Bottom six scoring: the Flames vs. themselves and the rest

[ed. You may recognize Christian Tiberi, or “ctibs”, from M&G – please welcome him to FlamesNation!]

In the 11 years since the dreadful 2004-05 lockout, NHL hockey has changed dramatically. Thanks to cap-consciousness, the rise of analytics, declining scoring, or what have you, “checking” and “energy” lines have nearly disappeared from the game. There are no longer two tiers of players on forward corps; every forward must be able to drive play and score. If teams want to stay behind the times and check, let them. They’re only allowing you offensive zone time.

The ability to roll four effective lines night-in, night-out is an absolute game changer. Teams shouldn’t just own the game when their top six is on and sit back when they’re off, they should try to own it at all times. A good bottom six won’t save an overall bad team, but they’ll boost a good team immensely.

To an extent, this sounds like the 2014-15 Flames. With regards to the bottom six, a few players stepped up and helped carry a formidable top six into a surprise playoff appearance.

So how did that carry over into 2015-16? Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh…

The 2014-15 Bottom Six

Let’s start off by taking a look at last year’s bottom six before we dive into this year’s. This is going to be a relatively simple deal. We’re going to look at goals, assists, points, points/60, and average points/60 for this analysis. Data is sorted from least time on ice per game to most.

Notes for all data in this article:

  • All stats are 5v5, regular season only.
  • Bottom six is a fluid term. Considering that no one is ever
    permanently attached to one particular line and that coaches have
    different ideas about distributing ice time, I tried to use best judgement
    when determining which players are bottom six and which aren’t.
    Generally, players who played less than 12:30 per game at EV were used
    in a bottom six role for the majority of the season.
  • Players with fewer than 10 GP were not used in average p/60 calculations.
  • The full data I used is here for your perusing.

      Team Player GP G A P TOI/GM P/60
      CGY Corban Knight 2 0 0 0 6.43 0
      CGY Brian McGrattan 8 0 0 0 6.5 0
      CGY Max Reinhart 4 0 0 0 7.89 0
      CGY Emile Poirier 6 0 1 1 8.15 1.23
      CGY Brandon Bollig 62 1 4 5 8.4 0.58
      CGY David Wolf 3 0 0 0 8.48 0
      CGY Sven Baertschi 15 0 4 4 9.1 1.76
      CGY Drew Shore 11 1 2 3 10.31 1.42
      CGY Micheal Ferland 26 2 2 4 10.31 0.89
      CGY Matt Stajan 59 7 9 16 10.53 1.55
      CGY Devin Setoguchi 12 0 0 0 10.68 0
      CGY Markus Granlund 58 7 9 16 11.56 1.73
      CGY Lance Bouma 78 15 15 30 11.85 1.95
      CGY Paul Byron 57 5 10 15 11.94 1.32
      CGY Mason Raymond 57 12 10 22 12.18 1.9
      CGY Josh Jooris 60 6 10 16 12.21 1.31
      TOTAL 56 76 132 1.31

    The Flames’ bottom six found success in 2014-15 because of some surprising performances: namely Josh Jooris, Lance Bouma and Markus Granlund. Not a lot of people expected them to be impact players over the course of the season, and their presence in the lineup was a boost to the overall performance of the bottom six. I was hesitant to include Bouma in this list, as most of his points where from his stint as Top Six Forward Lance Bouma, but he still scored a fair amount (14) without Mikael Backlund on the ice.

    As for the rest on this list, many of these guys played at around the same level you’d expect them to. Mason Raymond and Matt Stajan had slightly below average seasons, while Paul Byron had a slightly above average season. Brandon Bollig was still Brandon Bollig.

    The 2015-16 Bottom Six

    Prepare yourself:

    Team Player GP G A P TOI/GM P/60
    CGY Brandon Bollig 54 2 2 4 9.11 0.49
    CGY Derek Grant 15 0 0 0 9.63 0
    CGY Lance Bouma 44 1 3 4 10.14 0.54
    CGY Josh Jooris 59 4 7 11 10.51 1.06
    CGY Mason Raymond 29 4 1 5 10.95 0.94
    CGY Matt Stajan 80 4 10 14 10.97 0.96
    CGY Garnet Hathaway 14 0 2 2 11.07 0.77
    CGY Drew Shore 2 0 1 1 11.33 2.65
    CGY Markus Granlund 31 3 2 5 11.34 0.85
    CGY Micheal Ferland 71 3 13 16 11.45 1.18
    CGY Kenny Agostino 2 0 0 0 11.78 0
    CGY Turner Elson 1 1 0 1 11.96 5.02
    CGY David Jones 59 8 6 14 12.32 1.16
    CGY Freddie Hamilton 4 0 1 1 12.4 1.21
    TOTAL 30 48 78 0.8

    Yikes. The previous years’ Flames had almost as many assists as this sorry bunch had points. What happened?

    • Well there’s a huge drop across the board in pretty much every category. As much as we love to blame Raymond for falling off the face of the Earth this season, plenty of other players did, too. This was probably PDO-based, seeing as four members of this list (Bouma 16.13%, Stajan 15.56%, Granlund 12.28%, Raymond 12%) were in the top five with regards to personal SH% in 2014-15. This year, all of those numbers fell into the single digits.
    • Though we can’t all pin this on bad puck luck. There was also a massive decline in some players’ performances. Bouma received substantially easier zone starts in 2015-16 (-14.2 OZSrel% to -1.9%) but didn’t improve much in terms of possession (-4.1 CFrel% to -3.3%). Stajan was given similar responsibilities as in the previous season (-14.7% to -16.9%) but fell dramatically in corsi (-0.4% to -5.4). Granlund and Raymond were still both huge possession anchors despite sheltered zone starts. At the very least, there needed to be stagnancy in the bottom six. They got worse. 
    • Not helping the cause was the absence of Byron. He is a very capable player for a bottom six role, certainly more so in the game’s current form than Bollig. He scored three times as much as him in 5v5 points and doubled him in P/60 in 2014-15. He’s also useful on the penalty kill, which Bollig is not. All things considered, needlessly letting Byron go (for free!) was a huge mistake. I’m not going to say that keeping him would be a season-saving move, but it would certainly improve the Flames’ chances.
    • However, let’s not continue to dwell on the negatives and give the kids some credit. Micheal Ferland got way better in terms of possession (0.5% to 1.4%), despite worse zone starts (-4.3% to -6.8%). Jooris had the same deal, but to an extreme extent. He dropped a bit in corsi rel (1.3 to -1.0), but considering his zone starts (6.4% to -8.3%), perhaps we should go a little bit easy on him. You can’t succeed if you were never put in a position to.

    The 2015-16 NHL

    I’ve summarized all the data in the table above for you in this handy chart. It’s basically average p/60 vs. bottom six scoring. Upper right is good, lower left is bad.

    bottom six stuff

    The Flames unfortunately stand out in that bottom left, dangerously close to the Edmonton Oilers. They were tied for 28th in goals, finished 26th in points, and had the second worst average p/60. None of that is good.

    This chart isn’t here just to rub it in even further (it is here to do that, but that’s not the only reason). Instead, it gives the Flames a list of teams to emulate (read: steal from) in order to improve for next season.

    For example, let’s look at a player like Colton Sceviour from the Stars, a righty who scored more EV points than any other member of the Flames’ bottom six with Jooris-level ice time (and worse zone starts). He’s 26 years old, and a UFA who hasn’t made over $700K in his career. He’ll come cheap, and he could make an immediate impact.

    What about Jonathan Drouin? In limited appearances, he has nearly hit 2.00 p/60. If you think the price might be too steep, you could look to teammate J.T. Brown, another righty RFA who is quietly putting up numbers. There are tons of effective bottom sixers who can come cheaply (go through the Google doc to find your own favourite!), but that begs the question…

    What’s up for 2016-17?

    What this (I hope) has proven is just how impactful a good bottom six is. This season, the Flames’ bottom six scored 19.7% of goals at 5v5. That was third worst in the league, ahead of Florida and Arizona and far behind the average of 29.9%. For perspective, that number was 36.8% in 2014-15. You can’t simply fly by on a
    pretty good top six and hope for the best from your bottom six. That’s
    not how modern hockey works. While not the most major problem for the Flames this year, it is certainly still a big reason for their failure this year.

    The Flames need to boost that bottom six scoring back up, but here’s the complex part: that isn’t going to be easy to fix. There’s a lot of dead weight back there, and that’s going to take some effort to clean out. Regardless of whether the Flames want to look internally or externally for a solution, they’re going to have to ship folks out. The offseason is interesting enough already, and it hasn’t even begun yet. It’s about to get more interesting.

      • Baalzamon

        they can correct the mistake by not repeating it in the future. Re-sign Jooris, keep Ferland. Don’t be fooled by artificially low shooting percentages (there is no way Ferland is actually a 3% shooter), and recognize players who contribute more than numbers (and don’t confuse actual contributions with imagined ones).

    • StarIV

      I completely agree with this article. A lot of bottom 6 players took a step back. However, I think most of the top 6 took a step forward. Johnny, Backlund, Monahan and Colborne all hit career highs in points. Frolik was a solid addition and Bennett had a rookie campaign similar to Monahan. We did lose Hudler, but that opens up a top 6 winger position, hopefully for another young player.

      The Flames could use one or two top 6 forwards, and what better place than the draft? I really hope that once we get our top 6 sorted out and the bad contracts off the books, that we will have some good internal options, like the Poiriers, the Klimchucks and the Arnolds and make some good, value signings in players that drive play and put up some points.

    • Bean-counting cowboy

      Real nice read. Welcome CTibs! Quality stuff that certainly wouldn’t have been easy to research and organize. Well done sir.

      I think Raymond is the only “for sure” buyout for this coming year, but even with the extra term on Stajan’s deal, I wonder if he isn’t bought out this year also.

    • knappsacked

      I think we can make our bottom six very stro ng by improving our top 6. It would be ideal for backlund and frolik to be our third line. Those two alone make up the best third line in the leauge and gives a mighty boost to our bottom six. The issue is who will be our top six fixtures.i see mangiapane as a fit for second line lw, but thats if he pans out(plz eat some bread and be awesome enough), i also see whoever our first rou d oick this year is as a lock for the top 6. And then shinkaruk/poirier arr gonna have to make a push. I suppose kenny agostino has potential. In conclusion, our best bet to improve our depth is to start from the top and push the effective frolik and backlund bromance to the third line where they can dominate like good little soulmates.

      • freethe flames

        I agree with your premise, the bottom six get stronger if guys like Colborne are playing the appropriate role. The problem is that we currently only have 3 clear top 6 forwards; those being: Johnny, Monny and Bennett. No one else has demonstrated that they fit the bill. There will be guys who may push for these other three jobs: whoever we draft this year, Ferland(???), Mangiapane, Shinkaruk, Poirier(????), and Pribyl (6’3″ 216 RW).

    • cberg

      So what you’re really saying is the 2014-15 Flames would be Top4 in the whole NHL but this past year they are Bottom2. Ok, so there is great natural variability. Now, WHY is that? Obviously not only because of certain players, as there is high variability with the same players.

      Secondly, your failure to include all the players you listed in averages (nobody under 10 games played) I’m not sure is a reasonable plan, this whole analysis is the definition of small sample size.

      Finally, the definition of Bottom 6 is also suspect. This past year, either the Backlund line was the third line, or the Bennett line was third line, but you fail to include either. I realize nothing was consistent all year but I’m thinking the results might be significantly different with a different mix of players.

      All those things said, the analysis is something to think about. Another piece of the puzzle to show how some minor changes or performances can make a huge difference overall in results…

      • OKG

        The Bennett line only played a quarter of the season. Calling them the third line, when really Granlund spent more time as 3C, is probably ingenious.

        That said it should be taken into consideration for next season that

        – Matt Stajan will potentially find himself on the wing of the third line if he’s struggling at 4C. There are options available in the system to be 4C, it’s a better use of his skill to have him be a veteran leader on a younger line.

        – Brandon Bollig won’t get spoon-fed minutes in order to maintain “emergency recall” ability.

        – Micheal Ferland’s percentages will increase as will Lance Boumas. Both had seasons that were poor for their ability level, and injuries may habve contributed.

        – Guys like Shore, Hamilton, Shinkaruk, Elson, Grant, and Hathaway will be more legitimatley vying for roster spots in camp. Potentially Poirier and Klimchuk too after strong summers. Our entire AHL team is probably the most deep in legitimate NHL calibre players I’ve ever seen it. I’m not saying there’s much top 6 potential there but bottom 6? Absolutely.

        – Add a cheap depth veteran via UFA

        Our lines could look something like:






        Stajan back on the top 9 could also do a wonder on increasing his trade value.

        Most importantly if 20 Year Old Sam Bennett is your 3C you are probably not worried about production out of your third line as he will probably be able carry his line individually, although Ferland has also shown the skill to play with him.

        #1 Priority has to be getting rid the **** of Brandon Bollig.