With the dog days of the offseason upon us, the time is ripe for a re-cap of the last year. To that end I have prepared a comprehensive advanced statistical breakdown the players from last season. I have divided up the summaries between even strength and special teams and forwards and defensemen.
To start off the forwards at even strength.
Glossary
Corsi: Number of shots directed towards the net for minus those against per 60 minutes ice-time. Used as a proxy stat for puck possession.
RelCorsi: Corsi relative to team (compiled for each game).
Corsi Rel QoC: Quality of competition metric based on Rel Corsi. Probably the best quality of competition stat out there if you’re looking for one number to judge a player’s average opponent.
Ozone%: Percentage of offensive faceoffs compared to offensive + defensive zone faceoffs.
Team Shooting: Shooting percentage of entire team while player is on the ice. Looking at the entire league I hazard to guess the median player had a team shooting of ~8.05 last season. Shooting tends to regress heavily to the mean so expect outlying players to regress to the mean.
SVP: Team save percentage while on ice. Montreal’s average was .928 last season at even strength on the back of a remarkable season by Carey Price.
Penalty Diff: Differential of penalties drawn minus penalties taken at ES per 60 minutes. Forwards will tend to have a positive differential while defenseman tend to have a negative one.
First Line:
|
TOI |
Corsi |
Rel Corsi |
Corsi Rel QoC |
G/60 |
A/60 |
P/60 |
GF/60 |
GA/60 |
+/- / 60 |
Team Shooting |
SVP |
Ozone% |
Penalty Diff. |
|
|
Cammaleri |
14.10 |
-2.67 |
-6.9 |
0.638 |
0.64 |
0.76 |
1.4 |
2.22 |
2.03 |
0.19 |
7.32 |
0.935 |
52.2 |
0.5 |
|
Plekanec |
13.89 |
3.98 |
0.4 |
0.895 |
0.95 |
0.96 |
1.91 |
2.75 |
2.36 |
0.39 |
8.45 |
0.924 |
50.2 |
0.0 |
|
Kostitsyn |
13.33 |
-0.56 |
-4.3 |
0.631 |
0.78 |
1.05 |
1.83 |
2.39 |
2.22 |
0.17 |
7.71 |
0.932 |
52.0 |
-0.4 |
Plekanec’s main unit played the toughest opposition (All high Corsi Rel QoC) with neutral zone starts and had a relatively neutral possession numbers to show for it (Corsi near zero). Plekanec was superb as a match up forward, with being above water in both shots and goals at even strength while playing the toughest minutes on the team. He was one of the only forward to have a team shooting% above league median, so his offense may have been a little bit inflated but otherwise his numbers are all solid.
Cammaleri was a bit of a disappointment on offense at even strength. His scoring totals are pretty low, below the usual threshold of a top-six player on ES (~1.8). Part of this was from a low shooting percentage but that doesn’t entirely make up the gap. He was part of a solid defensive group however, with the opposition rarely scoring against him while on the ice. Some of that is due to Carey’s strong performance behind him but even with team average goaltending he is above water. Corsi was a tad low however. He may not be best suited to the very tough minutes he got last year but did alright as a low event player.
Kostitsyn was fairly solid as a tough minutes top-six forward. Played tough minutes and scored like a top-sixer while being even at possession. Not lights out but definitely competent. He could stand to draw more penalties however.
Second Line:
|
TOI |
Corsi |
Rel Corsi |
Corsi Rel QoC |
G/ 60 |
A/ 60 |
P/ 60 |
GF/ 60 |
GA/ 60 |
+/- / 60 |
Team Shooting |
SVP |
Ozone% |
Penalty Diff. |
|
|
Pacioretty |
13.20 |
23.09 |
22.4 |
0.482 |
0.61 |
1.11 |
1.72 |
2.7 |
2.7 |
0.00 |
7.01 |
0.898 |
56.9 |
0.6 |
|
Gomez |
14.23 |
8.01 |
7.4 |
0.484 |
0.21 |
0.74 |
0.95 |
1.69 |
2.32 |
-0.63 |
4.73 |
0.925 |
54.0 |
0.2 |
|
Gionta |
14.09 |
12.57 |
13.7 |
0.732 |
0.99 |
0.62 |
1.61 |
2.44 |
2.23 |
0.21 |
6.77 |
0.923 |
50.1 |
0.1 |
The second line was a unit of possession monsters with low conversion rates. Pacioretty and Gomez got middling responsibilities and an offensive zone start while whatever unit Gionta was on usually was facing top players.
Pacioretty was an absolute beast at possession and was one of the league leaders in both Corsi and RelCorsi. With Price behind him he should have had a sub 2.00 GA but was unfortunate in the goaltending he received. Likewise he could have been above 3.00 GF if the team shot conversion was league average with him on the ice. As it was, he broke even while being saddled with a terrible PDO at ES (SVP+Shooting). He also faced mid-level opposition while doing so, so it was not a matter of beating up on bad players. If this wasn’t enough, he also was a strong penalty drawer with a very favorable ratio.
Gomez had a bad year where nothing went right for him. His scoring rate and goals for was fringe NHL despite a favourable zone start and mid-level opposition. The key to his debacle is his hilariously bad ES team shooting percentage, which was at a level below most talentless goons. If it was even close to league median or even Gomez’s 4 year running average (6.79%), Gomez would have easily outscored his opponents on even strength. Shooting percentage regresses heavily to the mean. Expect a big rebound next season. Considering the strong Corsi of his linemates, he may have been something of a possession passenger however.
Gionta was solid, great possession numbers against very strong opponents (although his QUALCOMP is less impressive that the very high Corsi Rel QoC, so perhaps they were not so strong). Another shooting percentage victim that was below top-six forward level in scoring but would probably exceeded it with decent shot conversion. Goal production very strong but assists are weak (Gomez and Moen as linemates couldn’t have helped there).
Third Line:
|
TOI |
Corsi |
Rel Corsi |
Corsi Rel QoC |
G/ 60 |
A/ 60 |
P/ 60 |
GF/ 60 |
GA/ 60 |
+/- / 60 |
Team Shooting |
SVP |
Ozone% |
Penalty Diff. |
|
|
Moen |
10.79 |
-9.57 |
-15.6 |
0.628 |
0.35 |
0.71 |
1.06 |
1.76 |
2.11 |
-0.35 |
6.53 |
0.932 |
51.9 |
0.5 |
|
Eller |
10.64 |
1.9 |
-0.7 |
-0.169 |
0.51 |
0.51 |
1.02 |
1.9 |
2.27 |
-0.37 |
6.68 |
0.920 |
51.6 |
-1.0 |
|
Halpern |
10.18 |
-6.22 |
-12.6 |
0.528 |
0.82 |
1.23 |
2.05 |
2.7 |
2.21 |
0.49 |
10.12 |
0.93 |
43.3 |
0.3 |
Two defensive specialists and a rookie. Moen and Halpern both played tough minutes and were underwater in possession as a result, Halpern had a great points, team goals for and plus/minus on the back of a very high PDO year with by far the highest on ice shooting of an everyday Hab. Halpern’s role as a defensive faceoff specialist is demonstrated by his team low Ozone start percentage.
Moen’s low shooting is to be expected, in the past 4 years it has always been low. His principle value is as defensive specialist, which is reflected by his usage against strong opposition.
Eller played fairly soft minutes to start his career and did well by a possession standpoint but was another shooting percentage victim. His benchings after penalties were well warranted a negative 1.0 penalties drawn/taken differential is atrocious.
Fourth Line:
|
TOI |
Corsi |
Rel Corsi |
Corsi Rel QoC |
G/ 60 |
A/ 60 |
P/ 60 |
GF/ 60 |
GA/ 60 |
+/- / 60 |
Team Shooting |
SVP |
Ozone% |
Penalty Diff. |
|
|
Pouliot |
10.56 |
11.29 |
10.5 |
-0.231 |
0.86 |
1.22 |
2.08 |
2.59 |
2.44 |
0.15 |
7.71 |
0.914 |
51.6 |
-1.0 |
|
Desharnais |
9.64 |
3.04 |
4.8 |
-0.528 |
0.58 |
1.16 |
1.74 |
2.31 |
2.89 |
-0.58 |
7.24 |
0.901 |
46.9 |
0.1 |
|
Darche |
9.90 |
11.09 |
6.0 |
-0.003 |
0.92 |
0.93 |
1.85 |
2.67 |
1.85 |
0.82 |
8.36 |
0.929 |
54.3 |
0.1 |
These are the soft minute warriors of the Montreal Canadiens with low ice time and weak opposition but good results. The Canadiens’ 4th line players did very well at beating up on other teams bottom players and were a good source of tertiary scoring. All three produced at about a top-six rate and were strong on possession with favourable Corsi. Darche’s better results than Desharnias can be explained by the difference in zone starts, with Desharnais used heavily against 4th lines that get sheltered with favourable zone starts as a counter-goon strategy. Pouliot was an effective even strength offensive player but was very undisciplined.
The Depth:
|
TOI |
Corsi |
Rel Corsi |
Corsi Rel QoC |
G/ 60 |
A/ 60 |
P/ 60 |
GF/ 60 |
GA/ 60 |
+/- / 60 |
Team Shooting |
SVP |
Ozone% |
Penalty Diff. |
|
|
White |
8.68 |
-1.65 |
-4.1 |
-0.428 |
0.51 |
0.77 |
1.28 |
3.07 |
1.79 |
1.28 |
9.92 |
0.938 |
45.2 |
0.7 |
|
Pyatt |
8.35 |
1.54 |
2.4 |
0.034 |
0.24 |
0.35 |
0.59 |
1.18 |
1.53 |
-0.35 |
4.35 |
0.947 |
50.6 |
0.5 |
Spare parts that played like spare parts with low minutes, weak opposition, neutral Corsi and little offense. They got more than their share of goaltending help which makes their defense look stronger than it is. Best to be said about them is they were good at drawing penalties.
As a whole the Canadiens’ forwards were strong on possession, suffered from low shooting percentage and benefited from strong goaltending. As possession is less transient than shooting, this is encouraging for the future.
Stats courtesy of Behindthenet.ca
