterly impossible it is in a cap world to construct a truly elite top-six. Every team will make sacrifices and attempt to compensate, and it looks from this that the Flames have done an excellent job of that.

I think the same. So many posters say "we need another top 6 player" (usually about the second line RW). But the statement seems to assume that competitive teams have 6 forwards who are all premium point producers. This just ins't possible due to the cap, and even when there was no cap, teams didn't work that way. In 1989, the Flames were the class of the league, but even they had a second line that included Colin Patterson - a good player, especially in his own zone, but not elite.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Thanks, Enoch! These echo my precise sentiments that I have held for a long time. I think all fans get deluded into thinking that their favourite teams's top-six forwards have holes because of how utterly impossible it is in a cap world to construct a truly elite top-six. (Every team's fans, that is, except the Oilers; Oilers fans are most often convinced that their scoring forwards are among the best in the League.) Every team will make sacrifices and attempt to compensate, and it looks from this that the Flames have done an excellent job of that.

I am curious about the rankings of some teams often regarded as possessing elite-level depth that did not arrive in the Conference finals? Most specifically, what of VGK, TO, and Colorado?


I tend to agree more-or-less, but I wonder if "toughness/grit" is the right descriptor. I maintain that the Flames's biggest issues down the stretch and into the playoffs was that they too quickly abandoned their own game when other teams made things difficult. Perhaps that is "toughness," but to my mind it is predominantly psychological: the Flames best players got into their own heads too easily and too often. They made mistakes and struggled to overcome them.

I agree, and struggled with the right word. How about 'compete'?

VGK: #28, #22, #18 / #8, #11, #7 - below avg top line, a little above avg 2nd

TOR: #9, #4, #7 / #19, #9, #5 - elitish 1st, a little above avg 2nd

COL: #6, #5, #6 / #12, #11, #22 - elite top line, avg 2nd line.

But that's where COL's additions of Kadri and Donskoi help so much - they fixed their problem, which was a lack of a 2nd line

[Enoch Root]

Another interesting one - WPG:

#10, #6, #11 / #11, #14, #9

all above average, but only Scheifele in the 2nd spot ranks as elite

[GioforPM]

Of course, just points doesn't tell a story, like you say. Boston and Calgary are in a virtual tie points wise on the top line. But Boston's top line is far better defensively, meaning they can be played head to head against other top lines without any concern at all.

You could argue, in fact, that the second line points for Calgary might be inflated a bit because they have a little extra ice time since they have to play against the opponent top line so much (though you could equally argue that this leads to worse zone starts, more defensive zone time etc).

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Of course, just points doesn't tell a story, like you say. Boston and Calgary are in a virtual tie points wise on the top line. But Boston's top line is far better defensively, meaning they can be played head to head against other top lines without any concern at all.

Yes, but Calgary's 2nd line makes the same claim (elite defensively) so I would argue that it's still a wash.

You could argue, in fact, that the second line points for Calgary might be inflated a bit because they have a little extra ice time since they have to play against the opponent top line so much (though you could equally argue that this leads to worse zone starts, more defensive zone time etc).

I would argue the opposite. I would think the points for the 2nd line are deflated because they play such stiff competition and have really tough zone starts.

And every team has to match against the top line of their opponent each night, so that should all average out through the numbers.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

...You could argue, in fact, that the second line points for Calgary might be inflated a bit because they have a little extra ice time since they have to play against the opponent top line so much (though you could equally argue that this leads to worse zone starts, more defensive zone time etc).

In terms of total average ice-time at even strength per line in 2018–19, Boston's second line skated 40:59 per GP and Calgary's skated 41:56 per GP. The biggest difference between the two was Tkachuk (ESATOI = 14:22) v. Debrusk (ESATOI = 13:16).

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Yes, but Calgary's 2nd line makes the same claim (elite defensively) so I would argue that it's still a wash.


I would argue the opposite. I would think the points for the 2nd line are deflated because they play such stiff competition and have really tough zone starts.

And every team has to match against the top line of their opponent each night, so that should all average out through the numbers.

Yeah, I acknowledged the zone starts argument.

I think, though, the main point is that Peters has to be a lot more careful about who the Monahan line plays against. It's fine if it's a top line that they can dominate offensively. But the Avs, for example, had a top player who was miles ahead of the rest, and the top line just wasn't competing against that. And Backlund's line had trouble too, but that's a lesser point.

Bottom line - I'd like a top line that can go head to head more often. When they were at their best, Lindholm was a big reason, because of his defensive play. I think arguments about second line production would go away entirely.

This, BTW, is a reason I shy away from moving Lindholm to centre another line, UNLESS another good two way player can take his place (Chucky isn't the guy IMO).

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Yeah, I acknowledged the zone starts argument.

I think, though, the main point is that Peters has to be a lot more careful about who the Monahan line plays against. It's fine if it's a top line that they can dominate offensively. But the Avs, for example, had a top player who was miles ahead of the rest, and the top line just wasn't competing against that. And Backlund's line had trouble too, but that's a lesser point...

I actually think this is one of the most significant points in how Colorado won that series. If Backlund's line were able to establish the same game they played VERY effectively against MacKinnon's line in the three regular season games, the Flames should at worst have made it to game seven. How often does a team's entire top-six simultaneously go into the tank?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I actually think this is one of the most significant points in how Colorado won that series. If Backlund's line were able to establish the same game they played VERY effectively against MacKinnon's line in the three regular season games, the Flames should at worst have made it to game seven. How often does a team's entire top-six simultaneously go into the tank?

MacKinnon turned it up to 11, versus his mediocre play in the season (remember his rage game? Good times).

But yeah, if both lines are ineffective at the same time, Calgary is in deep trouble. So is any team.

[420since1974]

I have been impressed with Sean Monahan's start to this season.
His offense has been very good as usual, against LA he was real close to scoring another two goals (one goal post and a great save by Campbell).
What has really peaked my interest is that he appears to be skating stronger and faster, plus is playing more physical than I've ever seen him.
If he avoids injury, I predict that he will have a new career high in points.

[Bingo]

Great work ... I love the simple rankings to bring light to a team that we all follow too closely ... forest for the trees kind of thing.

Doing something similar with expected goal results helps too, as it brings in the defensive side of the game.

The Flames top three forwards (Tkachuk jumps Lindholm, but I forced Tkachuk back to #4 to make the Flames lines exact) are ranked 10th in xgoal diff, which brings to light the fact that Monahan and Gaudreau aren't that great defensively. The top line comes in at +1.08 / 60

Boston's top line is +1.38 / 60

Calgary's second line is 5th at +1.12 / 60

Backlund is the 7th best #5 forward and staying consistent with your points look.

[genetic_phreek]

Great post Enoch, lots of good info in terms of individual contributions. I wonder what a bottom 6 ranking would look like.I would guess Doc, Janko, and Benny would be up there in their respective #s as well.

As far as below average goaltending, last season we were still top 10 as a team for goals against so not sure I would say that was an issue.

Based on playoffs and so far what I've seen this season, I think we are still plagued by individual speed. We play a good team speed game but when we are not in sync, it seems we get exposed quite a bit.

[Brad Marsh]

Great thread and great OP.

I love it when actual data challenges my assumptions, and this is one of those times.

I have been guilty of underestimating Backlund's offensive contributions to the top 6 relative to league-wide second-line players.

[CsInMyBlood]

I was sure I was going to click on this thread and have to defend Backlunds honour.

Refreshing to see the stats as opposed to what many people think is actually happening with Backlunds offense.

Good job Enoch.