I've been seeing that accusation thrown about a lot, but really how rare is it that half the goals come from the top line (defense included)?
SJS: GF 105 = 52 (topline*) + 53 Rest of team
I would do all the rest of the calculations myself, but I don't know well enough to claim teams "top lines" and don't have time at work (i'll look more when I get home).
I mean, to me it seems reasonable to "expect" about a PPG from the top line, and have the other three do at least as much damage (in total) as the top line, which is where we're currently at, more or less. Yet this makes us a one line team?
Or is this another, don't bring your statistics and logic into an HF argument?
I have yet to see anybody, even on the main board, which traditionally boasts an average poster IQ of about 14, claim the Sharks are a one line team. They're not.
I have seen someone say the Sharks depended on the powerplay too much. That one gave me a chuckle as the Sharks are second in the league in even-strength goals.
I have yet to see anybody, even on the main board, which traditionally boasts an average poster IQ of about 14, claim the Sharks are a one line team. They're not.
I have seen someone say the Sharks depended on the powerplay too much. That one gave me a chuckle as the Sharks are second in the league in even-strength goals.
I guess it's not that they say we are one line, but I kept seeing people saying we have no depth.
I've been seeing that accusation thrown about a lot, but really how rare is it that half the goals come from the top line (defense included)?
SJS: GF 105 = 52 (topline*) + 53 Rest of team
I would do all the rest of the calculations myself, but I don't know well enough to claim teams "top lines" and don't have time at work (i'll look more when I get home)
Not sure if these statistics really speak to the dominance of a top line or more to the dominance of three players...
Sure, you can just add up all of the stats of the guys who currently play on the 1st line (Thornton, Marleau, Heatley), but not all of Marleau's 19 goals came when he was playing with Thornton and Heatley, and I'm not sure that PP goals (of which Heatley has mucho) should be considered "top line" stats since many of them may have come while other forwards were on the ice. PP is also more of a specialized situation and probably should be treated as such. Also, do Boyle and Murray only play defense for Thornton/Heatley/Marleau? Probably not.
I like your big picture thinking though. We don't want one line dominance in the playoffs. Does anyone know if there is a hockey site that breaks down stats by line? That would really bring out my inner geek.
Not sure if these statistics really speak to the dominance of a top line or more to the dominance of three players...
Sure, you can just add up all of the stats of the guys who currently play on the 1st line (Thornton, Marleau, Heatley), but not all of Marleau's 19 goals came when he was playing with Thornton and Heatley, and I'm not sure that PP goals (of which Heatley has mucho) should be considered "top line" stats since many of them may have come while other forwards were on the ice. PP is also more of a specialized situation and probably should be treated as such. Also, do Boyle and Murray only play defense for Thornton/Heatley/Marleau? Probably not.
I like your big picture thinking though. We don't want one line dominance in the playoffs. Does anyone know if there is a hockey site that breaks down stats by line? That would really bring out my inner geek.
You're absolutely right on the Marleau part. And that was sort of where the "no depth" statement started bugging me. It came out after we moved marleau up to the first line. And people just ignored that, nevermind that he was replacing someone who was already on the top line, not the normal person there....
As for the Boyle-Murray part, I just took them as our "top D pairing" as opposed to any focus on them usually being with The burger line.
It;s possible for a team to be one-line even if the top line only scores 20 precent of the goals over a season.
If all the important 'key goals' are scored by the top line...
If there are zero momentum-changing, impact plays being made from the second line..
etc etc
Hockey is more than just stats and numbers.
I think not being a one-line team depends on having a couple of guys who can really carry the team... and have them playing on separate lines. It's not good enough to 'think' you have guys who have this capability.. u actua;lly have to test the theory by having them play continuosuly on separate lines.
SJ's non first-line players who can score lots of points ... are not the type to carry the team. Seto, Pavs, Clowe.. are not at that level.
SJ's non first-line players who can score lots of points ... are not the type to carry the team. Seto, Pavs, Clowe.. are not at that level.
Seto was a first line player until he got hurt. I definitely expect him to jump back up there eventually, and push marleau down to balance things a bit more.
As far as "key goals"
Top line (as I cited in the first post)
9 GWG (4-heater, 3-patty, 1-Thornton, 1-Boyle)
10 By non-first line players
so were at a similar ratio there.
I understand that Hockey is more than stats and numbers, but if you ignore the stats and numbers, you can't make any sort of objective comparison.
The Sharks are considered a one line team because they've put out Marleau-Thornton-Heatley. So because of that, they equate that line to the Heatley-Spezza-Alfredsson line on a team where they actually were a one-line team and assume the same is true.
This is just plain ignorance of what else is on the Sharks roster. You're assuming they are actually doing some research. They aren't.
I have yet to see anybody, even on the main board, which traditionally boasts an average poster IQ of about 14, claim the Sharks are a one line team. They're not.
I have seen someone say the Sharks depended on the powerplay too much. That one gave me a chuckle as the Sharks are second in the league in even-strength goals.
The Sharks are considered a one line team because they've put out Marleau-Thornton-Heatley. So because of that, they equate that line to the Heatley-Spezza-Alfredsson line on a team where they actually were a one-line team and assume the same is true.
This is just plain ignorance of what else is on the Sharks roster. You're assuming they are actually doing some research. They aren't.
Well, to be fair that comparison is not thta far off. In Ottawa after their 'CASH' line, there was a steep dropoff in talent.. their next best player probably Fisher.
Is that not the case here also? Is Seto or Clowe anywhere close to the top three?
If not, then u have the same thing: steep drop-off talent wise.
Well, to be fair that comparison is not thta far off. In Ottawa after their 'CASH' line, there was a steep dropoff in talent.. their next best player probably Fisher.
Is that not the case here also? Is Seto or Clowe anywhere close to the top three?
If not, then u have the same thing: steep drop-off talent wise.
Not in my eyes. The only offensively talented player past the Sens' big three has been Vermette. I wouldn't consider Fisher, Kelly, Schaefer, and Foligno 2nd liners really. The best individual point total from that group of forwards is 53 by Vermette. Setoguchi had 65 points last year. Pavelski had 59. Clowe had 52.
They're very much 2nd line caliber players whereas a lot of the people Ottawa was running with while Heatley was there weren't, imo.
