Define a 1st/2nd/3rd/4th liner?

[Redder Winger]

Ok but how do you compare those numbers to what an average player produces 5on5 on most other teams.

Z and Larkin may be "1st line" by your "ill just pick 3 guys thing"
but how do they rate vs league averages?

I.e. Is Larkin a 2nd liner or 1st liner based on this data... we all know most red wings have horrid production.

Well...
This could get long and stupid if I start on the wrong foot.
Let's eliminate a bunch of the AHL tweeners by limiting this to people who've played less than 250 minutes at 5 on 5.

That leaves you with 416 NHL forwards.
That's 13.4 forwards per team.
Beautiful number for what we're looking at.

Here are your leaders at 5 on 5 points
#1 Connor McDavid 65
#32 Auston Matthews 40
#63 Matt Duchene 33
#94 Kevin Fiala 30
---- So there's your first line cutoff. 30 points. (30 to 65 points )

188th - TJ Oshie - 21 points
There's your second line cutoff (21 to 30 points)

282nd - Sam Gagner - 14 points -
There's your third line cutoff (14-21 points)

Fourth line 1 to 13 points.

So on Detroit you have ---

1st Liine
Larkin
Mantha
Zetterberg

2nd Line
Nyquist
Athanasiou
Abdelkader

3rd line
Helm
Nielsen
Bertuzzi
Tatar
Frk

4th line
Glendening

Now you start factoring for Time On ice and this changes again.
But this is strictly 5 on 5 points... not factoring for icetime, games played, injuries, defense etc


One thing that jumps out you is how far ahead the TOP first liners are above the rest of the field.

 

[kliq]

Surprised he played that much in 02.
I'm just going back as far as I can find 5 on 5 numbers

Ya, in the playoffs he played with Larionov and Luc.

 

[Redder Winger]

Ya, in the playoffs he played with Larionov and Luc.

IMO, in 02, our lines were:
Line 1
Yzerman-Fedorov-Shanahan

Line 3
McCarty-Draper-Maltby

And 2 Line 4s
Robitaille-Larionov-Holmstrom
Deverau-Datsyuk-Hull

Looking at the numbers
At even strength
Fedorov 15:42
Yzerman 14;38
Draper 13:58
Shahanan 13:56
Maltby 13:26
McCarty 13:15
Hull 12:23
Larionov 10:55
Devereaux 10:49
Robitaille 10:15
Datsyuk 10:11
Holmstrom 8:37

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

In a qualitative sense...

A first liner or top pairing d-man is the type of player you can play heavy minutes in all situations and you can expect them to carry your offense regardless of anything the opponent does to shut them down. Teams game plan for Crosby, Stamkos, or McDavid and they still get their points.

A second liner or a middle pairing D is a guy who can produce like the guys in the first group but if you play a game plan against them, they fall apart. This is why Nyquist and Tatar aren’t centerpieces. If you play physical and get in their face, they back down or they can’t function because they don’t have the time or room to move

Third line is either a poor mans second line or a rich mans fourth line. You can have it be a checking line or be a tertiary scoring option, but only one of these at a time. This is usually the easiest matchup to go against as they don’t have the skill like a top line and usually do not have the grit like a 4th line

4th line is where you put your defensive specialists and all around pests out on the ice as the counter to the overall skills of the oppositions top guys.

 

[BinCookin]

....
In terms of points:

---first line--
Larkin 37
Mantha 31
Zetterberg 31
-------2nd line--
Nyquist 27
Athanasiou 25
Abdelkader 23
---------
Helm 19
Nielsen 17
Bertuzzi 17
--4th line--
Tatar 14
Frk 14
Glendening 12

Well...
.....

Here are your leaders at 5 on 5 points
#1 Connor McDavid 65
#32 Auston Matthews 40
#63 Matt Duchene 33
#94 Kevin Fiala 30
---- So there's your first line cutoff. 30 points. (30 to 65 points )

188th - TJ Oshie - 21 points
There's your second line cutoff (21 to 30 points)

282nd - Sam Gagner - 14 points -
There's your third line cutoff (14-21 points)

Fourth line 1 to 13 points.

....

Good job on that info btw.

Seems like in regards to 5on5 numbers Mantha and Z are tweenerrs 1st/2nd line
Larkin is a very low end first liner.

But also your method rates our players much better than my way.

Seems this is likely a result of our PP being so completely crappy.

 

[kliq]

IMO, in 02, our lines were:
Line 1
Yzerman-Fedorov-Shanahan

Line 3
McCarty-Draper-Maltby

And 2 Line 4s
Robitaille-Larionov-Holmstrom
Deverau-Datsyuk-Hull

Looking at the numbers
At even strength
Fedorov 15:42
Yzerman 14;38
Draper 13:58
Shahanan 13:56
Maltby 13:26
McCarty 13:15
Hull 12:23
Larionov 10:55
Devereaux 10:49
Robitaille 10:15
Datsyuk 10:11
Holmstrom 8:37

Ya those lines are accurate, for years I have recorded the lines based on the CBC or TSN broadcast, and that year at the end of the playoffs they went with:

LW	Brendan Shanahan	Luc Robitaille	Kirk Maltby	Boyd Devereaux
C	Steve Yzerman	Igor Larionov	Kris Draper	Pavel Datsyuk
RW	Sergei Fedorov	Tomas Holmstrom	Darren McCarty	Brett Hull
DP 1	DP 2	DP 3	Goalies
D1	Nicklas Lidstrom	Chris Chelios	Steve Duschene	Dominik Hasek
D2	Fredrick Olauson	Jiri Fischer	Mathieu Dandenault	Manny Legace

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Now that I think about it though, I do think that lines 2 and 4 switched back and forth.

 

[kliq]

double post

 

[Redder Winger]

Good job on that info btw.

Seems like in regards to 5on5 numbers Mantha and Z are tweenerrs 1st/2nd line
Larkin is a very low end first liner.

But also your method rates our players much better than my way.

Seems this is likely a result of our PP being so completely crappy.

Our special teams suck and our production doesn't account for all the goals we give up

 

[RedWingsfan55]

data (extrapolated) stats from our players 2017 and 2018 (yes i know 2018 isnt done, i extrapolated the rest) (should have minimal error 7GP remaining)

I think this is perfect. It shows what many of us know.

Nielson was signed to be a number 2 center and plays like a number 3.

Tatar and nyquist are bad 2nd liners or good 3rd liners(overpaid).

O and breaking news we lack high end talent. It is nice to see the numbers though.

 

[Pavels Dog]

Points are kind of useless since they're predicated on PP usage.

Lines are used at 5 on 5.
So I'd look at 5 on 5 ice time and 5 on 5 points

On the Red Wings here's 5 on 5 icetime/game

Top line
Zetterberg 15:39 (more than he played in ****ing 2008)
Nyquist 14:26
Larkin 14:26
-----2nd Line---
Mantha 13:59
Tatar 13:21
Helm 12:42
--- 3rd line ---
Bertuzzi 12"11
Abdelkader 12:10
Athanasiou 12:10
Nielsen 12:09
---4th line---
Glendening 10:02
Frk 7:36
Svechnikov 7:36

In terms of points:

---first line--
Larkin 37
Mantha 31
Zetterberg 31
-------2nd line--
Nyquist 27
Athanasiou 25
Abdelkader 23
---------
Helm 19
Nielsen 17
Bertuzzi 17
--4th line--
Tatar 14
Frk 14
Glendening 12

Looking only at ES comes with it's own errors though.

Yeah, Z has more ES minutes than in 08, but his total icetime/game is 3 minutes lower. Obviously if he doesn't play PK he has more energy to play ES. The icetime difference between Helm/Bert/Abby/Nielsen/AA is about 1 shift at ES, not enough to say one is 2nd line and the others 3rd line.

The ES/PP scoring split also often varies, for example maybe Tatar has low ES scoring this year but some other year he had great ES scoring and low PP scoring. It's not like he goes from 2nd liner to 4th liner, he's still the same player.

 

[Redder Winger]

Looking only at ES comes with it's own errors though.

Yeah, Z has more ES minutes than in 08, but his total icetime/game is 3 minutes lower. Obviously if he doesn't play PK he has more energy to play ES. The icetime difference between Helm/Bert/Abby/Nielsen/AA is about 1 shift at ES, not enough to say one is 2nd line and the others 3rd line.

The ES/PP scoring split also often varies, for example maybe Tatar has low ES scoring this year but some other year he had great ES scoring and low PP scoring. It's not like he goes from 2nd liner to 4th liner, he's still the same player.

Sorry PD, but that doesn't make sense.
We're talking about 1st line, 2nd line, 3rd line and 4th line.

There are two ways to look at it.
Ice time.
Production.

You can't act like PP time makes you a first or second liner.
PP time and PP production makes you a PP player.

 

[Bench]

I’m a first line player, whereas someone like, say, Bench, is a second line player, at best.

Coasting on that lifetime contract I got after inflating my numbers with SoupNazi on the 1st line.

 

[Frk It]

Coasting on that lifetime contract I got after inflating my numbers with SoupNazi on the 1st line.

I figured you LTIRetired.

 

[Bench]

I figured you LTIRetired.

It turns out I have lifelong allergy to my keyboard.

 

[Darkstorm]

I know this is a year old thread, but instead of creating a new thread, I will post on a already opened thread.

Anyhow, I know the two first lines can interchange depending on how the game is going and the chemistry with each player. But my question is, do the two first lines have the same playing time, or does the 1st line has the most?

 

[RedWingsfan55]

Take 90% of this roster.
Drop them down a line or pairing.
That's their level.

This is about as accurate as you can be.
The only guys who could potentially be top line guys are Larkin and mantha who I'd feel if were second line guys meant were a stanley cup team. I also feel cholo and zadina may get there but they have a few years yet.


Another way to look at top line guys is points.
But this isnt an exact science just a rough idea. You can say look at top 31 centers and their point totals and figure out the average to see where you top center man is based on averages. Or just look at points straight up and you can see larkin is 19th in points. Slightly below "the average" but on an awful team. Which would tell me larkin is a true #1 center man.

Look at right wingers and mantha is 37th. Means he is either a #2 RW or is dragged down but a bad team with room to grow.

Left wingers we got bert at 31 and vanek at 38. To me that says below average #1 left winger but above average #2 lw.

So as a whole our top line(when they actually play together) of bert, larkin and mantha are below average as your #1 line.

Now this is strictly points based. Not defense or possession. Nor does it include other things such as leadership.

 

[Oddbob]

I’m a first line player, whereas someone like, say, Bench, is a second line player, at best.

To be fair, Bench is always at it with the coach about ice time and usage!

 

[RedWingsfan55]

I didnt realize this was a year old thread. I responded to OP.

 

[jkutswings]

To be fair, Bench is always at it with the coach about ice time and usage!

Yeah, but look at his points per minute!

 

[kliq]

This is about as accurate as you can be.
The only guys who could potentially be top line guys are Larkin and mantha who I'd feel if were second line guys meant were a stanley cup team. I also feel cholo and zadina may get there but they have a few years yet.


Another way to look at top line guys is points.
But this isnt an exact science just a rough idea. You can say look at top 31 centers and their point totals and figure out the average to see where you top center man is based on averages. Or just look at points straight up and you can see larkin is 19th in points. Slightly below "the average" but on an awful team. Which would tell me larkin is a true #1 center man.

Look at right wingers and mantha is 37th. Means he is either a #2 RW or is dragged down but a bad team with room to grow.

Left wingers we got bert at 31 and vanek at 38. To me that says below average #1 left winger but above average #2 lw.

So as a whole our top line(when they actually play together) of bert, larkin and mantha are below average as your #1 line.

Now this is strictly points based. Not defense or possession. Nor does it include other things such as leadership.

With the rankings for Mantha, Bert, and Vanek.....are you looking at total points? Or PPG? I only ask because Mantha did miss significant time this year so if its total points, he really should be higher.

 

[obey86]

This is about as accurate as you can be.
The only guys who could potentially be top line guys are Larkin and mantha who I'd feel if were second line guys meant were a stanley cup team. I also feel cholo and zadina may get there but they have a few years yet.


Another way to look at top line guys is points.
But this isnt an exact science just a rough idea. You can say look at top 31 centers and their point totals and figure out the average to see where you top center man is based on averages. Or just look at points straight up and you can see larkin is 19th in points. Slightly below "the average" but on an awful team. Which would tell me larkin is a true #1 center man.

Look at right wingers and mantha is 37th. Means he is either a #2 RW or is dragged down but a bad team with room to grow.

Left wingers we got bert at 31 and vanek at 38. To me that says below average #1 left winger but above average #2 lw.

So as a whole our top line(when they actually play together) of bert, larkin and mantha are below average as your #1 line.

Now this is strictly points based. Not defense or possession. Nor does it include other things such as leadership.

Larkin is only "potentially" a top line guy? How many teams in the NHL have a non 1st line center who can put up a point per game and play well defensively with average at best line mates? Maybe a handful of teams?

 

[RedWingsfan55]

Larkin is only "potentially" a top line guy? How many teams in the NHL have a non 1st line center who can put up a point per game and play well defensively with average at best line mates? Maybe a handful of teams?

Go on to read the rest of what I said. I continued to expand on thoughts. And contradict/correct the initial statement.

 

[RedWingsfan55]

With the rankings for Mantha, Bert, and Vanek.....are you looking at total points? Or PPG? I only ask because Mantha did miss significant time this year so if its total points, he really should be higher.

Yes total points and yes completely forgot about the missed time. Like I said just half assed did a quick guess based on points and only points, while on break at work. So using PPG would be better than total points. It also doesnt factor in offensive zone starts compared to defensive. TOI or who you're actual line mates are.

One of my complaints about blash is the line juggling, but based on points and points alone we would be much better off keeping bert, larkin and mantha together as much as possible. They compliment eachother with their playstyles as well.

But this is just for fun.

 

[Bench]

I know this is a year old thread, but instead of creating a new thread, I will post on a already opened thread.

Anyhow, I know the two first lines can interchange depending on how the game is going and the chemistry with each player. But my question is, do the two first lines have the same playing time, or does the 1st line has the most?

Some teams stack the first line and rely on them to do the heavy lifting. Ideally a team has two lines capable of scoring and exploiting 2nd pairing defenders. You know, finding an opening when Suter finally needs oxygen.

The Penguins have had so much success because they have two first line centers. Crosby is technically your "1st line" guy, but not every year. Their ice time is going to be pretty similar.

So to answer your question, it depends. The top center should be on the ice with his line the most shifts possible. A lot of it is matchups. Zetterberg spent two playoffs shadowing Crosby. The entire plan for the Wings was never let Crosby move without Z near him. In later years we saw Glendening shadowing top lines against Tampa.

 

[kliq]

Yes total points and yes completely forgot about the missed time. Like I said just half assed did a quick guess based on points and only points, while on break at work. So using PPG would be better than total points. It also doesnt factor in offensive zone starts compared to defensive. TOI or who you're actual line mates are.

One of my complaints about blash is the line juggling, but based on points and points alone we would be much better off keeping bert, larkin and mantha together as much as possible. They compliment eachother with their playstyles as well.

But this is just for fun.

Even PPG can be tough, because then you have to factor in players who were called up, played one game, and say got a point and now rank as scoring 1PPG. You almost have to filter by GP and PPG.

No criticism from me, there is always a flaw with pretty much any way of accumulating stats.