A Final Four stats compendium
| Chicago | Detroit | Carolina | Pittsburgh | |
| GP | 12 | 11 | 14 | 13 |
| Win% | 0.667 | 0.727 | 0.571 | 0.615 |
| GF/G | 3.67 | 3.64 | 2.36 | 3.46 |
| GA/G | 2.92 | 2.18 | 2.29 | 2.92 |
| Gdif | 0.75 | 1.46 | 0.07 | 0.54 |
| PP% | 29.4% | 26.4% | 10.4% | 19.7% |
| PK% | 79.6% | 72.5% | 90.7% | 81.6% |
| PIM/G | 15.9 | 10.4 | 12.2 | 10.5 |
| Shots/G | 29.2 | 40.2 | 32.3 | 35.1 |
| ShotsA/G | 26.6 | 27.5 | 31.5 | 28.8 |
| Shotdif | 2.6 | 12.7 | 0.8 | 6.3 |
| SV% | 0.890 | 0.921 | 0.927 | 0.898 |
| Faceoffs | 49.4% | 53.6% | 48.5% | 49.9% |
| Hits/G | 29.3 | 33.2 | 29.4 | 26.3 |
| BkS/G | 11.8 | 11.2 | 12.6 | 17.2 |
| Top scorer | Havlat (13) | Franzen (15) | Staal (13) | Crosby (21) |
| Stanley Cups | 3 | 11 | 1 | 2 |
Picking through the stats, the Red Wings are the class of the postseason to this point. A four-game sweep of Columbus in the first round obviously helps, but Detroit leads in a whole whack of categories: goal differential, shot differential, taking few penalties, faceoffs, hits and, obviously, Stanley Cup wins.
The Red Wings have now made the final four eight times in the past 14 years. The Penguins were here last year, while Carolina's made the conference finals three times in the past seven years (an impressive feat in the 30-team era). Only Chicago's a real newcomer, as the Blackhawks haven't made it to Round 3 since 1995 (when they faced the Red Wings).
And, if you want to hear something really depressing (unless you're a Wings fan), Detroit's now made the final four 28 times. The other three teams have been this far a combined 26 times.
UPDATE My "final four" numbers are actually the number of times teams have either made the third round, the finals or won the Cup. They don't include seasons when every team that made the playoffs was a "final four" team unless those clubs made the finals.
According to a commenter in this thread (thanks Doogie), Detroit has 40 final fours if you include all their Original Six seasons, while the Blackhawks have 30.
1 recs |
27 comments
| Add comment
|
Comments
That PK is absolutely terrible, though. And the number is inflated because they played the 30th ranked Columbus PP for the first 4 games.
Detroit-Chicago will be a huge series coaching wise. Chicago’s been VERY successful when they get the Bolland line out there, as well as the Keith-Seabrook pairing. They have come out on top vs. both the Iginla line and the Sedin line. Where Chicago has been exposed is against the Kane and Toews lines, the more offensively talented lines. Detroit’s depth, who were largely absent from the Anaheim series, has to take advantage.
Lidstrom must also do a better job against Chicago’s stars than he did against Getzlaf and Perry. Detroit dominated against Anaheim’s 2nd-4th lines, but struggled to contain their big line. I doubt they’ll dominate the Hawks’ 2-4 lines like they did the Ducks.
Khabibulin needs to step up. He definitely is capable of that.
Hockey blogging can't get any flatter.
by saskhab on May 15, 2009 12:49 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
The weirdest part of the final 4 is that with Detroit making the conference finals, Ty Conklin has reached the conference finals every year since the lockout without starting a single playoff game.
How about a story on that?
by JasonE on May 15, 2009 1:04 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
Ty Conklin has impeccable timing. :)
"A vacuum is a hell of a lot better than some of the stuff that nature replaces it with." -- Tennessee Williams
by Baroque on May 15, 2009 1:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That’s kind of like Martin Gerber making the cup finals with Anaheim, Carolina, and Ottawa. He was a rabbit’s foot in pads.
http://www.battleofcali.com/
by Earl Sleek on May 15, 2009 1:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
No kidding….he’s somehow managed to play in every outdoor game too.
It’s not the fact that he’s getting to these places that’s the most amazing, it’s that he’s doing it with different teams each time…
by JasonE on May 15, 2009 1:33 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
wings depth carried them
Detroit’s depth, who were largely absent from the Anaheim series, has to take advantage.
Um, you are aware that Datsyuk and Hossa combined for 2 goals over 7 games, and over the course of the series, the Wings got goals from Samuelsson (2), Helm(2), Hudler (2), and Cleary. If it wasnt for the Wings depth, they’d be on the first tee this morning.
by john ogrodnick on May 15, 2009 1:37 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
Yeah, I was going to mention that.
The main thing in these statistics that does concern me is the Red Wings penalty kill. Each time they take a penalty I spend the next two minutes fighting an aneurysm.
by hallock on May 15, 2009 1:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Although their penalty killing last night was glorious. They did give up one PPG (on the worst penalty call of the night), but they killed off two long 5-on-3 situations in remarkable fashion.
by jameshstephenson on May 15, 2009 3:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The “depth” that was the problem actually included Datsyuk and Hossa. Zetterberg and Franzen certainly weren’t the issue. And until Game 7, those 4 players you listed only had 3 goals between them. It won’t get to 7 games against Chicago if they don’t produce in the first 6 like they didn’t vs. Anaheim. And what’s Holmstrom been doing?
Detroit’s depth awoke just in the nick of time for them, scoring 4 times in Game 7. They got lucky in that regard. If they had gone silent for one more game, yes, they’d be booking tee times. But that doesn’t excuse their absence in Games 1-6.
Hockey blogging can't get any flatter.
by saskhab on May 15, 2009 1:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
And, if you want to hear something really depressing (unless you’re a Wings fan), Detroit’s now made the final four 28 times. The other three teams have been this far a combined 26 times.
Well, let’s contextualize this a little. Original Six teams made the final four simply by making the playoffs, and Detroit made the playoffs quite a bit during that period. Chicago was bad during the O6 era, and Pittsburgh and Hartford/Carolina are of a more recent vintage. If you just look at the four-round era (1975-present), it’s actually ten for Detroit, eight for Chicago, six for Pittsburgh, and three for Carolina.
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there)
by Doogie2K on May 15, 2009 2:05 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
Thanks Doogie … you obviously were up for more legwork than I was!
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on May 15, 2009 2:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You’re welcome.
Incidentally, I count forty total Final Fours for Detroit and thirty for the Hawks (someone can check me at Wikipedia, I’m sure). While it ultimately comes out the same, i.e. that the Wings have been to the final four more times than the other three combined if you take the entire League’s history, I’m curious where your numbers come from.
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there)
by Doogie2K on May 15, 2009 2:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was just looking at when the team had made Round 3, the finals or won the Cup. Which I’m now guessing isn’t the same as final four.
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on May 15, 2009 2:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not as such, no. The NHL’s long history and variations in playoff format and team pool make it really difficult to make comparisons unless you set a cutoff at some specific rule change. Heck, I was gonna chart each team’s third-round history as part of my site’s prediction article until I decided those same vagaries made it not worth the effort. (Hence, why I had those numbers handy.)
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there)
by Doogie2K on May 15, 2009 3:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
How about the Wings leading in hits per game? I don’t put much (any) weight into that stat, but it’s still an odd one. Their regular season hits/game, by the way, was barely over 18.
And how about those crazy save percentages?
You’re better off with the regular season stuff if you want to make predictions, but these stats are always fun.
by RyanV on May 15, 2009 2:37 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
And how about those crazy save percentages?
Yeah. The Wings may need to figure out how to contain a top line, but, if Khabibulin can’t improve on that save percentage, Detroit’s depth will show up.
by J. Michael Neal on May 15, 2009 4:53 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Khabibulin’s a huge key, there’s no doubt. He wasn’t very good against Vancouver.
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on May 15, 2009 7:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Where’s the worry? They still have Huet to fall back on!
by Habs on May 15, 2009 8:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You say that like it’s a joke. He has a career average .917 save percentage and .918 in the playoffs. That’s better than every other goalie left in the playoffs. In fact, it’s fourth best of all the goalies that made the playoffs. And two of the guys ahead of him have played less than 70 games (Varlamov and Hiller).
I’d feel pretty darn good about my goaltending situation with Huet as the backup, no matter who the starter is.
by RyanV on May 15, 2009 11:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fifth best of all playoff goalies, sorry. I missed Thomas (.918).
by RyanV on May 15, 2009 11:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
First off all I look at him as a goalie that has never won a playoff series in his career, so his .918 save percentage doesn’t say much. Every other goalie that’s there has won at least a series, so to me they’re all that more proven.
After having watched Huet in Montreal for a couple seasons, I can say I wouldn’t feel good at all about my goaltending situation if he was the backup.
by Habs on May 16, 2009 9:46 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think that’s your probelm right there – Montreal has been a bad team for a while. Huet’s “proven” that he can stop 91.7% of the shots he faces. That’s been pretty consistent from regular season to playoffs.
Why does it really matter that he’s never won a series before? The teams in front of him provide him with neither enough goal support nor with sufficient limitation of shots against to win.
by R O on May 17, 2009 12:08 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
His save percetage was the same when he was in Montreal. In fact, he led the league in save percentage before the ASG the year he was selected for it.
The problem is not the fact that he can stop 91,7% of the shots coming to him. It’s the atrocious bad timing of the 8,3% of the shots that will go in. Momentum sapping, end of period softies. That’s the thing with Huet, giving softies at the wrong possible moment.
That has nothing to do with Montreal having a good or bad team. And by the way, does finishing first in your conference qualify as having a bad team?
by Habs on May 17, 2009 12:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Given that this particular subthread started with my comment about the Wings, I feel justified in bringing it back to them. This is one of the things that has impressed me about the Wings during the beginning part of this period of dominance, as well as where they are right now. They really don’t seem to worry about when Osgood gives up goals. They don’t really seem to care if he gives up really soft goals (remember Vancouver scoring from the red line?) or makes completely boneheaded plays, like his turnover that led to Chicago’s first goal today. They really just don’t seem to care. They play as if they are confident that Osgood won’t give up more goals than they are capable of scoring themselves, and don’t let the goofy ones shake that confidence.
In turn, Osgood mostly lives up to that expectation. Despite giving up some really strange goals, at the end of most games, he’s stopped enough pucks for the team to win. It might be a strange road, but it gets to where they want to be. The usual psychological games between a goaltender and his team seem non-operative in this case, and it makes Osgood a good fit. Everyone seems to like him (unlike Legace), so it all works out.
There was a stretch right around the turn of the millennium where Detroit seemed to lose this confidence, and the strange goals did get to them. At that point, Osgood got shipped out. He wasn’t a good fit at that time. In a rare instance, I actually blame Holland to some extent. Had no one ever made an issue of trying to get an elite goaltender, I think they may have been able to keep cruising they way they were. Maybe not; maybe he had a sense that they had lost that edge. I don’t know.
Regardless, I’m glad Ozzie is back in Detroit. Despite giving up those goofy goals, I really like him. Hell, I probably like in part because of those goofy goals, given that I’m also confident that, at the end of the day, he’ll be good enough.
by J. Michael Neal on May 17, 2009 6:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That makes sense – even though not being able to watch a lot of Wings games myself, it’s hard for me to evaluate the accuracy of what you say in terms of the players’ reaction to the soft goals. However, it does make sense.
The thing is, I strongly doubt Chicago as a team, has the ‘fortitude’ (if I can use that word) to deal with softies at the wrong moment. Maybe they do, but the Wings as a team are a pretty exceptional bunch of players – in how they play and how they deal with adversity. Not sure many teams could play that confidently in all situations.
Thus from a Chicago perspective, having Huet in net would make me uneasy…
by Habs on May 17, 2009 7:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
And by the way, does finishing first in your conference qualify as having a bad team?
When finishing first is achieved by getting lucky (9.25 SH% at ES, 16.5% on 5-on-4) rather than good fundamentals (getting outshot by 4 shots per game at ES on average, everyone in the red on Corsi), then yeah, the team is bad. That revealed itself this year in an 8th place finish.
by R O on May 18, 2009 3:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

by 

















