2007-08: Teams by position
A break down by age and salary
I posted a look at all 30 teams ranked by age last week (with salary data), something that Earl Sleek mentioned would work well if broken down further by position.
That's a tough thing to do given we don't know exactly who will make NHL teams this season, but given some solid assumptions based on rosters are they are now, I crunched the numbers and came up with the following:
| No. of players | Avg. age | Average salary | |
| Goalies | 70 | 28.53 | $2,144,165 |
| Defence | 239 | 28.24 | $1,851,053 |
| Forwards | 441 | 27.72 | $1,817,375 |
| - centres | 192 | 27.39 | $1,907,427 |
| - left wing | 121 | 28.29 | $1,715,591 |
| - right wing | 128 | 27.68 | $1,778,516 |
| Totals | 750 | 27.96 | $1,858,607 |
| Forwards (Top 13) | Avg. age | Avg. salary | Salary rank |
| BUF | 25.36 | $2,095,110 | 12 |
| S.J | 25.66 | $1,803,456 | 23 |
| PHI | 25.79 | $2,199,472 | 7 |
| FLA | 26.30 | $1,897,503 | 19 |
| PHX | 26.38 | $1,208,436 | 30 |
| EDM | 26.54 | $2,091,972 | 13 |
| CHI | 26.59 | $2,454,167 | 2 |
| MTL | 26.94 | $1,816,164 | 22 |
| WSH | 27.02 | $1,679,241 | 26 |
| BOS | 27.06 | $2,163,718 | 11 |
| L.A | 27.07 | $1,903,878 | 17 |
| PIT | 27.38 | $1,842,887 | 21 |
| CBJ | 27.40 | $2,178,785 | 9 |
| OTT | 27.46 | $1,756,047 | 24 |
| ANA | 27.74 | $1,587,832 | 29 |
| N.J | 28.04 | $2,177,884 | 10 |
| MIN | 28.14 | $2,195,923 | 8 |
| NYR | 28.24 | $2,700,037 | 1 |
| COL | 28.45 | $2,060,779 | 15 |
| TOR | 28.75 | $1,851,713 | 20 |
| NSH | 28.93 | $1,618,737 | 28 |
| T.B | 28.96 | $2,228,974 | 5 |
| VAN | 29.04 | $1,903,526 | 18 |
| CGY | 29.14 | $2,216,830 | 6 |
| DAL | 29.26 | $1,732,500 | 25 |
| DET | 29.55 | $1,620,972 | 27 |
| CAR | 29.72 | $2,368,015 | 3 |
| NYI | 29.74 | $1,905,377 | 16 |
| STL | 30.05 | $2,078,910 | 14 |
| ATL | 30.36 | $2,256,227 | 4 |
| Defence (Top 7) | Avg. age | Avg. salary | Salary rank |
| CHI | 24.35 | $1,303,074 | 30 |
| WSH | 25.27 | $1,482,639 | 28 |
| PHX | 26.13 | $2,354,881 | 8 |
| NSH | 26.35 | $1,495,810 | 26 |
| S.J | 26.63 | $1,484,629 | 27 |
| STL | 26.73 | $2,648,529 | 4 |
| BOS | 26.90 | $2,275,700 | 10 |
| CBJ | 27.25 | $1,565,278 | 24 |
| T.B | 27.29 | $1,548,530 | 25 |
| OTT | 27.30 | $2,506,076 | 6 |
| EDM | 27.35 | $2,216,436 | 11 |
| NYR | 27.43 | $1,879,071 | 18 |
| TOR | 27.62 | $2,848,571 | 1 |
| COL | 27.65 | $1,785,131 | 20 |
| FLA | 28.02 | $1,921,429 | 17 |
| NYI | 28.10 | $1,333,714 | 29 |
| N.J | 28.13 | $1,681,143 | 21 |
| PIT | 28.49 | $2,023,125 | 15 |
| VAN | 28.91 | $2,025,000 | 14 |
| PHI | 28.99 | $2,294,819 | 9 |
| CGY | 29.04 | $2,132,571 | 12 |
| ATL | 29.08 | $1,579,702 | 22 |
| L.A | 29.36 | $2,649,857 | 3 |
| BUF | 30.14 | $1,866,071 | 19 |
| DAL | 30.60 | $2,060,913 | 13 |
| MTL | 31.05 | $2,550,000 | 5 |
| MIN | 31.41 | $2,007,143 | 16 |
| CAR | 31.53 | $1,568,857 | 23 |
| ANA | 31.83 | $2,408,214 | 7 |
| DET | 31.89 | $2,845,714 | 2 |
| Goalies | Avg. age | Avg. salary | Salary rank |
| MTL | 24.77 | $2,110,417 | 17 |
| PIT | 24.86 | $903,625 | 28 |
| CGY | 25.20 | $2,107,083 | 18 |
| S.J | 26.07 | $2,990,417 | 9 |
| MIN | 26.36 | $1,912,500 | 22 |
| NYI | 27.25 | $2,500,000 | 12 |
| ANA | 27.66 | $3,590,625 | 3 |
| CAR | 27.74 | $2,033,333 | 19 |
| NYR | 27.75 | $2,433,750 | 14 |
| COL | 27.94 | $3,016,667 | 8 |
| PHX | 28.04 | $700,000 | 30 |
| VAN | 28.14 | $3,675,000 | 2 |
| PHI | 28.61 | $2,362,500 | 16 |
| FLA | 28.71 | $3,125,000 | 7 |
| DAL | 28.73 | $3,325,000 | 5 |
| TOR | 28.79 | $1,687,500 | 24 |
| STL | 28.92 | $1,341,000 | 26 |
| OTT | 28.95 | $3,433,333 | 4 |
| ATL | 29.04 | $1,425,000 | 25 |
| CBJ | 29.27 | $950,000 | 27 |
| NSH | 29.27 | $875,000 | 29 |
| L.A | 29.48 | $1,962,500 | 20 |
| T.B | 29.66 | $1,933,333 | 21 |
| BUF | 29.87 | $1,713,333 | 23 |
| BOS | 33.18 | $2,716,667 | 11 |
| EDM | 33.75 | $2,383,333 | 15 |
| N.J | 33.85 | $2,943,750 | 10 |
| CHI | 33.88 | $3,850,000 | 1 |
| WSH | 33.92 | $3,131,250 | 6 |
| DET | 38.66 | $2,475,000 | 13 |
It's tough to differentiate between the bottom rung defencemen and forwards on many teams, but with the majority of those players coming in at the same age range and salary, that's not going to sway the results monumentally.
(In other words, I think this is a reasonably close look at where teams will fit in these categories when the season starts.)
Points of interest here? Well, the Sharks and Coyotes come in with the youngest teams at every position, while several other clubs are young in only one particular area (Buffalo up front, Chicago on defence, Pittsburgh in goal, etc.).
Detroit is old across the board, something influenced heavily by the fact they have two of the league's three 40-and-over players.
As for salary rank, there are some surprises:
Goal - Chicago, Vancouver and Anaheim spend the most; Phoenix, Nashville and Pittsburgh the least.
Defence - Toronto, Detroit, Los Angeles spend the most; Chicago, the Islanders, Washington the least.
Forwards - The Rangers, Chicago, Carolina spend the most; Phoenix, Anaheim, Nashville the least.
Several teams fall into these basic categories:
$ mostly on goaltending (Vancouver, Florida, Dallas, Washington)
$ mostly on defence (St. Louis, Toronto, Los Angeles, Montreal)
$ mostly on forwards (Columbus, Minnesota, Tampa Bay, Carolina, Atlanta)
There's a ton of data here — I'll be interested to see what trends others can spot.
by James Mirtle @ 9:59 PM
Trackbacks
| Permalink |
11 comments
11 Comments:
Another significant reason why the Wings always turn up so old in these things is because their lineup is so deep, and has been for so long, that it makes it very hard for young draft picks to crack the lineup. The Wings are deep enough that for someone age 20 or under to actually make the team, he would have to be phenomenally talented, and theres only a handful of those type of kids in the league at all. "Youngsters" often start cracking the roster around 23 or 24, and by the time they start becoming higher line players with lots of ice time, they're already often getting into their late 20's.
With a quick glance, Detroit looks to have the largest differential between forwards and defense--ranked 27 and 2!
It would be interesting to look at last years data and see if and how spending on different positions (and age) correlated with winning. i.e. Did those teams that spent a lot on defense do better than those spending a lot on forwards.
Avg. age for Detroit forwards is 38.66??? Sure.
As a young economics student taking a class about professional sports, I looked at salary allocation by position vs success - goal differential and placement in standings.
I don't have the essays I wrote, but essentially I found that teams did better if they put more money into their forward lines and then goaltending. But if the ratio of money to the forwards was over a certain threshold, there was a serious drop
I should look this up so that I'm not just quoting generalities...
Thanks, James. For sure there's still a lot hidden in there, but this is still pretty interesting stuff--where salary is being spent and where it is being saved.
I generally believe the IOF guys about forward-driven results, but it's tough to look at a team like Anaheim who's really put their eggs in the blue line and goal and say that they weren't the real difference makers.
Much to mull on, but thanks for the legwork.
I generally believe the IOF guys about forward-driven results, but it's tough to look at a team like Anaheim who's really put their eggs in the blue line and goal and say that they weren't the real difference makers.
I think the real difference with the Ducks might be in that their blue line could really produce points and spearhead the attack; Niedermayer and Pronger were as essential to the offence as any one forward, and justified their worth that way.
You hit the nail on the head. You need to spend money to get the talent to produce offensively, while you need hard work to play defensively. Anaheim paid the bucks to defencemen, but not for them to play just D.
I left an email for James. I too, like David Johnson, was curious about position salary prediciting success. I used James' data to come up with a couple of interesting findings. I'll post one: Of the top ten teams in standings points, SEVEN of them spent in the bottom third in the league on forwards. Hmm... this supports the saying that defense wins championships.
I'm really curious about Loxy's results regarding salary allocation. I would totally believe that forwards > goal > defense would be the most commonly successful setup during the regular season, but I have to think that would change in the playoffs. The playoffs in the NHL are just plain played differently, with an emphasis on playing conservatively. That would favor paying your defense and then goalies before your forwards.
cool stuff james... but those averages might be negatively skewed because of the few players who get a ton of money will raise the mean salary level --- maybe that is what you were trying to get at, but if it wasn't then rather than using the mean average, it might be better to use the median... or if you are going to use the mean, get a sense of whether the distribution is skewed or not.
love your blog, it's keeping me current over the summer!
Post a Comment
<< Home