Shelly Anderson posted an intriguing article on Pittsburgh Hockey Now a while back that referenced a study and report published by RotoWire.com, ranking NHL teams from most aggressive to least aggressive.
No great surprise that our Penguins were tied for next-to-last with the Red Wings and Oilers.
The article also seemed to suggest an inverse relationship between aggression and on-ice success, citing the fact that only six of the 16 most aggressive teams according to the study made the playoffs. (It should be noted back-to-back Cup champion Florida ranked fourth.)
Not what I expected at all.
I’ve long been an advocate of physical play and have often bemoaned the Pens’ lack of toughness, especially during the latter stages of the Mike Sullivan era.
An inventory of recent Cup champions would seem to support my stance. In addition to the Panthers, the Golden Knights, Lightning, Blues and Capitals all employed a heavy element. The lone exception, the Avalanche, nonetheless boasted no fewer than a dozen skaters during the postseason who tipped the scales at 200 pounds or more.
Still, the article piqued my curiosity. I decided to do my own study of sorts, comparing team hits to point totals for 2024-25. The results pretty much reinforce the RotoWire findings.
Of the top 17 teams in hits, only two—the Maple Leafs and Kings—finished among the top-10 teams in points. Seven of the 17 qualified for the playoffs. Of those seven, only the Leafs and Cup-winning Panthers advanced past the first round.
Conversely, seven of the bottom-10 teams in hits ranked among the top-10 point-getters. The Hurricanes and Stars advanced to their respective Conference Final; the Oilers to the Cup Final.
As for a plausible explanation? To borrow a theory from PP colleague, Other Rick, perhaps the better teams play more often with a lead and are less likely to stir the pot physically, the Panthers being a notable exception. Other than that, I confess haven’t a clue.
At any rate, here are the results. Hit totals are courtesy of NHL.com. An asterisk indicates a playoff team.
| Team | Hits | Rank | Points | Rank |
| * Florida | 2446 | 1. | 98 | 11. |
| Vancouver | 2213 | 2. | 90 | 18. |
| Boston | 2168 | 3. | 76 | 27T. |
| * Ottawa | 2106 | 4. | 97 | 12. |
| NY Rangers | 2031 | 5. | 85 | 22. |
| * St. Louis | 2003 | 6. | 96 | 14. |
| * Montréal | 1987 | 7. | 91 | 16T. |
| * Toronto | 1962 | 8. | 108 | 4. |
| Nashville | 1933 | 9. | 68 | 30. |
| * New Jersey | 1929 | 10. | 91 | 16T. |
| Calgary | 1908 | 11. | 96 | 15. |
| Anaheim | 1876 | 12. | 80 | 24T. |
| San Jose | 1818 | 13. | 52 | 32. |
| NY Islanders | 1814 | 14. | 82 | 23. |
| * Los Angeles | 1742 | 15. | 105 | 6. |
| Buffalo | 1736 | 16. | 79 | 26. |
| Philadelphia | 1727 | 17. | 76 | 27T. |
| * Winnipeg | 1700 | 18. | 116 | 1. |
| Seattle | 1697 | 19. | 76 | 27T. |
| Penguins | 1665 | 20. | 80 | 24T. |
| Columbus | 1656 | 21. | 89 | 19. |
| * Minnesota | 1645 | 22. | 99 | 13. |
| * Washington | 1580 | 23. | 111 | 2. |
| Detroit | 1570 | 24. | 86 | 21. |
| * Colorado | 1549 | 25. | 102 | 7T. |
| Chicago | 1533 | 26. | 61 | 31. |
| * Vegas | 1488 | 27. | 110 | 3. |
| Utah | 1467 | 28. | 89 | 20. |
| * Tampa Bay | 1443 | 29. | 102 | 7T. |
| * Carolina | 1415 | 30. | 99 | 10. |
| * Dallas | 1245 | 31. | 106 | 5. |
| * Edmonton | 1241 | 32. | 101 | 9. |
Hey Rick,
Another point I made in our discussion was that you are not allowed to his a player who doesn’t have the puck. Seven of the top ten teams in terms of hits taken were in the playoffs. Why were they in the playoffs? Because they had the puck and paid the price for it. Teams who hit the most would have to be teams that do not regularly have control of the puck and are trying to get it. Hits is at least as much an inverse of puck possession as it is a mark of physicality.
Hitting a player without the puck is an obstruction penalty.
The problem with stats comes from people who either do not know at what they are looking or are not willing to look look at the whole picture, they just want a snap shot to prove a point. Then they get mad when someone throws up the stats that negate their argument.
Hey Other Rick,
Thank you for filling in the considerable blank spaces I left.
Rick