Common Misconceptions: How Much Should That Forward Score?

i think the misconception is that only stanley-cup contending teams have ‘real’ first-line tallent. the crosbys ovechkins sedins of the world. the rest of the league is just toiling with 2nd and 3rd liners.

of course, the bruins didn’t have any of these players. but the availability heuristic/confirmation bias rears their ugly heads again.

I actually did a post a few months back on basically this subject, comparing the first lines of playoff teams (since no one really cares how non-playoff teams are constructed). I found that the average first line on a Stanley Cup finalist over the past 5 seasons has had two point per game forwards.

http://www.pensionplanpuppets.com/2011/7/19/2283967/an-expanded-look-at-first-liners

The numbers are trending downward generally, though.

so is phil kessel an above average winger? if so would an average centre and left winger be a good first line?

is that first line wingers score almost exactly the same number of goals as first line centers (though they get less points, so clearly the center is getting a lot more assists – which makes sense), but the further you go down the depth chart, the more the centers are out-scoring the wingers.

I’m guessing that the distribution in talent has a lot of negative skew. so you get your most elite offensive players onto the first line wherever you can fit them, and the difference in skill between them is small. On lower lines there’s more variance in skill levels (because you have to start filling it out a bit more with relative scrubs), so you put your better players in the middle where they can do the most, and fill out the wings with relative scrubs.

Either that or there’s something different about the way top lines play than bottom lines – the bottom ones maybe spend more time in their own end, and when they score it’s off rushes from their center or something. I don’t know.

Keep in mind that this is actual production (not point per game) so it takes into account injuries.

Maybe I’m not understanding what you’re saying here, but if you’re just using the total points, doesn’t that completely ignore the effects of injuries?

For instance, Crosby only scored 69 points last season, which according to the figures you’ve compiled, puts his performance on your scale as an “Average” first-line centre (last year). But because he missed almost half the season, his ppg totals would have been at the extreme high end of the list.

Misconceptions: (For Ubiquitous) Derek Roy is not a first line centre

I know right?

I think just looking at goals and points is very misleading. As was mentioned above, an amazing goalie completely changes everything, but what really decides if you have elite, average or crappy forwards is how they take care of the puck in their own end as well. I don’t care if you can score 200 points in a season, if you get scored on 250 times, it means nothing and you’re hurting the team, depsite some meaningless individual trophies you might win. I know it’s not quite as simple as this, but the object of hockey isn’t to score a bunch of goals, it’s to score more goals than the other team. That’s why Datsyuk and Mike Richards are “elite” centers despite “average” point production.

Basically, all I’m saying is people put far too much stock into point production and ignore the other parts of hockey, which are equally important.