2008-09 man games lost to injury
Woe is the Islanders.
We're a little more than halfway through the 2008-09 season, and already New York has lost an incredible 276 games to injury — this on a team without a lot of depth to begin with. There's no question in my mind this team will finish dead last this season, and it's really tough to blame anyone on the coaching staff (or the roster) for the fact this team is on pace for the first sub-50-point season since the Thrashers' expansion season nine years ago.
On the other side of things are the Rangers, who have only missed an incredible 10 games so far this year to injury. Over the course of 82 games, that works out to 17 missed.
It's probably the juice.
MGL is man games lost, /82 is that total prorated over 82 games and Rk is teams' rank in the NHL standings (points percentage) as of early Sunday evening:
| GP | MGL | /82 | Rk | ||
| 1 | New York Islanders | 45 | 276 | 503 | 30 |
| 2 | St. Louis Blues | 44 | 260 | 485 | 26 |
| 3 | Washington Capitals | 46 | 231 | 412 | 6 |
| 4 | Philadelphia Flyers | 45 | 223 | 406 | 9 |
| 5 | Pittsburgh Penguins | 47 | 185 | 323 | 18 |
| 6 | Florida Panthers | 44 | 169 | 315 | 12 |
| 7 | Dallas Stars | 43 | 163 | 311 | 19 |
| 8 | Columbus Blue Jackets | 44 | 147 | 274 | 20 |
| 9 | Vancouver Canucks | 46 | 146 | 260 | 17 |
| 10 | Edmonton Oilers | 44 | 140 | 261 | 15 |
| 11 | Minnesota Wild | 44 | 140 | 261 | 16 |
| 12 | Calgary Flames | 44 | 137 | 255 | 7 |
| 13 | Carolina Hurricanes | 46 | 137 | 244 | 21 |
| 14 | Colorado Avalanche | 45 | 137 | 250 | 22 |
| 15 | Tampa Bay Lightning | 45 | 130 | 237 | 28 |
| 16 | Anaheim Ducks | 47 | 123 | 215 | 14 |
| 17 | New Jersey Devils | 45 | 121 | 220 | 8 |
| 18 | San Jose Sharks | 44 | 119 | 222 | 1 |
| 19 | Boston Bruins | 45 | 117 | 213 | 2 |
| 20 | Buffalo Sabres | 45 | 117 | 213 | 11 |
| 21 | Montreal Canadiens | 44 | 112 | 209 | 4 |
| 22 | Nashville Predators | 45 | 108 | 197 | 23 |
| 23 | Toronto Maple Leafs | 45 | 100 | 182 | 25 |
| 24 | Atlanta Thrashers | 46 | 99 | 176 | 29 |
| 25 | Los Angeles Kings | 44 | 90 | 168 | 24 |
| 26 | Detroit Red Wings | 45 | 84 | 153 | 3 |
| 27 | Chicago Blackhawks | 43 | 83 | 158 | 5 |
| 28 | Ottawa Senators | 43 | 55 | 105 | 27 |
| 29 | Phoenix Coyotes | 46 | 34 | 61 | 13 |
| 30 | New York Rangers | 47 | 10 | 17 | 10 |
For comparison's sake, here are last year's numbers.
What this doesn't do is qualify how valuable those games missed are, which is still something I'm working on. The best way to do it, potentially, would be to figure out the number of minutes played missed, but that's something that will take considerable time given the injury sheets aren't standardized across the league.
Teams succeeding in spite of their injuries include the Capitals and Flyers, while the Isles, Blues, Penguins and Blue Jackets have been pretty beaten up this season and are struggling. Teams like Detroit, Chicago and the Rangers have likely benefited a little from good health.
0 recs |
18 comments
| Add comment
|
Comments
The Flyers numbers, I believe, count both entire seasons of “missing” Mike Rathje and Derian Hatcher—two pylons at this point in their careers even if they were healthy.
Sure the Caps have been really banged up and DiPietro has played 5 games, but I’d have to think the Penguins would rank higher if a “quality of loss” could be factored in. Other than Malkin and Staal literally every player has missed time, and with the serious injruies to their top 2 defensemen (Whitney, Gonchar) and the franchise goalie was out about 15 games that is devastating.
But every team has to deal with injuries, so credit the teams (like WSH, CGY, FLA) towards the top half of the league in games missed and points
by Hooks Orpik on Jan 18, 2009 10:24 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Hatcher’s counting, but not Rathje. I’m not 100 per cent sure why that is, but there you go.
by James Mirtle on Jan 18, 2009 10:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Rathje is no longer on the roster, maybe that’s why. If you look at the Flyers website, Hatcher still is. So his LTIR would count, I suppose, while Rathje’s does not.
by feelingkettle on Jan 19, 2009 12:00 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Capitals' Quality of Loss
From November through December, the Capitals had anywhere between 5 to 8 players injured at all times, including guys Mike Green, Alexander Semin, Tom Poti (who’s stil out), Sergei Fedorov, Jeff Schultz, Tomas Fleichmann, and both of their goalies (remember Bret Leonhardt?). They were playing without many of their lynchpin veterans and young core, including most of their defense and nearly all of their secondary scoring, for long stretches.
The Capitals were more than “really banged up”; because of how close they were to the cap, they were essentially playing an AHL roster (with Ovechkin) for a while, thowing in guys like Tyler Sloan, Sean Collins, Alexander Giroux, Bryan Helmer, and whatever prospect happened to be playing well at the time.
by Forsch31 on Jan 19, 2009 2:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Of Detroit’s, is that counting Chelios missing most of the first half? If so, he makes up about half of their games, and he’s essentially a 6/7 defenseman.
by IAmJoe on Jan 19, 2009 12:35 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Mirtle, maybe you ought to add salary in the equation. Loosing 3 goons for 30 games isn’t the same as losing your top 2 centers.
Another suggestion would be to add ‘projected points lost’.
by Tommelot on Jan 19, 2009 5:34 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
I think one of the teams that really jumps up the list with the “quality” mixed in will be Montreal. Unlike last year, almost every injury they’ve had has been to a key player: Komisarek, Higgins, Koivu, Tanguay, and Price have all missed notable time, along with Dandenault and Laraque.
Oddly enough, they’re about where they were last year, despite this. Imagine if their season series with the Bruins hadn’t done a complete 180 on them.
by Doogie2K on Jan 19, 2009 7:09 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
The only injury that has hurt Montreal so far was Komisarek… the team only had a .500 points percentage with him out. Nevermind the Boston H2H matchup, it’s that stretch of games that is the biggest difference between the two teams.
Hockey blogging can't get any flatter.
by saskhab on Jan 19, 2009 8:53 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
And that’s why this year’s team is better than last year’s: they have the depth to survive a deep run, and can replace many of their pieces in the short-term. It also means they can deal a couple of players for The Missing Piece if need be.
I mentioned the Bruins H2H specifically because of how it suddenly and almost completely turned on its ear, and because they’re 1-2 in the NE and almost certainly will be through the end of the year, but you’re right about Komisarek. I remember reading Robert L’s article about him around the time he came back showing the differences in the team. Sold me.
by Doogie2K on Jan 19, 2009 10:01 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
That H2H matchup better change quick… I’m going to my first ever Montreal home game on Feb. 1 when Boston is in town!
Hockey blogging can't get any flatter.
by saskhab on Jan 19, 2009 2:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
No matter how the game ends, you can be sure it’ll be one glorious experience! I do hope for you that the boys pull it off though… always better to see the win live.
by Habs on Jan 19, 2009 3:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
What I find most interesting when looking at these numbers is just how much the local media keeps mentionning how the Habs are ‘ravaged by injuries’, what a terrible situation, how half the roster is from Hamilton, etc.
Yet you look at this chart and we’re bottom third in the league in terms of MGL. Agreed most of the injuries are to key players (entire first line out…), but it’s just funny how the media (mostly RDS actually) makes it sound soooo much worse than it is.
by Habs on Jan 19, 2009 9:29 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The bggest mystery is why there is persistence at the extremes of this list from year to year:NYI, Panthers near the top, NYR, Phoenix, Atlanta near the bottom. Injuries should be the most random of statistics, shouldn’t they? But comparing this year with last year doesn’t look all that random.
Personally, I would just create hypothetical depth charts for each team and plug in the games lost: Gomez missed 5 games so the Rangers are -5 in the first line center slot, and so on. I realize that doing that way is subjective but it would give you an overall perspective and trying to quantify would be extremely complicated, biased toward offense (unless you used Behind the Net type stats which would be even more time-consuming), and would have to take into account occasional instances where the replacement player outperforms the injured player(Bobby Ryan for Selanne)
by Big Picture Guy on Jan 19, 2009 9:01 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
I worked on creating a “weighted injuries” number for each team last summer. I used Alan Ryder’s Point Allocation System and projected how many “estimated points” lost when say Mats Sundin went out of the lineup and was replaced by a depth player. I don’t have the numbers handy where I’m at now—but it made a big impact on the playoff race. Injuries to KEY players matter a great deal of course.
by The Falconer on Jan 19, 2009 1:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Look where Chicago was last season for MGL… now compare to this year. Definitely a factor.
And watch Boston’s numbers go up.
Don't be afraid to take a few steps back, but you better keep moving forward.
by wlittle on Jan 19, 2009 9:05 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
You hate to use injuries as an excuse...
but with all the young players, I thought the Blues were very marginal as a playoff contender going into the season…you take at least six of your 10 best players out of the lineup at one time (Johnson, Kariya, McDonald, Brewer, for awhile both Berglund and Oshie were out, as well as both goalies, and now Polak) and there is no way you can expect anything other than what has happened: last in a strong conference…obviously, what you hope for is building your organization depth so that if this happens again next season, you don’t get snowed under…the Blues are reaching a point, IMO, where they have to start making some progress on making the playoffs…people aren’t going to sit around waiting year after year.
by tbell61 on Jan 19, 2009 10:19 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Big Picture Guy : “Personally, I would just create hypothetical depth charts for each team and plug in the games lost: Gomez missed 5 games so the Rangers are -5 in the first line center slot, and so on. I realize that doing that way is subjective but it would give you an overall perspective and trying to quantify would be extremely complicated…”
I think that this is a daunting task… but if it was done, then the Isles would look even worse than they do without being weighted this way. A lot of the players that have been out people might shrug their shoulders and not think its a big deal- but for the Isles, those guys were needed more than they probably would have been needed on another team. The injuries the Islanders have endured in the last 13 months really have been unbelievable.
by TheMetalChick on Jan 20, 2009 12:48 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
That’s actually a brilliant way of doing it – I’ve thought about this from time to time, so I’m kind of sorry that hadn’t even occurred to me. Though of course it would entail a lot of accounting for each team.
But yeah, that’s the thing with the Isles: Like you said, their list of injured players would make many shrug, but their depth problem means those players represent their thin margin of error between stealing wins and losing 2-1 again. Not everybody would care if their team lost a Doug Weight or Trent Hunter, but on the Isles that’s the difference between keeping up some semblance of playoff hope for a while and … well, where they are now.
Lighthouse Hockey: an SB Nation New York Islanders blog with hip issues.
by Dominik on Jan 20, 2009 1:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

by 
















