Twenty-two games into the 2011-12 season, the Caps find themselves in turmoil. After a 7-0-0 start, they’ve won just five of 15 games and there’s more than enough blame to share among the coaches, star players, grinders, defensemen and goaltenders.
But let’s take a closer look at some of the numbers underlying the 12-9-1 record, specifically goal differential and, even more specifically, at an individual level. The Caps are currently fourth in the NHL in goals per game, but 29th in goals against. How have they gotten to these numbers? After the jump, we’ll go player-by-player to look at the goals that have been scored for and against the Caps while that player was on the ice, and we’ll look at it by game score and period. Brace yourself – it could get ugly…
One thing to note before we dive in (Alex Semin tribute idiom), is that special teams play certainly impacts these numbers – players that spend a lot of time on the penalty kill and almost none on the power-play are put in situations where they’re more likely to rack up the “goals against” than “goals for,” and vice versa (though, to be fair, playing on the power play lately has been an even proposition at best). For quick reference, here’s the list of Caps players ranked by shorthanded time on ice, the power-play TOI list, power-play goals-for and penalty-killing goals against.This isn’t intended to be the most nuanced evaluation of goal differential, but more of a data dump and breakdown.This first table (which is sortable by column… kickass), shows the goals-for and -against by game score and the percentage of goals which have been Caps tallies in each situation. The three different situations presented are “Caps up two goals” (+2), “Score within one” (0+/-1), and “Caps down two goals” (-2). The first and third groups represent games that can be essentially put away or brought back to within one, depending on who scores; the second group lumps together situations in which a lead can change, disappear or be pushed to a more comfortable two goals. Obviously there are goals scored outside of those categories, but the samples are even smaller than these already-small samples and, frankly, pretty meaningless.
So, for example, John Erskine has been on the ice for three goals-for and two goals-against with the game tied or within one goal, meaning 60% have gone the Caps’ way; Dennis Wideman has been on for four goals-for and one against when the Caps have had a two-goal lead, or 80% favorable. Got it? Good. Anyway, on to the data…
| Player | GP | +2GF | +2GA | +2% | 0+/-1GF | 0+/1GA | 0+/-1% | -2GF | -2GA | -2% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| John Erskine | 8 | 1 | 0 | 100 | 3 | 2 | 60 | 1 | 1 | 50 |
| Dennis Wideman | 22 | 4 | 1 | 80 | 20 | 20 | 50 | 3 | 6 | 33 |
| Alex Ovechkin | 22 | 2 | 2 | 50 | 19 | 14 | 58 | 1 | 3 | 25 |
| Jeff Halpern | 21 | 1 | 1 | 50 | 5 | 12 | 29 | 0 | 0 | – |
| Nicklas Backstrom | 22 | 2 | 2 | 50 | 20 | 15 | 57 | 1 | 3 | 25 |
| Troy Brouwer | 22 | 2 | 1 | 67 | 14 | 13 | 52 | 2 | 4 | 33 |
| Brooks Laich | 22 | 1 | 0 | 100 | 12 | 18 | 40 | 1 | 4 | 20 |
| Mike Knuble | 22 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 9 | 12 | 43 | 1 | 1 | 50 |
| Jason Chimera | 22 | 1 | 0 | 100 | 13 | 11 | 54 | 2 | 1 | 67 |
| Matt Hendricks | 22 | 1 | 1 | 50 | 5 | 8 | 38 | 0 | 0 | – |
| Karl Alzner | 22 | 1 | 1 | 50 | 15 | 16 | 48 | 1 | 1 | 50 |
| Alexander Semin | 21 | 2 | 0 | 100 | 15 | 11 | 58 | 1 | 3 | 25 |
| Joel Ward | 21 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 10 | 11 | 48 | 2 | 1 | 67 |
| Roman Hamrlik | 22 | 1 | 3 | 25 | 12 | 23 | 34 | 0 | 4 | 0 |
| Cody Eakin | 11 | 1 | 0 | 100 | 5 | 2 | 71 | 2 | 3 | 40 |
| Mike Green | 8 | 3 | 0 | 100 | 11 | 7 | 61 | 0 | 0 | – |
| Jeff Schultz | 21 | 0 | 0 | – | 11 | 14 | 44 | 0 | 3 | 0 |
| John Carlson | 22 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 17 | 16 | 52 | 3 | 1 | 75 |
| Mathieu Perreault | 13 | 1 | 1 | 50 | 5 | 3 | 63 | 1 | 1 | 50 |
| Marcus Johansson | 21 | 1 | 1 | 50 | 15 | 14 | 52 | 2 | 4 | 33 |
Some notes on the above:
There’s a lot there. Or maybe there’s nothing there. In any event, on to the next table, which shows the goals-for and -against by period (with the third and overtime combined in that last trio of columns).:
| Player | GP | 1pGF | 1pGA | 1p% | 2pGF | 2pGA | 2p% | 3+4pGF | 3+4pGA | 3+4p% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| John Erskine | 8 | 1 | 0 | 100 | 1 | 2 | 33 | 1 | 1 | 50 |
| Dennis Wideman | 22 | 7 | 8 | 47 | 6 | 8 | 43 | 10 | 10 | 50 |
| Alex Ovechkin | 22 | 7 | 5 | 58 | 6 | 6 | 50 | 9 | 6 | 60 |
| Jeff Halpern | 21 | 4 | 2 | 67 | 2 | 7 | 22 | 0 | 4 | 0 |
| Nicklas Backstrom | 22 | 8 | 5 | 62 | 5 | 7 | 42 | 10 | 7 | 59 |
| Troy Brouwer | 22 | 5 | 7 | 42 | 8 | 6 | 57 | 4 | 5 | 44 |
| Brooks Laich | 22 | 4 | 10 | 29 | 3 | 6 | 33 | 7 | 6 | 54 |
| Mike Knuble | 22 | 3 | 7 | 40 | 4 | 4 | 50 | 3 | 3 | 50 |
| Jason Chimera | 22 | 7 | 5 | 58 | 4 | 4 | 50 | 5 | 2 | 71 |
| Matt Hendricks | 22 | 2 | 3 | 40 | 2 | 5 | 29 | 2 | 2 | 50 |
| Karl Alzner | 22 | 7 | 6 | 54 | 7 | 5 | 58 | 3 | 5 | 38 |
| Alexander Semin | 21 | 8 | 7 | 53 | 4 | 1 | 80 | 4 | 3 | 57 |
| Joel Ward | 21 | 2 | 4 | 33 | 7 | 5 | 58 | 4 | 3 | 57 |
| Roman Hamrlik | 22 | 4 | 11 | 27 | 3 | 11 | 21 | 6 | 6 | 50 |
| Cody Eakin | 11 | 1 | 2 | 33 | 4 | 2 | 67 | 1 | 0 | 100 |
| Mike Green | 8 | 4 | 5 | 44 | 2 | 2 | 50 | 7 | 0 | 100 |
| Jeff Schultz | 21 | 5 | 6 | 45 | 6 | 6 | 50 | 2 | 6 | 25 |
| John Carlson | 22 | 9 | 5 | 64 | 9 | 8 | 53 | 3 | 5 | 38 |
| Mathieu Perreault | 13 | 3 | 1 | 75 | 2 | 3 | 40 | 1 | 1 | 50 |
| Marcus Johansson | 21 | 5 | 6 | 45 | 8 | 3 | 73 | 4 | 6 | 40 |
And thoughts on this one:
It goes without saying that when a goal is scored – for or against – not everyone on the ice has a hand in making it happen. But, over time, trends emerge. Certain players are on the ice more often than others when good things happen, others seem to be equally unlucky. And to be sure, a 22-game sample is little more than a blip when it comes to forming these trends. Nevertheless, the above explains some of what we’ve seen so far and, perhaps more importantly, gives us some things to look for going forward. If there’s any “there” there, let’s see if it’s still there in another twenty games.