What it takes to build a contender

What differentiates playoff teams from non-playoff teams in the National Hockey League? It is the million-dollar question front offices and coaching staffs aim to answer every off-season.

There is not a one-size-fits-all way to build a lineup. Generally speaking, the talent that already exists within the organization tends to dictate how general managers fill out their roster. Have a collection of superstar forwards commanding big pieces of the salary cap? You’re probably going to run a leaner bottom six. Have an elite defence already in place? You can probably carry a little more risk in net and invest elsewhere. There are countless scenarios.

But with how much the sport has changed in recent years (emphasis on recent – we suspect the NHL’s two-year scoring explosion is here to stay), I was curious to see how playoff teams are distinguishing themselves from the bottom half of the standings. Do they have more pronounced talent across the forward group? Is it a depth advantage on the blueline? Is it superior goaltending? Or is it a combination of all the above?

To study this, I segmented the groups into five categories across playoff and non-playoff teams from a season ago. The five groups: top-six forwards, depth forwards, top-four defencemen, depth defencemen, and goaltenders.

The goal is to explore the differences (if any) between the groups as it relates to productivity, and to establish baseline expectations for teams heading into the 2022-23 season for each positional group. We will use Goals Above Replacement to measure total player productivity and make apples-to-apples comparisons.

Let’s start with the forwards. First, focusing on the top six:

On a playoff team, the average top-six forward is worth about 10 goals more than a replacement-level player. On a non-playoff team, the average top-six forward is worth about six goals more than a replacement-level player.

What does this look like in practice? Consider two teams from last season that sit around these respective averages. The Edmonton Oilers qualified for the playoffs; the Ottawa Senators did not. Here is what their lineups looked like:

The Oilers’ top six is absolutely loaded and a core strength of the team, though their offensive dominance dwarfs their ability defending the run of play. It’s a different situation in Ottawa – an impressive group of young talent, but one that needed to be bolstered if they were serious about contending for a playoff berth. Out goes Connor Brown and Nick Paul, in comes 41-goal scorer Alex DeBrincat and the timeless Claude Giroux.

Notably, only one team – the Vancouver Canucks – had a top-six forward group grade above the baseline and failed to qualify for the postseason. That says more about the broader weakness across the Canucks’ lineup than anything else, but it emphasizes how important star attackers are in this era.

Let’s turn to depth forwards:

On a playoff team, the average depth forward is worth about two goals more than a replacement-level player. On a non-playoff team, the average top-six forward is worth about 0.5 goals more than a replacement-level player.

Notably, there is a more even split across playoff and non-playoff teams. Some of the non-playoff teams from last season just didn’t have the firepower at the top of the lineup, but they do have the depth in place. Perhaps they are a star or two away from a playoff push.

Let’s call on two examples both anchoring near their respective averages. For the non-playoff teams, we will look at the Columbus Blue Jackets. For the playoff teams, we will look at the St. Louis Blues.

While St. Louis could comfortably dress a higher-end third line (and when fully healthy, a capable fourth line to boot), that wasn’t true for Columbus. The talent disparity between these two sides was striking last year. The reason St. Louis was so difficult to play against last year – you will recall they were perhaps the toughest opponent the Colorado Avalanche faced last spring – was how balanced they were down the lineup.

Over to defencemen. Let’s focus on the top four:

On a playoff team, the average top-four defender was worth about nine goals more than a replacement-level player. On a non-playoff team, the average top-four defender was worth about four goals more than a replacement-level player.

Again, let’s look at two teams sitting near their respective averages. For the non-playoff teams, we will look at the Vancouver Canucks, and for the playoff teams, the Tampa Bay Lightning.

The Lightning don’t have the best defensive corps in the NHL, but they do have a robust front four, in large part because superstar Victor Hedman (with the very capable Jan Rutta in tow) can anchor the first pairing and Mikhail Sergachev the second. Both pairings in Tampa Bay were capable in all three zones and were generally strong at transitioning the puck, easing the defensive burden for forwards.

That is the precise opposite of what we saw from Vancouver’s blueline. The Canucks have a playoff-calibre roster with a grim defensive makeup – it’s effectively Quinn Hughes and a bunch of one-dimensional or aging defenders who don’t provide much transitional support to their skilled forward group. They’re also poor at defending the slot and interior in front of Thatcher Demko.

Notably, no team with a below-average top four on defence reached the postseason.

Now, depth defenders:

Bit more of a mixed bag here, with only nine of 16 playoff teams having above-average depth production versus five of 16 for the non-playoff teams. On a playoff team, the average depth defender was about 1.4 goals better than a replacement-level player. On a non-playoff team, the average depth defender was indiscernible from a replacement-level player.

Let’s look at a pair of examples near the averages. For the playoff teams, we will look at the Minnesota Wild, and for the non-playoff teams, the Winnipeg Jets:

Minnesota arguably has one of the deepest bluelines in the NHL, so much so I considered them for elite status when handling the defensive talent tiers. Much of that talent is concentrated inside of the top four, but consider what Minnesota got from the likes of Alex Goligoski, Jon Merrill, and Jordie Benn last year:

• Outscored their opponents by 40 goals with Goligoski on the ice at EV
• Outscored their opponents by 13 goals with Merrill on the ice at EV
• Outscored their opponents by one goal with Benn on the ice at EV

It’s an easy game when even your theoretical weakest links are outperforming their competition on a routine basis. Compare that to the likes of the Winnipeg Jets, where players like Logan Stanley (-3) and Nathan Beaulieu (-7) were net-negatives on the team’s third pairing. Winnipeg doesn’t have a weak defensive group, but they also didn’t create any advantage play further down the lineup. Both Stanley and Beaulieu, for example, were outscored at even strength last season.

Lastly, the goalies.

Thirteen of 16 playoff teams had above-average production at the goaltending position, which is about what you would expect. On a playoff team, the average goaltender was about 14 goals better than a replacement-level player; on a non-playoff team, the average goaltender was about six goals better than a replacement-level player.

For the goaltenders, we can look at two different scenarios: playoff and non-playoff teams with a workhorse netminder, and playoff and non-playoff teams with a platoon structure.

Jacob Markstrom was a monster for the Flames last year (92.2 per cent stop rate), allowing Calgary to use a very mediocre Dan Vladar in protected spot starts over the course of the regular season. Compare that to Arizona, who gave the majority of starts to Karel Vejmelka, who was outplayed by backup Scott Wedgewood after a mid-season acquisition.

For the platoons, few nailed it better than the Bruins, who split 41 appearances apiece to Jeremy Swayman and Linus Ullmark. The Bruins tandem, costing just $6 million against the cap last season, finished ninth in team save percentage. Compare that to Philadelphia, who after a Carter Hart injury, had to use more of a rotation with backup Martin Jones. Neither played well; the Flyers finished 25^th in team save percentage at the same cost against the cap.

Here is a team table finale for those who made it through the entire piece. The key takeaway? You don’t have to check every box, but you do have to check most of them.

Data via Natural Stat Trick, HockeyDB, Evolving Hockey, NHL.com, Hockey Reference