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

[Classic_Sniper]

With the top 2 lines getting shutdown last night and once again getting no run support from the bottom 6, I think now is a good time to evaluate what we have a quarter way into the season. The top 2 lines have done an admirable job and their contribution to the team’s success can’t be overstated.

Unfortunately, we can’t say the same about our bottom 6 who statistically are the worst performing bottom 6 in the league. No other team in the league has received less production from their 3rd and 4th lines. A total of 10 players have made up the bottom 6 this season and in 21 games, they’ve contributed a grand total of 8 goals. However, looking deeper into the numbers, you’ll see that their level of production is even worse than what you might think.


- 10 players have played in our bottom 6 and have scored 8 goals between them
- However, 4 of those goals were assisted by or created by players from the top 6 (Gaudreau, Monahan, Tkachuk)
- So, based on the math, only 4 goals have been scored that was exclusively created by our bottom 2 lines in 21 games, that’s not nearly good enough for 6 roster spots per game with a coach that rolls all 4 lines
- All 30 teams are doubling, tripling or even quadrupling our bottom 6 production
- Probably the saddest stat of all is that 3 of those 4 goals were scored in 1 game against St. Louis, so we've had to rely on the top 2 lines to try to win us 19 of 21 games this season


I don’t know how we can expect this team to be contenders or go deep into the playoffs if this continues, if the top 2 lines cancel each other out in playoffs, how can anyone sit here and be confident that we’ll come out on top against the best teams in the NHL.

I put the onus on Treliving right now. The current 3rd and 4th lines are mostly of his creation and he said himself in the offseason, he was most worried about scoring enough goals. Well, it looks like his fear has become reality. I'm not sure what's available out there, but with the few assets we have left, he’s going to need to fix this issue before the trade deadline and we can only hope that it works out better than the current crop that he and his brains trust hand picked.


*Wow, seems like there’s quite a bit of backlash to my thread. It really was meant as more of an opinion piece with a few interesting stats I found. Apologies for the uproar it caused. Hopefully my main point that our struggling bottom 6 hasn’t been good enough and needs to improve came through.

[Vinny01]

If you showed me our current bottom 6 in the summer I would say that it would be one of the best in the league.

Bennett - former 4th overall pick due for a breakout
Jankowski- top prospect rookie coming off a monste first year in the AHL
Jagr- legend

Versteeg- a guy who put up 37pts last year and has great hands. A steady 2nd/3rd liber in his career
Lazar- former first round reclamation project hopefully going to bounce back.
Brouwer- former top 6 forward.

[flamesfever]

I think with patience that will change.

I would like to see Mangiopane brought up.

[Calgary4LIfe]

It is just so frustratingly weird how badly the bottom 6 has contributed on the scoreboard. On paper, that's a pretty good bottom 6. This is a deep team. You think that they will turn it around soon, and this is just some bad bounces and so on, but 1/4 of the season has passed already. They have to start producing in the long run, or this team will start to feel it in the standings.

[mrdonkey]

It really is sort of remarkable how far guys like Stajan, Versteeg, Bennett, and Brouwer have fallen from what were once pretty respectable numbers. All of them look like guys who have no business being in the NHL and it's completely baffling.

Lazar has just always been crap.

[Kovaz]

Statistically, It's Not Even Close

That implies a comparison with other teams, which you obviously didn't do. I guarantee no team has 32 goals ("quadrupling" our 8 goals) from their bottom 6. And there are a number of teams right where we are. Removing the top 6 scoring forwards, here's how many goals some other teams have from their remaining forwards:

Boston: 8
Pittsburgh: 8
Los Angeles: 9
St.Louis: 9
Montreal: 10
Philadelphia: 10
Tampa Bay: 11

So I guess Pittsburgh, Los Angeles, St. Louis, and Tampa Bay also shouldn't be contenders or expected to go deep in the playoffs. I'm sure if you explain away half of their goals as well, they'll look even worse.

Sure, our bottom-6 hasn't produced a ton of goals, but I think the 3rd line in particular is being excessively criticized. Pop quiz: which Flames line is scoring the most relative to their ice time?

• A) Gaudreau-Monahan-Ferland
• B) Tkachuk-Backlund-Frolik
• C) Bennett-Jankowski-Jagr

Spoiler!

The correct answer is C) Bennett-Jankowski-Jagr, with 2.98 GF/60.
In second is Gaudreau-Monahan-Ferland with 2.86 GF/60, and Tkachuk-Backlund-Frolik trail far behind with 1.57 GF/60

Our bottom 6 is a problem, no doubt. But the hyperbole around them is a bit excessive. The 4th line sucks, but the 3rd line is showing positive signs despite being snakebitten.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

It is definitely a little weird that you made a bunch of factual claims as if you'd done a bunch of statistical analysis but then didn't post it.

I'd love to see the proof that all 30 teams are at least doubling/triplinig/quadrupling our production. Not just the numbers, but how you determined top 6 and bottom 6. Does this include guys who play PP but are bottom 6 in 5v5 icetime?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

...I put the onus on Treliving right now. The current 3rd and 4th lines are mostly of his creation and he said himself in the offseason, he was most worried about scoring enough goals. Well, it looks like his fear has become reality. I'm not sure what's available out there, but with the few assets we have left, he’s going to need to fix this issue before the trade deadline and we can only hope that it works out better than the current crop that he and his brains trust hand picked.

I tend to believe that the current rate of low production for players off the top-two lines will not continue all the way into the playoffs this season.

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by Kovaz

That implies a comparison with other teams, which you obviously didn't do. I guarantee no team has 32 goals ("quadrupling" our 8 goals) from their bottom 6. And there are a number of teams right where we are. Removing the top 6 scoring forwards, here's how many goals some other teams have from their remaining forwards:

Boston: 8
Pittsburgh: 8
Los Angeles: 9
St.Louis: 9
Montreal: 10
Philadelphia: 10
Tampa Bay: 11

So I guess Pittsburgh, Los Angeles, St. Louis, and Tampa Bay also shouldn't be contenders or expected to go deep in the playoffs. I'm sure if you explain away half of their goals as well, they'll look even worse.

Sure, our bottom-6 hasn't produced a ton of goals, but I think the 3rd line in particular is being excessively criticized. Pop quiz: which Flames line is scoring the most relative to their ice time?

• A) Gaudreau-Monahan-Ferland
• B) Tkachuk-Backlund-Frolik
• C) Bennett-Jankowski-Jagr

Spoiler!

The correct answer is C) Bennett-Jankowski-Jagr, with 2.98 GF/60.
In second is Gaudreau-Monahan-Ferland with 2.86 GF/60, and Tkachuk-Backlund-Frolik trail far behind with 1.57 GF/60

Our bottom 6 is a problem, no doubt. But the hyperbole around them is a bit excessive. The 4th line sucks, but the 3rd line is showing positive signs despite being snakebitten.

The goal total I used was 4, not 8 because I don't consider goals scored on 5 on 3 powerplays or 2 on 1's with Johnny Gaudreau to be distinct 3rd/4th line scoring. Yes, the hyperbole was a perhaps a bit excessive, but that statistics I laid out are true. The team is relying on 2 lines to try to win them hockey games and outside of an unbelievably torrid start by Johnny Gaudreau, the bottom 6 hasn't manufactured enough goals by themselves to contribute meaningfully game by game.

If Gaudreau was just on a ppg pace instead of 120, would this team even be .500? I'd be a good bet that the lack of scoring depth would be a much bigger story today if that was the case.

[bubbsy]

Personally I don't think it's that big of a problem, and there's been signs of life there over the past few weeks.

If it does become an issue, I actually think we should shuffle the lines, including the 1st or 2nd lines to distribute the high end skill better across the top 3 lines.

[Finger Cookin]

Hey guys, I've been in Reno for six weeks. Is our bottom six any good?

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

It is definitely a little weird that you made a bunch of factual claims as if you'd done a bunch of statistical analysis but then didn't post it.

I'd love to see the proof that all 30 teams are at least doubling/triplinig/quadrupling our production. Not just the numbers, but how you determined top 6 and bottom 6. Does this include guys who play PP but are bottom 6 in 5v5 icetime?

I looked up most of the lower scoring teams and teams with top heavy producing players with the time I had and most of them had 10 or more. Based on my assertion that the 3rd/4th lines have only produced 4 goals, it appears that I am for the most part correct. And no, I did not delve into each and every single goal, from every single situation, from every single team because no one has the time for that. Everyone can get their panties in a knot based on some of the hyperbole I used, but the point I made still stands.

[Kovaz]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

I looked up most of the lower scoring teams and teams with top heavy producing players with the time I had and most of them had 10 or more. Based on my assertion that the 3rd/4th lines have only produced 4 goals, it appears that I am for the most part correct. And no, I did not delve into each and every single goal, from every single situation, from every single team because no one has the time for that. Everyone can get their panties in a knot based on some of the hyperbole I used, but the point I made still stands.

Right, so you removed goals from our bottom 6 that, in your opinion, don't count, but you didn't do the same for other teams. So it's not a fair comparison. If you don't have time to do the work, don't use your half-way researched stats to support your point.

I'm not disagreeing that our bottom-6 needs work, it's the passing off of opinions as objectively researched facts that I disagree with.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

... And no, I did not delve into each and every single goal, from every single situation, from every single team because no one has the time for that. Everyone can get their panties in a knot based on some of the hyperbole I used, but the point I made still stands.

Until you actually undertake to do just that for every NHL team, then no, I don’t believe your point does stand.

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by Kovaz

Right, so you removed goals from our bottom 6 that, in your opinion, don't count, but you didn't do the same for other teams. So it's not a fair comparison. If you don't have time to do the work, don't use your half-way researched stats to support your point.

I'm not disagreeing that our bottom-6 needs work, it's the passing off of opinions as objectively researched facts that I disagree with.

It's a forum dude, relax, this is not paid work I did. The goals I looked up for every bottom 6 player is correct and for the purposes of my point, I think it was definitely fair to remove certain ones from the equation because powerplay goals are not a 3rd or 4th line goal nor did I count goals that were generated by or assisted by our top 6 players. You can if you'd like, but the true measurement of a bottom 6 goal to me, is one that was completely generated by the plays made by our complete 3rd or 4th line.

As for the double, triple stat, yes the research was a little loose. But to research every goal, every situation, every team and etc would've been daunting and not worth it. I did check a lot of teams and based on the number that I selected and every team I checked did double or triple and yes, even quadrupled us. So yes, apologies for the "half way research," but a small portion of time dedicated during lunch just isn't enough time to do such in-depth work.

[MolsonInBothHands]

So, not even close to statistically analyzed.

Agreed that the bottom 6 have been a weak link, but not nearly as dire as the OP claimed.

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Until you actually undertake to do just that for every NHL team, then no, I don’t believe your point does stand.

A lot of points stand. If you don't like the double, triple stat, that's fine. You can ignore that point, but not a chance I'm going to do the research. Do you even realize the magnitude of work needed to actually find out the exact data, it would be ridiculous. The main point I was making is that it is my opinion that we have the worst bottom 6 in the league and I think I've outlined at least a few good points to argue that.

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by MolsonInBothHands

So, not even close to statistically analyzed.

Agreed that the bottom 6 have been a weak link, but not nearly as dire as the OP claimed.

Care to point out some stats to disprove my theory? I counted 2 games out of 21 that the 3rd and 4th line actually contributed on their own, if that's not dire to you, than what is?

[the2bears]

More like Classic_Cherrypicker

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

It's a forum dude, relax, this is not paid work I did. The goals I looked up for every bottom 6 player is correct and for the purposes of my point, I think it was definitely fair to remove certain ones from the equation because powerplay goals are not a 3rd or 4th line goal nor did I count goals that were generated by or assisted by our top 6 players. You can if you'd like, but the true measurement of a bottom 6 goal to me, is one that was completely generated by the plays made by our complete 3rd or 4th line.

As for the double, triple stat, yes the research was a little loose. But to research every goal, every situation, every team and etc would've been daunting and not worth it. I did check a lot of teams and based on the number that I selected and every team I checked did double or triple and yes, even quadrupled us. So yes, apologies for the "half way research," but a small portion of time dedicated during lunch just isn't enough time to do such in-depth work.

No, it is absolutely NOT fair to eliminate some, unless you apply the same filter to other teams. This has been explained to you multiple times and you keep brushing it off (erroneously). Every team's goals from the bottom 6 will be littered with assists from top 6 players, or have come on the PP. You can't simply apply a filter to the Flames only.

You think the bottom 6 sucks. Okay, so just say that (which you have). But don't make false assumptions and keep repeating them, when you have been corrected multiple times.