Being top-180 in scoring shouldn't make you a top-six forward

Shawn Reis
May 05 2017 04:16PM

There seem to be two main thoughts when it comes to what constitutes a top-six forward in the NHL. The more traditional perspective generally seems to say that anyone that puts up 50+ points in an 82 game season is at least a top-six forward. The other perspective argues that a top-six forward is anyone that finishes top-180 in scoring (30 teams multiplied by 6 forwards is 180 forwards). Applying the second perspective to the 2016-2017 season, a top-six forward was anyone that had a .43 points per game, or 35 points over 82 games.

But while the second perspective is more logical, I've always leaned more towards the first approach. After all, you strive to be a great team and have a great offense, and I never saw guys that could only muster 35 points in the top-six of a team like Chicago or Pittsburgh. But I also never really put this idea to the test until now.

Team
6th-Highest
PPG
P/82
PIT
0.49
40
MIN
0.61
50
WSH
0.60
49
NYR
0.64
52
TOR
0.71
58
CBJ
0.51
42
WPG
0.69
57
EDM
0.52
43
CHI
0.52
43
NYI
0.42
34

What you're looking at is the ten highest-scoring teams from this season, with their sixth-highest scoring forward's production listed, to try and set a baseline for a top-six forward on a top-ten offense in the league.

I think what we're seeing is the truth might be somewhere in between the two perspectives we listed at the start. Setting 50+ points as a benchmark for a top-six forward seems too high, but 35+ points as the benchmark is a little low. Granted, there's more that goes into making a team an elite offense, such as how much your highest-scoring forwards score, or how much your defense contributes offense. But generally speaking, maybe the real baseline should be more in the early 40s.

The most important note I'm trying to hit on here though is that there's a difference between being a top-six forward in the league and being a top-six forward on an offense that's actually good. And it's an important distinction that I think the 30x6=180 perspective overlooks. When people talk about a #1 center, they're really talking about what a #1 center on an elite team would be. When people talk about a #1 defenseman, they're really talking about what a #1 defenseman on an elite team would be. Being the #1 center or #1 defenseman on your team doesn't mean your team is actually good. And I think that's an important distinction to be made with the idea of a top-six forward as well.

795d1320dd39f8e1a687110228b6fa90
Shawn's a writer for The Leafs Nation and a Web Content Manager for NHL Numbers. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnReis
Avatar
#1 Paul
May 06 2017, 07:03AM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Props
2
props

I agree the second standard is silly. What is 35 points? Not much. Maybe on a few teams, say Jersey, it is significant, but on others. Especially when you consider some of the better forwards do so much more than get points. Bergeron just got over that 50 point mark, but does anybody think any team wouldn't be delighted to have him on their top two lines? I feel it is best to balance between three lines anyway, and I think that is the way it is heading.

Avatar
#2 Paul
May 06 2017, 07:08AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

I forgot to mention, a guy can get lots of points and have his team get way more scored n them every time he is on the ice, or he can get a lot of his points on the PP, but do little at even strength, so is he still a true top 6 if he is a total liability defensively?

Avatar
#3 Neil B
May 12 2017, 09:00AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
0
props

Hey Shawn,

Nice intro to the topic.

Andrew Berkshire took a swing at this same question a couple years ago for the 'Eyes on the Prize' SN blog (June of 2015, if I recall correctly). I believe his methodology was to divide the players in their positions (L-C-R) as played for the majority of the season, and then rank them by TOI/game within their team structure. Then he compiled their PPG and pro-rated it out to a full 82 game season.

To get a definitive answer to the question, I think you'd have to run the numbers like that for 4-5 years to try to eliminate noise. Sounds like a fun summer project from the hammock.

Avatar
#4 jeorge1990
May 17 2017, 12:46AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

nice very informative

Comments are closed for this article.