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.

Monday, October 19, 2009

Power-play effectiveness

The Red Wings' goals for per 60 minutes of ice time ...

Cleary, 16.3
Bertuzzi, 11.5
Zetterberg, 11.0
Filppula, 10.8
TEAM, 10.0
Franzen, 10.0
Holmstrom, 6.6
Datsyuk, 6.1
Leino, 5.3

Stuart, 17.0
Williams, 14.1
Kronwall, 14.1
TEAM, 10.0
Lidstrom, 7.5
Rafalski, 6.0

Nine power-play goals as a team and Cleary's been on the ice for seven of those. Keep throwing Dan over the boards, please. I was wrong about Leino, so far. I thought he would be a better power-play option than Bertuzzi, but big Bert has been more effective so far.
You can toss out Stuart's number because it's one goal for in just 3:32 of ice time. Williams' effectiveness is interesting. Samuelsson was very effective the past two seasons as well. I'm not a big believer in forwards on the power-play point, but I'm changing my mind on that one. The number of short-handed goals allowed is usually so small that the drawback of having a forward defending doesn't become much of a negative. And Kronwall gets a big share of the credit for Williams' effectiveness so far. The pair has worked well together on the PP.


Anonymous Ryan said...

Even over a full season, there's a ton of randomness in these numbers. I'm very skeptical of Cleary on the PP, because he was just such a disaster last season. Even so far this year, despite being on the ice for seven PP goals, he only two PP points (a first and a second assist). By way of comparison, in about half the ice time, Leino was only on for one PP goal--but he's the guy who scored it. Kronwall and Williams have been the stars so far on the PP, and Cleary's just the guy who was lucky enough to be on the ice when they made the magic happen.

To my eye so far, Williams has been a big improvement over Samuelsson. His shot similar, but Williams seems to have a better understanding of the position. He looks more comfortable moving around.

October 19, 2009 at 2:44 PM 
Blogger Bruce MacLeod said...

Hey Ryan. Understood about the randomness. But as the data sample grows, can you really argue that?

At the end of a full season, if one player is on the ice for more goals ... clearly more goals than another player, then there's something to it. Player A might look better, but if the goals don't happen with him on the ice, who cares.

And I agree about some players being lucky and just on the ice, but that evens out over time.

But I'll throw out the Homer argument on this one. I've watched this guy too long and seen him retrieve a loose puck, send a nice pass, then set the world's greatest screen and get no assist. Some schmuck who the puck bounces off his skate blade gets an assist.

Just because you're not getting an assist, doesn't mean you don't have something to do with a goal being scored. Cleary does a ton of things that don't show as assists. He's bringing value.

I agree totally about Kronwall and Williams. I disagree about Williams. I liked him ... but not for the money that the Canucks spent on him.

October 19, 2009 at 3:01 PM 
Anonymous Djoos said...

On the PP, Cleary is like an offensive rebounder. The Wings take a ton of shots from the point on the PP, and Cleary is good at seeing that they stay in the zone when they don't find the net.

October 20, 2009 at 3:08 PM 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home