FanPost

Relative Deployment Z-Score

Hockey players have roles. Some players are asked to score, some are asked to be physical, some are asked to shut down top competition. With that said, how do you go about comparing players between roles? It’s easy to look at point totals and say “Player A is better than Player B because he has more points,” but that doesn’t mean it’s correct. What if Player A is getting more playing time? What if player A is facing weak competition and aided by strong teammates? What if Player B is facing top competition with weak teammates? Advanced stats like CorsiRel QoC and QoT along with Offensive Zone Start % paint the picture of how the player is being used---but that still doesn’t solve the problem of how to compare players in different situations. I am attempting to solve this problem by creating a stat called RDZ: Relative Deployment Z-Score. It’s simple in theory: How does a player fare against other players who were deployed in similar situations.

To start I’ve compiled data for the past five years (06-07 to 10-11) for every forward who played at least 40 games in a season (If a player played 40 games or more in each of the five years, there will be five different results---one for each season). The total sample size is 1,514 players broken down like so:

Comp Team Players
1 1 83
1 2 100
1 3 94
1 4 87
2 1 103
2 2 116
2 3 101
2 4 59
3 1 114
3 2 122
3 3 109
3 4 81
4 1 58
4 2 35
4 3 93
4 4 159

In order for this to be broken down I copied and pasted every team (individually, 30 teams per season, 5 seasons, 150 teams) and figured out the Comp/Team stats for each player for ever year (Yes, this took a while and the spreadsheets contain tons of data). Once I had it broken down I then separated it into 16 different spreadsheets, one for each deployment situation (1v1, 1v2, 1v3, 1v4, 2v1, etc). Over the last five years 83 players went up against top competition with top teammates over the course of one full season. The next step was to set up a graph (I am not good enough with the SB Nation Fan Post to copy/paste graphs, if someone can help me with this I think it would be easier to explain) comparing the OZS% to each of G+A1/60 and CRel for every player (Two different graphs). I was looking for some sort of regression line, ideally sloping upward (As OZS% goes up, so should both G+A1 and CRel) and after the data was entered, I found the results I was looking for. When isolating each of the 16 scenarios we could then isolate other stats within each individual scenario looking for correlation and causation. The results were promising, with the G+A1 having a positive slope and an R^2 value of .117 for G+A1 and .0832 for CRel (not great, but when you look at the actual graphs you can see that there is an obvious correlation with OZS% and both G+A1 and CRel).

Once I had the expected G+A1 and CRel for a given OZS%/QoC/QoT combination, we can then enter the individual’s OZS% and find the expected G+A1 and CRel for the player. Once we have that we can find the variance between actual and expected. In the data for the 83 players who were “1v1” the average variance between actual and expected G+A1 was “-7E-04” or “-.000746987…”, either way, it’s basically zero (average variance for CRel was 0). The standard deviation of G+A1 was .3295 and 4.88 for CRel. If you have the actual variance, the expected variance, and the standard deviation of variance, we can then calculate the “Z-Score,” or a formula for explaining how many “standard deviations” each individual result is away from the average. 66.6% of a population falls between the Z-Scores of -1 and 1. 95% between -2 and 2, and 99.7% between -3 and 3. So when looking at a Z score think of it like this: 0 is average (better than 50%). 1 is better than 84.1%, 2 is better than 97.7%, 3 is better than 99.9%. -1 is better than only 15%, -2 is better than only 2.3% and -3 is better than .1%. The whole theory of the stat is that if you know a player’s Z-Score for 1v3, or 2v4, or 1v1 etc... you can then compare it to anyone of any other situation.

We calculate the Z-Score for both GA1 and CRel and call them “GA1Z” and “CRelZ”; we then take a 50/50 average of the two scores to give us our Relative Deployment Z-Score. I use the 50/50 because I want to put equal value on individual scoring and the ability to drive the play forward. Before we look at the players I want to look at the average G+A1/60 and CorsiRel's of each situation given a 50% OZS:

G+A1/60 Corsi Relative
Top Comp
1st line team 1.4608 1st line team 6.6446
2nd line team 1.4549 2nd line team 2.0847
3rd line team 1.3476 3rd line team -0.499
4th line team 1.1651 4th line team -6.993
Any Team 1.3781 Any Team 0.959
2nd Comp
Top Line 1.4978 Top Line 6.5877
Second Line 1.4326 Second Line 3.9334
Third Line 1.2176 Third Line -1.704
Fourth Line 1.1169 Fourth Line -5.779
Any Line 1.3453 Any Line 1.375
3rd Comp
Top Line 1.5766 Top Line 6.9723
Second Line 1.3718 Second Line 2.804
Third Line 1.1924 Third Line -0.8371
Fourth Line 0.9839 Fourth Line -5.223
Any Line 1.2838 Any Line 0.852
4th Comp
Top Line 1.4426 Top Line 6.6281
Second Line 1.2234 Second Line -0.477
Third Line 0.9647 Third Line -2.171
Fourth Line 0.797 Fourth Line -9.194

There have been other attempts at stats similar to this one, but nothing takes into account all three major situational factors: O-Zone Start %, competition AND teammates. You can clearly see in the above table that for each level of competition, as your teammates get better, so do both your individual scoring and your ability to drive the play forward---not to say that wasn't expected. It is important because there is an individual formula for every scenario.

Lets take a look at five players of all different situations:

QoC C QoT T OZS G+A1 Crel
-0.907 4 0.557 1 52.2 0.63 -2.6
0.457 2 0.04 3 51.8 1.95 6.7
0.56 2 -0.487 3 38.7 1.14 -17.6
1.175 1 -0.107 3 47.7 2.16 9.1
0.74 1 1.382 2 49.5 1.04 -3

Lets take another look at those same players:

NAME Team Year GP TOI/60 QoC C QoT T OZS G+A1 Crel ExpG+A1 ExpCRel GADif CRDif GA1Z CRelZ RDZ
DARROLLPOWE PHI 2009 60 9.47 -0.907 4 0.557 1 52.2 0.63 -2.6 1.46372 7.24 -0.83 -9.84 -1.74 -1.76 -1.75
ERICSTAAL CAR 2010 70 14.89 0.457 2 0.04 3 51.8 1.95 6.7 1.2293 -1.02 0.72 7.72 1.99 0.00 1.00
CHRISDRURY NYR 2010 77 12.28 0.56 2 -0.487 3 38.7 1.14 -17.6 1.14415 -6.01 0.00 -11.59 -0.01 0.00 0.00
PAVELDATSYUK DET 2011 56 14.94 1.175 1 -0.107 3 47.7 2.16 9.1 1.3 -1.26 0.86 10.36 2.40 1.60 2.00
MATTCOOKE PIT 2011 67 12.02 0.74 1 1.382 2 49.5 1.04 -3 1.45 2.16 -0.41 -5.16 -1.16 -0.81 -0.98

Datsuk is far and away the best player (his +2 rating means he’s in the top 97.5 percentile of his situation) of the above. Top competition with only 3rd line help, he’s expected to have a GA1 of 1.3 and CRel of -1.26 and he’s blowing it away with a 2.16 and 9.1. Staal’s not quite scoring as much, his Corsi is slightly lower, he’s playing similar situations, but playing second line competition opposed to top line and he’s in the offensive zone 4% more. This bumps his RDZ to 1 (85th percentile). Drury is the one performing as expected with his scoring, but he’s a -17.6 opposed to a -6.01 expected, but he’s doing it while only starting in the offensive zone 38% of the time. Cooke’s with second teammates vs. top competition, scoring well below expected and being driven back while he’s expected to go forward, resulting him in a -1 (15th percentile). Powsie’s ’09 campaign was horrible. Top teammates vs. bottom competition aided by a 52% OZS, his GA1 is almost less than half of everyone else on the chart, and his CRel is 10 points lower than expected. Now that we see how the stat works, lets check out the Flyers this current season.


QoC QoT OZS G+A1/60 Crel ExpGA1 ExpCRel GA1Z CRelZ RDZ
SEANCOUTURIER 4 4 44.3 1.96 1.6 0.8 -10.41 3.42 1.65 2.535
MAXIMETALBOT 2 3 43.6 1.81 0.8 1.18 -4.14 1.75 0.77 1.26
CLAUDEGIROUX 1 1 45.9 2.38 1.2 1.37 5.51 3.07 -0.88 1.095
JAKUBVORACEK 3 3 55.2 1.7 6 1.31 -0.14 0.89 1 0.945
MATTREAD 2 3 49.5 1.69 -0.5 1.21 -1.89 1.32 0.29 0.805
JAROMIRJAGR 2 1 59 2.01 9.1 1.58 7.22 1.12 0.3 0.71
HARRYZOLNIERCZYKK 4 4 49.3 0.96 -5 0.8 -9.34 0.48 0.6 0.54
SCOTTHARTNELL 1 1 49.3 1.59 6.8 1.44 6.45 0.44 0.07 0.255
WAYNESIMMONDS 3 3 62.3 1.74 -1.5 1.46 0.82 0.63 -0.38 0.125
ZACRINALDO 4 4 54.4 1.08 -15.3 0.79 -8.26 0.84 -0.97 -0.065
JAMESVANRIEMSDYK 1 2 63 1.52 2.5 1.7 0.74 -0.52 0.28 -0.12
DANIELBRIERE 3 2 55.8 1.32 -4 1.45 4.7 -0.31 -1.35 -0.83
BRAYDENSCHENN 4 2 60.2 0.53 1.7 1.43 4.65 -2.05 -0.42 -1.235
JODYSHELLEY 4 4 48.1 0 -16.7 0.8 -9.6 -2.36 -0.98 -1.67



Let me start off by saying that Sean Couturier’s 2.535 RDZ is the second best of every player I’ve compiled data for, behind only Sidney Crosby’s 2011 season: 2.817. As a matter of fact, only 7 times ever has a player recorded a 2 or better (1500+ players evaluated): Crosby (‘11, ‘10, ‘08), Ovechkin (‘10), D. Sedin (‘10), Datsuk (‘11), and Guillaume Letendress’s fantastic ’09 season in which he, like Scooter, destroyed 4v4 situations with a 48.8 OZS% to the tune of a 1.53 GA1 and 6.2 CorsiRel when only a .8 GA1 and -9.4 CRel expected. So, yeah, Couturier is playing amazing. Talbot is another surprise behind Scooter, but not when you really look at how good he’s playing in his tough situations. Giroux, Voracek, Read, Jagr, and Harry Z all playing significantly better than an average player would given the situations. Before you freak out and say Hartnell is way underrated---don’t forget this is an even strength only stat, but he’s still above average. Simmer is the last one that can say that. A few of the Flyers at the bottom of this list shouldn’t surprise anyone. Shelley is horrible, in the bottom 10th percentile. Schenner is also in the bottom 15th but that’s been moving up quickly. Rinaldo is surprisingly average and so is JVR, but Danny B has had a rough even strength season, in the bottom 20th percentile. His scoring is almost on pace (1.52 actual, 1.7 expected) but his CorsiRel is just not.

And here are all Flyers for the past 5 years:

NAME Team Year GP TOI/60 QoC C QoT T G/60 A1/60 OZS G+A1 Crel ExpG+A1 ExpCRel GADif CRDif GA1Z CRelZ RDZ
ANDREASNODL PHI 2011 67 12.26 0.88 1 1.708 2 0.66 0.51 43.8 1.17 -0.9 1.34 2.16 -0.17 -3.06 -0.47 -0.48 -0.48
ARRONASHAM PHI 2009 78 8.6 -1.004 4 -0.593 4 0.72 0.63 53.5 1.35 0.8 0.79 -8.45 0.56 9.25 1.64 1.27 1.46
ARRONASHAM PHI 2010 72 9.81 -0.028 4 0.279 3 0.85 0.85 51.7 1.7 -0.1 0.98 -1.54 0.72 1.44 1.93 0.23 1.08
BLAIRBETTS PHI 2010 63 9.29 0.371 2 -3.955 4 0.41 0.51 39.2 0.92 -16.1 0.91 -9.92 0.01 -6.18 0.01 -0.82 -0.41
BLAIRBETTS PHI 2011 75 6.73 -0.483 4 -4.643 4 0.48 0.12 26.9 0.6 -18.8 0.82 -14.10 -0.22 -4.70 -0.64 -0.65 -0.64
CLAUDEGIROUX PHI 2009 42 12.53 -0.087 3 0.183 2 0.8 0.91 51 1.71 11.6 1.38 3.13 0.33 8.47 0.00 1.31 0.66
CLAUDEGIROUX PHI 2010 82 12.38 0.204 3 1.789 2 0.47 0.95 50.6 1.42 0 1.38 3.00 0.04 -3.00 0.00 -0.47 -0.23
CLAUDEGIROUX PHI 2011 82 13.61 0.821 2 2.056 1 0.75 1.29 49.2 2.04 14.1 1.49 6.53 0.55 7.57 1.42 1.21 1.31
DANIELBRIERE PHI 2008 79 13.18 0.098 4 -0.112 3 0.92 0.63 56.9 1.55 -4.4 1.01 0.40 0.54 -4.80 1.44 -0.77 0.33
DANIELBRIERE PHI 2010 75 12.94 0.129 4 2.205 1 0.87 0.68 56.5 1.55 10.1 1.51 8.44 0.05 1.66 0.09 0.30 0.20
DANIELBRIERE PHI 2011 77 14.65 0.252 3 0.051 3 1.49 0.8 53.1 2.29 -0.3 1.26 -0.42 1.03 0.12 2.32 0.02 1.17
DANIELCARCILLO PHI 2009 74 10.61 0.269 2 0.166 2 0.08 0.31 55.1 0.39 -2.3 1.51 4.41 -1.12 -6.71 -2.92 -1.10 -2.01
DANIELCARCILLO PHI 2010 76 10.95 0.506 1 -2.026 4 0.79 0.36 47.8 1.15 -6.7 1.12 -7.35 0.03 0.65 0.09 0.10 0.09
DANIELCARCILLO PHI 2011 57 7.68 0.125 4 -3.631 4 0.55 0.14 40.6 0.69 -8.1 0.80 -11.19 -0.11 3.09 -0.34 0.43 0.04
DARROLLPOWE PHI 2009 60 9.47 -0.907 4 0.557 1 0.42 0.21 52.2 0.63 -2.6 1.46 7.24 -0.83 -9.84 -1.74 -1.76 -1.75
DARROLLPOWE PHI 2010 63 10.64 0.166 3 -0.352 3 0.81 0.45 45 1.26 -2.3 1.08 -1.51 0.18 -0.79 0.40 -0.13 0.13
DARROLLPOWE PHI 2011 81 9 0.189 3 -1.302 4 0.33 0.58 37.2 0.91 -9.3 0.83 -9.57 0.08 0.27 0.17 0.04 0.11
IANLAPERRIERE PHI 2010 82 9.54 0.279 3 -2.82 4 0.23 0.54 40.6 0.77 -16.1 0.87 -8.42 -0.10 -7.68 -0.22 -1.12 -0.67
JAMESDOWD PHI 2008 73 6.54 -0.455 4 -2.444 4 0.5 0.25 30.7 0.75 -16.6 0.81 -13.30 -0.06 -3.30 -0.19 -0.45 -0.32
JAMESVANRIEMSDYK PHI 2010 78 11.15 0.188 3 0.629 2 0.69 0.62 58.8 1.31 8.1 1.49 5.68 -0.18 2.42 0.00 0.38 0.19
JAMESVANRIEMSDYK PHI 2011 75 12.79 0.663 2 2.507 1 1 0.56 52.6 1.56 0.5 1.52 6.77 0.04 -6.27 0.10 -1.00 -0.45
JEFFCARTER PHI 2008 82 13.02 0.824 1 1.914 1 0.9 0.28 39.5 1.18 7.3 1.22 3.74 -0.04 3.56 -0.13 0.73 0.30
JEFFCARTER PHI 2009 82 14.14 0.785 2 -0.045 3 1.4 0.72 40.6 2.12 -1.4 1.16 -5.29 0.96 3.89 2.67 0.00 1.33
JEFFCARTER PHI 2010 74 13.53 0.326 2 3.146 1 1.2 0.36 53.3 1.56 4.8 1.53 6.82 0.03 -2.02 0.08 -0.32 -0.12
JEFFCARTER PHI 2011 80 13.93 0.896 1 3.06 1 1.4 0.48 43.8 1.88 7.8 1.32 4.93 0.56 2.87 1.70 0.59 1.14
JODYSHELLEY PHI 2011 58 6.13 -1.217 4 -5.426 4 0.34 0 38.3 0.34 -17.1 0.81 -11.68 -0.47 -5.42 -1.38 -0.75 -1.06
JOFFREYLUPUL PHI 2008 56 12.71 0.305 3 0.544 2 0.84 0.67 46.6 1.51 0.5 1.33 1.69 0.18 -1.19 0.00 -0.19 -0.09
JOFFREYLUPUL PHI 2009 79 12.75 0.193 2 -0.163 3 1.13 0.6 46.9 1.73 -2.9 1.20 -2.89 0.53 -0.01 1.47 0.00 0.74
KRISVERSTEEG PHI 2011 80 13.8 0.86 1 -0.462 3 0.76 0.6 52.8 1.36 1.8 1.41 0.42 -0.05 1.38 -0.14 0.21 0.04
MIKEKNUBLE PHI 2008 82 12.65 0.808 1 1.804 1 0.69 0.41 44.3 1.1 3.1 1.33 5.07 -0.23 -1.97 -0.70 -0.40 -0.55
MIKEKNUBLE PHI 2009 82 12.93 1.216 1 0.284 2 0.91 0.4 47.1 1.31 3.1 1.40 2.16 -0.09 0.94 -0.25 0.15 -0.05
MIKERICHARDS PHI 2008 73 12.62 0.468 2 0.61 2 0.91 0.78 31.5 1.69 4.7 1.19 2.20 0.50 2.50 1.29 0.41 0.85
MIKERICHARDS PHI 2009 79 14.13 0.948 1 0.306 2 0.7 0.97 40.2 1.67 1.1 1.27 2.16 0.40 -1.06 1.15 -0.17 0.49
MIKERICHARDS PHI 2010 82 14.09 0.811 1 1.78 2 0.83 0.26 46.8 1.09 4.6 1.39 2.16 -0.30 2.44 -0.87 0.38 -0.24
MIKERICHARDS PHI 2011 81 13.26 0.752 2 1.513 2 0.78 0.84 46.8 1.62 1.1 1.40 3.63 0.22 -2.53 0.57 -0.42 0.08
NIKOLAIZHERDEV PHI 2011 56 11.61 0.221 3 1.785 2 1.29 0.18 49.9 1.47 17.3 1.37 2.77 0.10 14.53 0.00 2.25 1.13
R.J.UMBERGER PHI 2008 74 12.76 0.553 2 0.038 3 0.57 0.83 44.6 1.4 -2.9 1.18 -3.76 0.22 0.86 0.60 0.00 0.30
RILEYCOTE PHI 2008 70 4.2 -1.091 4 -4.481 4 0.2 0.41 44.8 0.61 -10.8 0.80 -10.30 -0.19 -0.50 -0.57 -0.07 -0.32
RILEYCOTE PHI 2009 63 4.16 -2.28 4 -1.742 4 0 0.46 65.7 0.46 -0.8 0.78 -5.86 -0.32 5.06 -0.96 0.70 -0.13
SAMIKAPANEN PHI 2008 74 10.71 0.218 3 -0.55 3 0.3 0.15 43.1 0.45 -6.2 1.04 -1.77 -0.59 -4.43 -1.34 -0.72 -1.03
SCOTTHARTNELL PHI 2008 80 12.99 0.279 3 0.623 2 0.69 0.63 45.9 1.32 1.5 1.32 1.46 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.00
SCOTTHARTNELL PHI 2009 82 13.32 0.473 2 -0.417 4 1.26 0.66 43.4 1.92 -2 0.99 -8.31 0.93 6.31 2.29 0.84 1.56
SCOTTHARTNELL PHI 2010 81 12.43 -0.025 4 2.866 1 0.36 0.89 50 1.25 3.7 1.44 6.63 -0.19 -2.93 -0.40 -0.52 -0.46
SCOTTHARTNELL PHI 2011 82 13.55 0.253 3 0.495 3 1.13 0.54 53 1.67 -0.5 1.26 -0.43 0.41 -0.07 0.93 -0.01 0.46
SCOTTIEUPSHALL PHI 2008 61 11.41 0.571 2 0.881 2 0.78 0.6 45.9 1.38 18.3 1.39 3.55 -0.01 14.75 -0.02 2.42 1.20
SIMONGAGNE PHI 2009 79 12.74 1.018 1 0.497 1 1.01 0.6 47.3 1.61 1.7 1.40 5.90 0.21 -4.20 0.64 -0.86 -0.11
SIMONGAGNE PHI 2010 58 13.24 0.741 1 1.835 2 0.86 0.31 52.7 1.17 3 1.51 2.16 -0.34 0.84 -0.96 0.13 -0.41
VACLAVPROSPAL PHI 2008 80 15.54 0.34 3 -0.172 3 1.01 0.97 59 1.98 -1.6 1.39 0.38 0.59 -1.98 1.33 -0.32 0.51
VILLELEINO PHI 2010 55 11.42 0.354 2 0.019 3 0.48 0.19 56.2 0.67 9.5 1.26 0.66 -0.59 8.84 -1.63 0.00 -0.82
VILLELEINO PHI 2011 81 13.42 0.138 4 -0.059 3 0.77 0.77 62.3 1.54 0 1.05 2.41 0.49 -2.41 1.32 -0.39 0.46

And a closer look at the best and worst seasons over the past five years:

NAME Year GP TOI/60 C T OZS G+A1 Crel ExpG+A1 ExpCRel GA1Z CRelZ UtZ
SCOTTHARTNELL 2009 82 13.32 2 4 43.4 1.92 -2 0.99 -8.31 2.29 0.84 1.56
ARRONASHAM 2009 78 8.6 4 4 53.5 1.35 0.8 0.79 -8.45 1.64 1.27 1.46
JEFFCARTER 2009 82 14.14 2 3 40.6 2.12 -1.4 1.16 -5.29 2.67 0.00 1.33
CLAUDEGIROUX 2011 82 13.61 2 1 49.2 2.04 14.1 1.49 6.53 1.42 1.21 1.31
SCOTTIEUPSHALL 2008 61 11.41 2 2 45.9 1.38 18.3 1.39 3.55 -0.02 2.42 1.20
DANIELBRIERE 2011 77 14.65 3 3 53.1 2.29 -0.3 1.26 -0.42 2.32 0.02 1.17
JEFFCARTER 2011 80 13.93 1 1 43.8 1.88 7.8 1.32 4.93 1.70 0.59 1.14
NIKOLAIZHERDEV 2011 56 11.61 3 2 49.9 1.47 17.3 1.37 2.77 0.00 2.25 1.13
ARRONASHAM 2010 72 9.81 4 3 51.7 1.7 -0.1 0.98 -1.54 1.93 0.23 1.08
MIKERICHARDS 2008 73 12.62 2 2 31.5 1.69 4.7 1.19 2.20 1.29 0.41 0.85
JOFFREYLUPUL 2009 79 12.75 2 3 46.9 1.73 -2.9 1.20 -2.89 1.47 0.00 0.74
CLAUDEGIROUX 2009 42 12.53 3 2 51 1.71 11.6 1.38 3.13 0.00 1.31 0.66
BLAIRBETTS 2011 75 6.73 4 4 26.9 0.6 -18.8 0.81548 -14.10 -0.64 -0.64 -0.6431
IANLAPERRIERE 2010 82 9.54 3 4 40.6 0.77 -16.1 0.87016 -8.41524 -0.21 -1.124 -0.6714
VILLELEINO 2010 55 11.42 2 3 56.2 0.67 9.5 1.2579 0.65944 -1.629 -0.0028 -0.8159
SAMIKAPANEN 2008 74 10.71 3 3 43.1 0.45 -6.2 1.04267 -1.7686 -1.335 -0.721 -1.0283
JODYSHELLEY 2011 58 6.13 4 4 38.3 0.34 -17.1 0.80636 -11.68025 -1.381 -0.745 -1.063
DARROLLPOWE 2009 60 9.47 4 1 52.2 0.63 -2.6 1.46372 7.24058 -1.740 -1.762 -1.751
DANIELCARCILLO 2009 74 10.61 2 2 55.1 0.39 -2.3 1.51396 4.41127 -2.922 -1.099 -2.011

The first thing I want to point out is that in 2009 the Flyers were led by 46 goal scorer Jeff Carter, 30/30 Scott Hartnell, and now All-Star Joffrey Lupul. All 3 are in the top 12 in the past 5 years, all 3 had a negative CorsiRel, however they lit the lamp enough to more than compensate for the very mediocre CorsiRels. Aaron Asham makes the list. twice. Giroux’s rookie year and his 2011 make the top 12. Upshall’s first year as a Flyer and Mike Richard’s breakout 2008 season were all memorable. Nicolay Zherdev and his ridiculous Corsi from last year put him up here, and Briere and Jeff Carter’s 2011 rounds out the memorable seasons. As for the bad ones… Powe’s rookie year, Kapanen’s final year, Leino’s half Det/half Philly season, and Danny Carcillo’s first season’s were all ones to forget. A surprising appearance by a dominant PK duo: Lappy’s 2010 and Bettsy’s 2011. A not surprising appearance by king argument starter (and not-so-good hockey player): Jody Shelley.

Questions?

This item was written by a member of this community and is not necessarily endorsed by <em>Broad Street Hockey</em>.

X
Log In Sign Up

forgot?
Log In Sign Up

Forgot password?

We'll email you a reset link.

If you signed up using a 3rd party account like Facebook or Twitter, please login with it instead.

Forgot password?

Try another email?

Almost done,

Join Broad Street Hockey

You must be a member of Broad Street Hockey to participate.

We have our own Community Guidelines at Broad Street Hockey. You should read them.

Join Broad Street Hockey

You must be a member of Broad Street Hockey to participate.

We have our own Community Guidelines at Broad Street Hockey. You should read them.

Spinner.vc97ec6e

Authenticating

Great!

Choose an available username to complete sign up.

In order to provide our users with a better overall experience, we ask for more information from Facebook when using it to login so that we can learn more about our audience and provide you with the best possible experience. We do not store specific user data and the sharing of it is not required to login with Facebook.

tracking_pixel_9355_tracker