Average cup finalist line-up

[Appleyard]

I was bored today... so got thinking... what has been the 'average' cup finalist line-up over the last few years. I.E. what calibre of player do they have at each position.

Ofc this is a difficult question, but I figured that by averaging their most regular guys at each positions PPG to 82 games, then getting a median and mean of all the players on each cup finalist over the last few years could make an approximation.

I must note here that I was not looking for just how many PPG they got that year... if a player had an injury for example and missed significant time before coming back in playoffs and had a noticeable down year between two better years I would use the years either sides average, as I was looking at the 'calibre' of players. Also guys who were traded at deadline I used overall stats from the year.

Also I did not put all the players in the actual positions/lines they played, but instead the individual who got most PPG. (so if one team had a LW who was top scorer and another who had RW would simply list each as the '#1W' for that team, same with LD & RD, would just list as '#1D', obviously a bit easier for centres.)

The teams I used were from the 2011 cup final to the 2016 cup final (years when regular season scoring has not been tooooo different)... so 12 total teams.

Here are the results (median P/82 of the players):

69.5pts -- 76.5pts -- 59pts
50.5pts -- 57pts -- 44.5pts
38.5pts -- 31pts -- 29.5pts
21.5pts -- 19pts -- 15pts

46.5pts -- 32.5pts
28pts -- 21.5pts
16.5pts -- 11.5pts

.923 sv%
.922 sv%

What surprised me was the median points for the top 4 Dmen... thought it would be higher.

The mean results as well for comparison:

74.92pts -- 75.25pts -- 58.83pts
50.75pts -- 56pts -- 44.58pts
38.08pts -- 32.92pts -- 30pts
20.75pts -- 20pts -- 15.50pts

48.58pts -- 35.08pts
27.42pts -- 22.25pts
16.92pts -- 12.33pts

.923 sv%
.925 sv%

Surprising that the mean backup sv% is higher... but it is really driven by ~3 guys, Jones, Talbot & Darling being all above .930... only 1 starter was, Thomas.


Hope you all find this interesting. I mean... it does not account for defensive ability really, but still shows something!

Click to read more...

 

[Nalens Oga]

Basically be able to roll 3 lines that can score and don't need more than 2 star forwards (in terms of high scoring ones).

The goalie save percentage avg for the last two seasons has been 0.915 so a 0.923 seems reasonable.

 

[zombie kopitar]

Supports a lot of the rhetoric you hear about a championship team. A 1st line averaging 65+pts each, 2nd line 50+, and a shutdown line that can still put up 15g/15a


Most surprising is how much stronger the left wing has been over the right.

Thanks for sharing

 

[Appleyard]

Supports a lot of the rhetoric you hear about championship teams. A 1st line averaging 65+pts each, 2nd line 50+, and a shutdown line that can still put up 15g/15a


Most surprising is how much stronger the left wing has been over the right.

Thanks for sharing

It was not... I just listed the '#1W' on the left side, the '#2W' on the right side and then the '#3W' on the left side next to the 2C and so on and so forth.

I started doing it by actual position with the wingers... but the averages became a mess as some teams had like a 65pt guy at 2LW and a 45pt guy at 1RW... so the top 4 wingers averages all kind of regressed to a mean around 55-60pts... so I figured listing them like that would not really reflect the reality of the actual composition.

 

[Appleyard]

Also one thing that really stood out to me was the '#5' winger... 38-39 points is a lot on the 3rd line... it seemed a lot of teams had that calibre of player there though by going out at the deadline and adding another top six winger to a group that already had 4 top six wingers.

I.E. The guy who was playing as '#4' winger on their team all year was pacing for 38-39 points... but they went out and got a 45-50pt guy who pushed him down.

 

[KrisLetAngry]

My only issue with this is half the sample size is the hawks

 

[Mrb1p]

It was not... I just listed the '#1W' on the left side, the '#2W' on the right side and then the '#3W' on the left side next to the 2C and so on and so forth.

I started doing it by actual position with the wingers... but the averages became a mess as some teams had like a 65pt guy at 2LW and a 45pt guy at 1RW... so the top 4 wingers averages all kind of regressed to a mean around 55-60pts... so I figured listing them like that would not really reflect the reality of the actual composition.

And you figured listing them randomly would reflect the reality of the actual composition more ?

What.

 

[MrFunnyWobbl]

This is impressive and thank you for putting in the work to put this together. Very interesting perspective.

 

[canuckster19]

My only issue with this is half the sample size is the hawks

Says cup finalists, not winners, so it's only 25%

Yeah nice effort on putting this together. I think it illustrates quite well that the NHL is an entertainment nightmare if that's the kind of lineup it takes to get into the finals, basically says ride a hot goalie into the finals, yawn. But I've been saying that for a while now.

 

[Mrb1p]

This is impressive and thank you for putting in the work to put this together. Very interesting perspective.

Agreed, I don't necessarily agree with the winger/defenseman issue, but it's a great piece of work.


I'd much rather you list them as 1, 2, 3, etc... instead of 1st line RW etc...

 

[Appleyard]

And you figured listing them randomly would reflect the reality of the actual composition more ?

What.

It is just giving an indication of the best winger, 2nd best winger etc without making all the averages regress to make it look like a team has ~4x 55pts wingers instead of 1 70pt, 1 60pt, 1 55pt & 1 45pt.

For example... lets assume that this year the Flyers top six does this:

Schenn (55pts) -- Giroux (77pts) -- Simmonds (50pts)
Konecny (42pts) -- Couturier (53pts) -- Voracek (70pts)

and the Penguins top six does this:

Kunitz (40pts) -- Crosby (89pts) -- Hornqvist (60pts)
Hagelin (45pts) -- Malkin (75pts) -- Kessel (70pts)

If I was calculating their averages I would have put:

1W: Voracek & Kessel (70pts)
2W: Schenn & Hornqvist (57.5pts)
3W: Simmonds & Hagelin (47.5pts)
4W: Konecny & Kunitz (41pts)

then listed the combo of Voracek & Kessels average at 1LW, Schenn & Hornqvist at 1RW etc.

The alternative was simply having a list like:

1C
2C
3C
4C

1W
2W
3W
4W
5W
6W
7W
8W

Which I though was harder to read/interpret with ease.

 

[Stuckinthe2ndround*]

Scoring depth wins cups. Look at Pittsburgh, Cullen had 16 goals on the 4th line. You can't defend against that. Their third line arguably outplayed their top two lines (albeit, against weaker defenseman and two-way forwards).

Good work on this.

 

[canuckster19]

Can someone put together a roster of players that perhaps fits this? Possibly made up of finalists which were used to calculate the average? Get an idea of what the team would look like.

 

[Juicy Pop]

The 06-07 Ducks forward core matches up fairly well to this, with some slightly lower production from the third line — though Pahlsson was the runner up for the Selke and that 3rd is often considered to be one of the best shutdown lines of this era. An interesting point is that Moen, Pahlsson and Niedermayer combined for 34 points in the playoffs and were actually the most productive line at ES with 12 goals. The defense definitely exceeds the average in this case, though.

Kunitz [60] - McDonald [78] - Selanne [94]
Penner [45] - Getzlaf [58] - Perry [44]
Moen [21] - Pahlsson [26] - Niedermayer [16]
F - Marchant [23] - F

F: Shannon [11], Thornton [9], Fedoruk [3], Parros [1], May [1], Brent [1]

Niedermayer [69] - Beauchemin [28]
Pronger [59] - O'Donnell [17]
D - D

D: O'Brien [14], Jackman [11], Dipenta [8], Huskins [3]

Giguere: regular season [0.918] playoffs [0.922]
Bryzgalov: regular season [0.907] playoffs [0.922]

 

[Appleyard]

Can someone put together a roster of players that perhaps fits this? Possibly made up of finalists which were used to calculate the average? Get an idea of what the team would look like.

Going off the players over last two years (I tried doing it off players in the sample... but the closest ones on earlier teams people will remember their level of play differently to how good they actually were at the time) trying to keep them with the closest PPG over that time to the midpoint of the mean & median of each position:

Gaudreau -- Bäckström -- Jágr
Lucic -- Plekanec -- R.Smith
Burakovsky -- Shaw -- Weise
Lowry -- Glendening -- N.Thompson

Suter -- E.Johnson
Demers -- Tanev
I.Cole -- Gunnarsson

Holtby
Darling

Is the outcome. Ofc that does not account for defensive ability... but that D is pretty beastly in that regard anyway!

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

In a hurry but just want to say thanks, that's a fantastic idea to look at.

 

[WarriorOfGandhi]

I wonder if Toronto hit even one of those averages last season

 

[WhiskeySeven*]

Going off the players over last two years (I tried doing it off players in the sample... but the closest ones on earlier teams people will remember their level of play differently to how good they actually were at the time) trying to keep them with the closest PPG over that time to the midpoint of the mean & median of each position:

Gaudreau -- Bäckström -- Jágr
Lucic -- Plekanec -- R.Smith
Burakovsky -- Shaw -- Weise
Lowry -- Glendening -- N.Thompson

Suter -- E.Johnson
Demers -- Tanev
I.Cole -- Gunnarsson

Holtby
Darling

Is the outcome. Ofc that does not account for defensive ability... but that D is pretty beastly in that regard anyway!

I wonder what people think of this lineup. Some analysis would be interesting.

 

[Kale Makar]

I wonder what people think of this lineup. Some analysis would be interesting.

Gaudreau -- Bäckström -- Jágr
Lucic -- Plekanec -- R.Smith
Burakovsky -- Shaw -- Weise
Lowry -- Glendening -- N.Thompson

Suter -- E.Johnson
Demers -- Tanev
I.Cole -- Gunnarsson

Holtby
Darling


Love the first line, gritty second line but not sure about how well they would produce offensively. Goalies and D look good, bottom 6 seems a bit bleh to me. I feel like they would be a good team, but for whatever reason doesn't look like a champ.

 

[KrisLetAngry]

Going off the players over last two years (I tried doing it off players in the sample... but the closest ones on earlier teams people will remember their level of play differently to how good they actually were at the time) trying to keep them with the closest PPG over that time to the midpoint of the mean & median of each position:

Gaudreau -- Bäckström -- Jágr
Lucic -- Plekanec -- R.Smith
Burakovsky -- Shaw -- Weise
Lowry -- Glendening -- N.Thompson

Suter -- E.Johnson
Demers -- Tanev
I.Cole -- Gunnarsson

Holtby
Darling

Is the outcome. Ofc that does not account for defensive ability... but that D is pretty beastly in that regard anyway!

As of right now

The 1st line would be one of the best in the league.
Note: I can see this line getting some defensive zone Time as Backstrom is a two way beast
Note 2: Johnny hockey is there offensive catalyst that I think is crucial for a team.
2nd line is defensively sound and definitely has a presence with secondary scoring.
3rd line is above average meh defensively.
I feel the 2nd line would have more defensive responsibilities
4th line poop

Suter a 10-15 defenseman Erik Johnson a solid #2
A 2nd pairing with tanev and demers
You could argue Tanev is a #2. And Demers is definitely top 4 material

Cole and Gunarsson are both solid defenseman #5 #4 type defenseman.. some games they play like a #3.

The defense won't be why they lose. A solid score very balanced.

Goalies
Holtby a top 5 goalie.
Darling a meh backup

Honestly this team would have a good shot winning the Stanley Cup.

 

[Rebels57]

Fantastic job as always Appleyard!

Ive always wondered what the "Anatomy of a Champion" looked like.

 

[Appleyard]

In case anyone is wondering I had a half hour free so worked out the average of the 'cup winners' vs 'cup finalist loser' thought there was no real need for new thread though:

Red and Green indicative worse or better compared to each other. Though ofc sample is only 6 each, so not a great size of sample.

Mean Cup Winner:

70.67pts -- 75.33pts -- 57pts
49.67pts -- 50.67pts -- 43.67pts
36.7pts -- 30pts -- 30.17pts
20.17pts -- 20.8pts -- 16.33pts

49pts -- 34pts
28.33pts -- 22.83pts
17pts -- 13.8pts

.926 sv%
.925 sv%

Mean Cup Finalist loser:

79.17pts -- 75.17pts -- 60.67pts
51.83pts -- 61.33pts -- 45.50pts
39.5pts -- 35.83pts -- 29.83pts
21.33pts -- 19.17pts -- 14.67pts

48.17pts -- 36.17pts
26.50pts -- 21.67pts
16.83pts -- 10.83pts

0.920 sv%
0.925 sv%

Not enormous difference apart from the top winger, 2C and starting goalie... remember this is from that regular season too... not the playoffs, so not just a 'goalie getting hot' deal. In terms of cup winners vs cup losers the goalies were better in the regular season by some way too.

Interesting that the all 6 of the winners Dmen paced for more points in regular season despite the top 6 not doing as well point wise.

 

[aufheben]

Nice endeavor. I'd be curious to see the average for different stats as well.

 

[Appleyard]

Nice endeavor. I'd be curious to see the average for different stats as well.

Yeh, I thought about compiling all the Corsi stats (For and against seperately too, which will give really nice picture) for each of them too... and usage... but that will take some time!


I like that it kind of can give you a rough picture of what your team is 'missing' in regards to being a contender too.

I mean, a lot of it is common sense... you are likely not winning without a 1C, 1D and a good solid starter who had a good year... and also not without a guy at 2C who can put up ~50 points and 1 elite winger + 3 other top 6 wingers and a solid bottom six!

 

[aufheben]

Yeh, I thought about compiling all the Corsi stats (For and against seperately too, which will give really nice picture) for each of them too... and usage... but that will take some time!


I like that it kind of can give you a rough picture of what your team is 'missing' in regards to being a contender too.

I mean, a lot of it is common sense... you are likely not winning without a 1C, 1D and a good solid starter who had a good year... and also not without a guy at 2C who can put up ~50 points and 1 elite winger + 3 other top 6 wingers and a solid bottom six!

Well, better get to it.