Wings Are The Least Specialized Team In The NHL
Posted 13 December 2012 - 08:45 AM
The list ranks team systems based on player usage and specialization. Basically if a player is only on the ice for offensive zone face offs then that player is 100% specialized. If a player is on the ice for offensive and defensive zone face offs an equal amount of times they are not specialized at all.
Here's the list of teams, ranking them highest to lowest based on how specialized their team is.....
1 -Vancouver – 66.4%
2 - Tampa Bay – 37.6%
3 - NY Rangers – 34.8%
4 - Chicago – 33.8%
5 - Colorado – 33.1%
6 - Carolina – 32.8%
7 - Winnipeg – 32.0%
8 - Nashville – 26.1%
9 - Montreal – 23.0%
10 - Minnesota – 22.3%
11 - Pittsburgh – 21.7%
12 - Phoenix – 21.3%
13 - Florida – 20.6%
14 - Philadelphia – 20.4%
15 - Edmonton – 19.3%
16 - St. Louis – 19.1%
17 - Columbus – 18.0%
18 - Toronto – 18.0%
19 - Buffalo – 15.8%
20 - Boston – 15.5%
21 - NY Isles – 15.4%
22 - San Jose – 14.9%
23 - Washington – 13.5%
24 - Ottawa – 14.7%
25 – LA Kings 13.9%
26 - New Jersey – 11.9%
27 - Calgary – 11.1%
28 - Dallas – 10.5%
29 - Anaheim – 9.2%
30 - Detroit – 7.6%
Was proud to see Detroit dead last. To me it speaks to how we demand the best from our players on every side of the puck.
What I found interesting is that #1 Van is almost twice as specialized as #2 TBL!
Here's the link to the article http://wgr550.com/pages/13598525.php?
Posted 13 December 2012 - 09:18 AM
When I saw your topic on the main forum menu, the title truncates to "Wings are the least special" I was about to get incensed, but then figured it might refer to specialization.
Even in absentia, they are always special to me.
“Next time I tell you someone from Texas should not be president of the United States, please pay attention."
Posted 13 December 2012 - 09:30 AM
Covert Ops has its perks. You travel, make your own hours, and expense most of your meals.
The downside? Lots of people want you dead...
Posted 13 December 2012 - 03:28 PM
Thanks for finding that #9. A very good read.
If it were actually a least special list though, I would think that the Bluejackets would be leading the way wouldn't they?
The defense and goaltending both specialize in allowing goals, and the offense specializes in not scoring them. So in a way, they are the most specialized team in the league.
Posted 13 December 2012 - 05:20 PM
Didn't Mule have the best numbers on Faceoffs for the Wings a few years ago? Primarily because he muscled forward and then played the puck with his hand
Check out my blog -The Heid-Out- a cynical mans take on everyday life
Posted 13 December 2012 - 06:47 PM
Posted 13 December 2012 - 09:15 PM
Unfortunately, this list doesn't mean much in terms of success.
Posted 13 December 2012 - 10:19 PM
Posted 13 December 2012 - 10:53 PM
That is an interesting stat in the fact that the Wings PK wasn't very good last year again if memory serves me correct, whereas the NY Rangers had one of the best PK's in the league.... Yah it is nice to know all our guys can be used in all situations, but just because they are being used does not mean the job is getting done. In our case last year, the job on the PK did not get done. I think the problem is Babcock uses like 9 different forwards to kill penalties, so there is little structure and chemestry compared to the Rangers who have actual consistent PK units. This is something I think Detroit needs to fix this year.
The stat doesn't take into account PK or PP starts.... just whether a player was played heavily in one zone in general. I bet if you looked at which players started on the PK you'd see a more consistent unit.
The Rangers high specialization just means Torts takes his offensive players off the ice when their is a defensive zone face off (PK or not) and takes his defensive players off the ice when their is an offensive zone face off.
PS the Rangers were only 4.4% better than us on the PK. I was much more concerned with our unusually poor PP last year.
|Topic||Forum||Started By||Stats||Last Post Info|
||General Discussion||Jersey Wing||
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users