Blogs > Red Wings Corner

Up-to-the minute updates and insights from the Red Wings locker room at home and on the road. By Chuck Pleiness of The Macomb Daily.

Thursday, April 30, 2009

On the plus side

Small statistical note ... This was the 17th consecutive season that the Red Wings have been on the plus side for both even-strength goal differential and special-teams goal differential.

This regular season, the Red Wings were a plus-28 at even strength and a plus-22 on special teams. That was managed despite giving up 2.01 even-strength goals per game - the highest average allowed by the Red Wings since 1993-94.

The 1990-91 season was the last time that the Red Wings were a minus at either even strength or on special teams, finishing minus-5 in the former and minus-20 in the latter.

The current streak began in an odd manner with the Red Wings giving up six more power-play goals than they scored in 1991-92. But add in the team's 18 short-handed goals and the Red Wings were a plus-5 on special teams.

The special teams streak survived a four-season run (2002-03 through 2006-07) during which the Red Wings had fewer power-play opportunities than their opponents. That included a low point in 2002-03 of having 58 fewer power plays. But excelling with both the man-advantage and short-handed that season, the Red Wings still scored 28 more special-teams goals than they allowed (in those 58 fewer opportunities).

2 Comments:

Anonymous Ryan said...

Wow, that's an insane streak.

It's interesting when you compare the rosters between the 89-90, 90-91, and 91-92 seasons. Here are the most notable players from each year.

88-89: Yzerman
89-90: Yzerman, Fedorov
90-91: Yzerman, Fedorov, Konstantinov, Lidstrom

It is, in some part, just a coincidence the Wings' streak of dominance exactly coincides with Lidstrom's career as a Red Wing. But then again, even in his first season, a 21 year old Lidstrom had 5 power play goals and was a +36, second among Wing defencemen in both categories (to Chiasson and McCrimmon, resp.). So it obviously isn't totally a coincidence.

April 30, 2009 at 7:51 PM 
Blogger Bruce MacLeod said...

I like the analysis a lot Ryan. Lidstrom is key as is the development of Fedorov and Konstantinov.

April 30, 2009 at 7:57 PM 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home