“A lie has no legs and cannot stand, but it has wings and can fly far and wide.”–William Warburton
“Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth.”–Joseph Goebbels
###########
As I was mulling over my individual grades for our Penguins while preparing my previous article, I decided to take a peek at Natural Stat Trick to see how the numbers shook out.
In the past, I’ve used 5v5 goals for percentage (GF%) as a measuring stick. I was considering using the same criteria as a basis for my grades this time around. I also wanted to check out a rather shocking statistical anomaly my esteemed colleague, Other Rick, had discovered the other day. One that flies in the face of conventional wisdom and perception.
Sure enough as I scanned our individual goals for and against at 5v5 play there it was…nearly jumping off the computer screen and slapping me in the face…just as Other Rick had said.
With a GF% just above 50 percent, know who was on the ice for the most goals against 5v5?
Sidney Crosby.
On the flip side, guess who was ranked near the top of our list in 5v5 GF%? If you said Evgeni Malkin, you guessed right.
Yeah, I know. It doesn’t meet the eye test or the ingrained reputations of our two superstars. Mr. Best-Two-Way-Player-In-The-Game vs. Mr. Sloppy-Turnovers-and-Giveaways. But there it was, in stark black-and-white. In fact, Geno was on the ice for a staggering 26 fewer goals against than Sid 5v5.
Another factoid to consider. At age 37, Malkin led the NHL in takeaways with 90 (Crosby ranked eighth with 73). As for those giveaways I referred to? Sid and Geno were well down the league list with 57 and 56 respectively.
For the record, Crosby isn’t the only star to have burgeoning goals against totals. Scoring champion Nikita Kucherov of Tampa Bay was on the ice for 76 5v5 goals against, one more than Lightning sidekick Brayden Point and two more than Sid.
Still, it represents a significant hike in our captain’s 5v5 goals against. In 2022-23, he was on the ice for 51, the season before only 35 (in 69 games).
My take? The Pens were scuffling to score goals before and immediately after Sid’s longtime cohort Jake Guentzel was dealt to Carolina. My guess is, No. 87 was given a mandate…or took it upon himself…to push the offense and his customarily sound defense suffered as a result.
The box car stats seem to bear that out. During our 13-game homestretch heater, Sid piled up an astonishing nine goals and 25 points. Yet despite averaging nearly two points per game, he was only a plus-3 during that span.
Other black-and-gold players who surprised? By most accounts, Reilly Smith was a huge disappointment. However, he was one of the team’s top defensive forwards and had one of the best 5v5 GF% among the regulars. Conversely, players who generally drew praise like Lars Eller and feisty newcomer Michael Bunting were below breakeven.
Numerically speaking, Marcus Pettersson lived up to his reputation as the club’s best all-around defenseman. Despite a dearth of goal scoring, rookie Valtteri Puustinen proved to be a solid two-way player.
To sum up, GF% certainly isn’t the be-all-end-all metric. Indeed, there are tons of advanced stats, each important in its own way. But it does go to show that sometimes when evaluating player performance, perception doesn’t always mesh with statistical reality.
The following table displays 5v5 goals for against for each of our players, along with GF%, expected goals for percentage (xGF%) and the difference. Negative numbers are in quotes.
| Player | GF | GA | GF% | xGF% | DIF |
| Phillips | 1 | 0 | 100.00 | 19.77 | 80.23 |
| Nieto | 8 | 4 | 66.67 | 40.91 | 25.76 |
| Puustinen | 25 | 19 | 56.82 | 55.11 | 1.71 |
| Pettersson | 87 | 67 | 56.49 | 51.83 | 4.66 |
| Puljujärvi | 9 | 7 | 56.25 | 51.53 | 4.72 |
| Malkin | 57 | 48 | 54.29 | 52.18 | 2.11 |
| O’Connor | 49 | 42 | 53.85 | 50.42 | 3.43 |
| Guentzel | 46 | 40 | 53.49 | 56.01 | (2.52) |
| Smith | 42 | 37 | 53.16 | 53.08 | 0.08 |
| Rakell | 52 | 46 | 53.06 | 51.86 | 1.20 |
| Zohorna | 11 | 10 | 52.38 | 53.38 | (1.00) |
| Letang | 78 | 71 | 52.35 | 50.23 | 2.12 |
| Karlsson | 75 | 69 | 52.08 | 54.29 | (2.21) |
| Rust | 60 | 56 | 51.72 | 55.50 | (3.78) |
| Crosby | 77 | 74 | 50.99 | 55.14 | (4.15) |
| Graves | 38 | 37 | 50.67 | 50.08 | 0.59 |
| Bemström | 8 | 8 | 50.00 | 50.52 | (0.52) |
| Nylander | 1 | 1 | 50.00 | 51.13 | (1.13) |
| Bunting | 18 | 19 | 48.65 | 54.05 | (5.40) |
| Eller | 33 | 35 | 48.53 | 50.79 | (2.26) |
| Shea | 12 | 13 | 48.00 | 47.04 | 0.96 |
| Joseph | 33 | 37 | 47.14 | 47.44 | (0.30) |
| St. Ivany | 6 | 7 | 46.15 | 51.53 | (5.38) |
| Ruhwedel | 15 | 20 | 42.86 | 49.37 | (6.51) |
| Acciari | 17 | 25 | 40.48 | 39.69 | 0.79 |
| Carter | 13 | 20 | 39.39 | 42.37 | (2.98) |
| Harkins | 6 | 10 | 37.50 | 45.38 | (7.88) |
| Hinostroza | 3 | 5 | 37.50 | 39.03 | (1.53) |
| Ludvig | 12 | 24 | 33.33 | 50.55 | (17.22) |
| White | 2 | 4 | 33.33 | 57.00 | (23.67) |
| Gruden | 1 | 3 | 25.00 | 42.50 | (17.50) |
| Poulin | 0 | 1 | 0.00 | 30.23 | (30.23) |
| Johnstone | 0 | 1 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Koppanen | 0 | 0 | NA | 35.52 | NA |
Hi Rick,
I was aware of Sid’s poor 5 on 5 GA. However, when comparing Sid to Geno, there are also other factors. For example, taking stupid penalties or penalties in general. How many short handed goals on the power play and who was manning the point? How many goals were given up in their own end because of poor center coverage of the opposing team? How many times did you see Geno throw a check or come back into defensive coverage and actually participate? My term for him is “Drive by Geno”.
However, the major critical factors of why the Pens are watching the playoffs are the poor powerplay , poor 3 on 3 performance, giving up goals in the last minute at the end of a period, and the inability to keep 3rd period leads. And these factors fall into the category of poor coaching at the end of the day. . Does this team have the ability to play defense with one or multiple goal leads? Did they ever practice 3 on 3s or shootouts? Did anyone ever look at the metrics of goals given up by the next line sent out after they scored a goal? The unwillingness to change powerplay lines. Correct just two of these factors and the Pens are in the playoffs.
Hey Detroit Dave,
Interesting Questions;
In terms of SHGA Sid was on the ice for 1.64/60, once again higher than Geno (1.08/60) so Crosby fared far worse than Malkin as he did 5-on-5
Poor Zone Coverage Crosby had to be worse, his GA/60 was a full 2 standard deviations above the men. Your term for 71 may be drive by Geno but the hard evidence does not back up that moniker.
Even if the PP was better, Jarry was giving up goals by the dozen. His Sv% when the game was tied or the team was up only by 1 was abysmal (0.887 and 0.890). The PP was bad, so was the teams poor 3 on 3 (again #87 faring far worse defensively compared to #71 – 16.74 GA/60 vs 11.58 GA/60.
The team did correct its major flaw near the end of the season. They benched Jarry and ran off enough wins to climb back into the hunt for the last Wild Card spot. Had Sullivan’s hubris not wrecked this team and had he sat the Goalie he vouched for in the off season, not only would we still be watching hockey, we may have had a chance at a home ice series.
Hey Rick,
Great Article.
I will suggest though, that since hockey is a game of winners and losers and not simply participation, and GF vs GA determines who wins the game, GF% IS the be-all-to-end-all stat. All of the other stats and advanced stats may be interesting, and can lead to GF and GA, they are only that, interesting. Their use is only to try and help understand the why s of the GF%.
1. Did a player get a disproportionate number of defensive zone starts compared to offensive zone, neutral zone, and/or starts on the fly.
2. Did a player get normal offensive zone starts but always find themselves in their own zone taking defensive zone face-offs.
3. Was a player effective (positive GF%) when the the score was tied or within 1 G either way, or did they pad their stats in blowouts one way or the other.
4. Was a player effective 5-on-5 (where most TOI is played) or did they stat pad against an empty net.
etc