Life In A Time Of Grind - Sully's Bottom Six
It is May 10th, 2016. A Penguins zone entry has resulted in Carl Hagelin skating into the corner. He's got two Capitals on him but nobody's cutting off a pass behind the net. Nick Bonino leaves the puck and it goes all the way through to Phil Kessel with time and space. TJ Oshie is the nearest Capital but he moves to take away the lane back to the points and points for Backstrom to challenge Kessel and take away the pass to the net front. Slightly impeded by Bonino going to the net front, Backstrom is a step too late to stop the pass. All the Capitals are a step too late. Niskanen isn't in time to stop Hagelin from getting a shot off from the slot. Taylor Chorney is a step too late to impede Bonino. The Capitals go off to the golf course. The Penguins go on to party with Lord Stanley.
It was a fitting crowning moment for Washington's tormentors in chief. The HBK line had six unanswered goals over the series. The Capitals can beat the Penguins' first line, they can neutralise the second, but they are helpless to deal with the third. And for one glorious summer, many Penguins fans think this will be forever. Three lines, each spearheaded by a legit star, offering opponents a horrendous choice - which one of Crosby, Malkin, or Kessel do you want to let at your normally shielded skaters?
I believed along with them. I was a new hockey fan, sucked in by a woman who'd told me I was now a Pittsburgh Penguins fan with no choice, seeing no reason a line wouldn't be forever. They looked great together. I didn't know much about hockey, but I knew that. My girlfriend (now wife) got me a HBK line t-shirt. I was really excited to watch them ride again 2016-17. That didn't happen. What has happened is a carousel of uncertainty, disappointment, change, arguments, and more uncertainty. The result is that nobody outside the coaching staff - and maybe not even them - seems to know what really makes a good bottom six group in Pittsburgh. Rutherford's recent admission on Friedman's 31 Thoughts that they have to be very careful about who they bring in and who'll fit with the team's stars, using Brassard as an example, is evidence of how it has not been smooth sailing.
The point of this article is to try and find some of the moments it has been and see what way the wind blew.
I have little by the way of objective comparison but it the Penguins bottom six seems to be a more challenging role than usual. Crosby and Malkin demand as much quality attacking time as any top 6 line group can, making hard assignments very normal. The Penguins are as cap challenged as any team and, as a peculiarity of a team that seemingly couldn't draft dmen with a time machine but finds another intriguing winger ever time it turns around, the cost savings usually come from moving on depth forwards regularly. It also means Crosby and Malkin have usually been surrounded by complimentary wingers of the type that lack consistency, resulting in frequent line changes. Finally, the Penguins remain one of the most injured groups in the NHL. It all adds up considerable difficulty in finding and maintaining chemistry. Since 2016-17, 33 different forwards have recorded at least 100 regular season minutes away from Crosby and Malkin, with the number of such never dropping below 13 different names a season. Only Rust and Hornqvist have been in that number for all four seasons.
In 2016-17, only three forwards managed a higher 5v5 xGF% than team average in just their non-Crosby/Malkin minutes - Hornqvist, Scott Wilson, and Kuhnhackl. In 17/18, that's just Hagelin and Rust. In 18/19, we have all of Simon, Bjugstad, McCann, Hornqvist, and Garrett Wilson, but there's all sorts of problems with that. Finally, in 19/20, we are down to just Aston-Reese. In terms of score effects, the picture is slightly rosier; 4, 6, 5 and 5 respectively for beating 5v5 GF%. It stands to reason that beating an average set partially by the two best centres of their generation isn't that easy but nevertheless, this should illustrate how hard it is has been for bottom six lines to excel here post-HBK.
Also, while Penguins bottom sixers do at least tend to post respectable results, it seems to be easier for them to post horrible numbers than great numbers. Great has 6 seasons above 60% GF% and horrible 12 seasons below 40% and with xGF% has 3 above 55% and 10 below 45%. The Penguins don't need their bottom six to excel (although it doing so is usually the sound of the team going into overdrive) but they do need it to avoid being a hole on the waterline. There was one awful GF% season in 16-17 from Hagelin; six in 17-18 from McKegg, Reaves, Hagelin, Kuhnhackl, Simon, Rowney; three in 18-19 from Brassard, Pearson and Sprong; and two in 19-20 from Blandisi and Simon. Some of those seasons can be shrugged off as coming from birds of passage or little played rookies and depth players. But there's quite a few bad seasons from highly paid, highly talented players that maybe shouldn't be happening.
That is the overview. Constant change. Overperformance is rare and high level underperformance is relatively common. It's been a unit that has infrequently looked like it's contribution to a Stanley Cup win will be more than doing its part, even with a lot of talent thrown at it. One final point - obviously the injuries, cap churn, and rightful determination to support Crosby and Malkin first has also led to instability on the blueline behind the bottom six. This article won't go heavily into that, but will try to touch on it when relevant.
2016-17
The tale of the Penguins' bottom 6 is usually the tale of its centres. Going into the back to back attempt, the Penguins' roster was very stable thanks to a slew of of ELCs and undervalued contracts, which included Nick Bonino and Matt Cullen. Fan confidence in them was wildly high - this was a time of HBK line t-shirts and "One More Year" chants - with reason. They have together provided eight goals (four of them gamewinners), sixteen assists, a combined +12 and 4:10 a night on the 85.1% PK unit that held Ovechkin and all of San Jose alike to 1 goal each. If anyone was to do an article on greatest bottom six performances for Stanley Cup winners, it would be well up there and in retrospect, the standard could never stay that high. Cullen's line remained a contributor, albeit not as wildly successful, with a GF% and xGF% of 51.85 and 51.54 respectively. Bonino's 45.31 and 46.83 scores were not so hot and probably increased Rutherford's reluctance to offer Bonino the contract he wanted at the end of the season.
It is probably not surprising that when we look at the high and low performers that year, we find Cullen's wings at the top and Bonino's at the bottom. Fehr, Kuhnhackl, and the call-ups of Archibald and Rowney all posted 55+ GF%s in their limited minutes with the lowest PDO being Rowney's with 1.018. Kessel, Hagelin and Rust made up the Pens' worst GF%s with Bonino (Kessel highest with 45.65), and while there was a degree of bad luck, their xGF%s (Rust highest with 47.73) show it was only a degree. Worryingly, Kessel actually beat his xGF%. It should be noted at this point that there are very few excuses for the Pens forwards in terms of blueline support as a loaded d-corps resulted in Justin Schultz in his career year being on the bottom six's most regularly seen pairing.
Best and Worst Cullen Lines
Cullen's most regular line was Fehr and Kuhnhackl, and it was also his best with a 71.43 GF% and 59.45% xGF%. There were variations on it where Scott Wilson replaced one or other of the wingers, and the 33.33 GF% and 43.20 xGF% achieved with Fehr and Wilson is Cullen's worse. Those were Cullen's only two lines with over 100 minutes that year, and that one replacement absolutely sank the line. That's probably not on Wilson, who played 142 minutes with Cullen away from that line that year with respectable results of 47.06 GF% and 56.41 xGF%, but something about the chemistry didn't work. And speaking of things didn't work, Cullen's 4th most common line combination saw him at wing with Bonino and Kessel. It should have worked with a 54.81 xGF%, but going -1 with only one goal scored in its 47 minutes meant it didn't (although maybe it would with more time).
Best and Worst Bonino Lines
Should have worked but didn't was the Bonino-Kessel motto that season. HBK got 208 minutes to refind the magic but it's 38.46 GF% and 43.43 xGF% was as magical as food poisoning. Without the playoff intensity and will to win, it didn't work. Bonino didn't play more than 100 minutes with any other line, but he did post over 200 minutes with both Rust and Wilson with decent separated results and a GF% of 66.67 (i.e. +1 from 2-1) and xGF% of 60.21 with them both together for 58 minutes. For want of a better candidate, that is Bonino's best line.
Rugged Carter Rowney
Injuries meant a decent amount of time for the Penguins 5C that year, a spot that became a battle between promising prospect Oskar Sundqvist and Carter Rowney, a 27 year old who'd spent most of his first post NCAA season with the Wheeling Nailers and had clawed his way up the professional ranks season by season to reach the NHL precipice. Sundqvist posted less than 100 minutes with disappointing sub-40 numbers. Rowney got 210 minutes as 4C (and spells as a wing for both Cullen and Bonino) with a 53.85 GF% and 51.5 xGF%. It was a good result and even better story, one that combined with his style, name and face led to the tongue-in-cheek nickname of Rugged Carter Rowney and his most regular line of Archibald and Scott Wilson went 4-2 on the score sheet with a 51.57 xGF%.
2017-18
Then the churn started. Bonino left for Nashville, Cullen for Minnesota. 850 minutes of wing time had gone with Fehr and Kunitz. Fans spent all summer identifying spare 3Cs around the league and came up with a pretty solid list, only for Vegas to draft all of them. Given the front office's seeming inactivity, it seems a reasonable guess we had most of the same names they'd come up with too. There was a rumour from a fairly reliable source that once Vegas had worked out which centre they liked least, there'd be a deal, but that didn't help at the start of the season (or, in fact, at all). We then noticed/circled back to Riley Sheahan a few weeks before Jason Mackey broke rumours about a potential deal there. I say this less to glorify the fan community I'm part of and more to make a point about how easy it is to work out every potential spare 3C in the NHL every summer. It's not a large pool. And that is part of why the Pittsburgh Penguins, one of the league's power franchises, started the 17-18 season with Greg McKegg and Carter Rowney as their bottom six centres. Great names, but they had a combined 16 NHL points at that stage. We all knew they were fill-ins and over the season Sheahan (at the cost of Scott Wilson) and Derick Brassard were brought in, but with 20-20 hindsight, it might have been part of the foundation of shifting instability that has come to typify the bottom six. Defence wise, the bottom six lost a lot of their champion in Schultz to injury and promotion, but they did receive a boon in return; an increase to 343 minutes with Letang and Dumoulin. The response? A 36.36 GF%. Ouch. But then, there was a similar result in the limited minutes available in 16-17 too. Coincidence, a result of seeing top opposition, or a result of Letang's risky style needing great talent to safeguard it? In any case, the bottom six champion here was Olli Maatta, whose 500 plus minutes weren't quite as good as Schultz's but still better than average.
The best bottom six performer that season was Bryan Rust by quite a distance with a 55.56 GF% and 54.15 xGF%. The other only other players above 50 GF% were Brassard, Sheary, and Sheahan. The extensive list of shame for bad GF% - McKegg, Reaves, Hagelin, Kuhnhackl, Simon, Rowney - was mostly unlucky (particularly Hagelin who posted a 55.15 xGF%) and the one exception, Simon, was a mostly attack minded rookie still learning his trade. Incidentally, technically Simon shouldn't be counted for this as he was three seconds short of my 100 minute cut-off. I felt ridiculous not counting him because of that so in he is.
A Leg for an Arm and an Arm for a Leg
McKegg's Penguins career started promisingly but petered out rapidly. His most common line of Reaves and Kuhnhackl probably had something to do with that; their xGF% of 46.30 wasn't great but going 1-5 in their 86 minutes (16.67 GF%) was just ugly. He was actually a 50% GF player with a nice high xGF% away from them, although I can't find a semi-regular line that was actually good. Hagelin was a solid linemate though for possession.
Nobody will be shocked to hear that Reaves and Kuhnhackl had a similarly deleterious effect on Rowney too; 33.33 GF% and 42.06 xGF% with them. Rowney however managed to be even worse away from them, at least in terms of GF%. He was just generally a nightmare. His next most common line was Hagelin and Rust, which had a 72.32 xGF% to go with its only 33.33 GF%. This isn't great statistical analysis but I'm calling the hunt there for his best line.
Best and Worst Sheahan Lines
Sheahan got to spend 187 minutes with Guentzel and Kessel - roughly 20% of his time - and shockingly enough it went great with a 60 GF% and 49.87 xGF% (better than Guentzel and Kessel together without Sheahan). No other line got over a 100 minutes; his next most common were Hagelin and Rust (47.42 xGF% but 33.33 GF%) and Sheary and Hornqvist which had an impressive 75 GF% and 64.87 xGF%. I don't know whether I can say that was Sheahan's best line when it had so much less time than Guentzel and Kessel, but they were both good lines. And Hagelin and Rust would be the worst. However, I will mention one more line. Reaves and Kuhnhackl? The wing combo that destroyed the Penguins careers of two guys who have done well elsewhere? 60 GF%, 50.21 xGF%.
Brassard: The Promise
There's not a lot to say here. None of the lines had enough time to prove much. They were all decent to good and all featured Phil Kessel, with a rotation of linemates to try and find the right match. Simon and Rust did (in tiny periods), and Sheary and Sheahan was just okay.
2018-19
This introductory paragraph will be painful to write. The start of 18-19 felt like the return of a loaded Pens bottom six with Cullen coming back to join Sheahan and Brassard. There a number of ways it could be spun, but there was going to be a good 3C and great 4C at the very least. The best case scenario where Kessel and Brassard found the chemistry they'd hinted at the year before The worst case scenario was... I can't remember what it was meant to be. Brassard completely imploding and Sheahan's production disappearing was not on the menu. The next thing we know, those two are traded, Nick Bjugstad and Jared McCann are rolling up right before game day, and the churn continues. It should be noted that between the major injury to Schultz, a horrendous season from Jack Johnson, and Maatta's worst season as a Penguin, defensive support is probably at its worst for any of the listed seasons.
Brassard: The Disappointment
I hope that one day those involved in Brassard's time in Pittsburgh will speak in detail and with unvarnished honesty. I live for that day. I wasn't expecting it to be a huge success but I wasn't expect it to be what it was either. Brassard's most used line was Pearson-Brassard-Kessel for only 88 minutes, a testament to Sullivan's attempts to find something that worked. It seems plausible the search became counter-productive, but probably not in splitting that line up before its 50 GF% caught up with its 36.43 xGF%. About the closest the line came to working was 40 minutes with Aston-Reese and Kessel; 60 GF%, only 42.91 GF%.
Sheahan and Cullen
Sheahan would admit at some point during the season that the signing of Cullen had knocked his confidence, which is infuriating when him continuing to have played as he had would have meant he had nothing to worry about. Sheahan never really centered one line long enough in Pittsburgh for it to be meaningful that season. Neither, in truth, did Cullen, perhaps hampered by finally feeling some pressure from Father Time; but the one in which both were joined by Aston-Reese was probably their best, with a 3-0 100 GF% from 52.45 xGF%.
McCann and Bjugstad
After the two arrived, beat reporters said that that team sources reckoned McCann would be 3C and Bjugstad would fill a top 6 RW role. It is typical of the Penguins' plans then that McCann's single most common line was with Crosby and Guentzel, and the next two were with Blueger at C, and the next was with Bjugstad at C; McCann spent just 89 minutes not playing with another C.
Bjugstad did seem to nail down the nail the role though. His line with Simon and Hornqvist was the only Penguins bottom six line to log more than 100 minutes - 147 minutes to be precise - and achieved a whopping 71.43 GF% and 65.64 xGF.
2019-20
Needless to say, the promise of a potentially settled continuous situation soon proved hollow as Nick Bjugstad got injury after injury. So did everyone else, starting with Malkin and Crosby leaving more of a bottom nine situation than a bottom six. That the Penguins survived and thrived was testament to how well their depth could play, mostly centered by Jared McCann and Blueger. However, after a tailing off in form, the question is which bottom six will turn up to the playoffs - the one up to the New Year, or the one after? And which one will show up next season? The answer probably lies at least partially with their supporting cast.
Blueger's Best and Worst Line
People keep referring to Blueger's line as the 4th, but it frequently saw more ice time and responsibility than McCann's. It's iconic form was Aston-Reese Blueger Tanev - BART to some - and while its 50 GF% and 53.89 xGF% don't look strong, they were considering they were frequently used to shutdown opposition best. In the line's one game against Edmonton, they saw over half their time again McDavid, and used it to outshoot him 7-1 - something of an outlier in terms of results, but not responsibility. The worst lines were virtually every form of the line without Aston-Reese - something I would put down to a missing ingredient rather than quality.
McCann's Best and Worst Line
If Blueger's line was the anvil on which opposition stopped, McCann's line was the hammer. There was no single outstanding line so much as there was a partnership - 300 minutes with Kahun produced a 64.29 GF% and 52.92 xGF%. Their pairing was a tale of two halves, having played more than half its minutes by the end of November with a 75 GF% and 60.94 xGF%, before cooling down to a line that only broken even on the back of a 43.25 xGF%. Between time spent as a top 6 winger and a rotating cast of wingers, no one line really stayed together long enough to be identified as the worst.
Conclusions
Mike Sullivan's first Stanley Cup was built to no small extent on his bottom six. Ever since then, he has found himself constantly searching for one with as much impact, a process that has instead usually been about fixing the problems that emerge in the unit over the season. To an extent, there is nothing wrong with that. The 15-16 bottom six was meant to have Eric Fehr as a Centre, but became built around Bonino and Cullen after an injury to Fehr, and it took the trade of Perron for Hagelin and another injury to Malkin to find the HBK line (Bonino having underperformed for much of the season). However, continual surgery is rarely going to be totally successful. Finding increased stability and continuity in the bottom six would be a boon for the Penguins. There would seem to be two main points of failure for the major disasters.
1. Mentality
I tread carefully here as we are dealing with the realm of rumour, supposition, and speculative extrapolation from quotes, but there is reason to think that the mental element has played a big part in the failure of several of the bigger names to strike out as Penguins bottom sixers. Brassard, the most obvious one, just couldn't make the adjustment, whatever the adjustment was - I guess it's the pressure of having a lot to prove with less tools than usual, of needing to be a big fish and a little fish at once. Pearson, his partner in crime for much of it, came to Pittsburgh after a difficult season in LA and was perhaps still shook by leaving his first NHL team in such inglorious circumstances. Kessel, a common thread in worse lines (and some best), was said to have been vocal in his desire to be on Malkin's line rather than in the bottom six. Sheahan's confidence was, by his own admission, shook by the idea that he might be replaced.
To be in Pittsburgh's bottom six is effectively to have been asked to serve in heaven rather than rule in hell. You will not get the best of the wingers. You will not get the best attacking minutes. You will get a great shot at a Stanley Cup and to be around some of their generation's finest, but you'll rarely be on the ice with them and their presence invites pressure. It seems that not everybody is comfortable enough with that situation to give their best. This goes double for players who are unfortunate enough to have their arrival coincide with injuries - Brassard, Pearson, and you could add Galchenyuk here - as the time delay between faith invested and faith paid back only increases pressure for those feeling it. It is perhaps telling that the best additions to the Penguins' bottom six after the back-to-back have mostly been young players with little to live up to and everything to gain - players like McCann, Blueger, Aston-Reese - and the worst have mostly been players with reputations to protect.
2. Lack of Skill
Sullivan tends to work in terms of pairings, leaving him free to move spare parts between the pairings as injuries, form, injuries, match-ups, and yet more injuries dictate. They're usually C-W, but the W-W pairing of Kuhnhackl-Reaves migrated from Centre to Centre and might have just been the worst pairing in recent Penguins bottom six history. They lacked enough skill to make the plays that kept play going the right way. This difficulty was exacerbated by centres like McKegg and Rowney who weren't fantastic; it took a guy like Sheahan, who showed a good ability to keep the puck that season, to make it halfway work.
This problem is also partially behind the bad seasons of Hagelin and Simon. Both are very good players, well capable of driving possession, but both lack finish. Hagelin's 17-18 season and Simon's 19-20 seasons in the bottom six should have ended up a lot better than they did but the line's inability to score goals sunk them. Both players have two seasons in the ten worst on-ice shooting percentages for the Penguins. This issue hasn't stopped either player from being part of fantastically productive lines in the top six, but in the bottom six, they need players who can shoot and finish to work with.
Successes
The first clue to HBK's success lay in it being overqualified. Kessel's case for being capable of being deployed higher is obvious, but both Bonino and Hagelin flirted with being second liners, albeit of a complimentary type, at times in their career. With both in top form, it was at the very least capable of being a high end second line anywhere else. The second clue lies in the blend of skills. HBK boasted speed, skill, and sheer hard work in abundance. It could score from anywhere - the last game six goal was a messy net front goal, the first game six goal a snipe from the circles - and was difficult to take advantage of. To what extent has this, and can this, be replicated?
1. Overqualified
This rotates around two people; Matt Cullen and Patric Hornqvist. Cullen scored at a 50 point pace pace in 16-17 when deployed away from the fourth line; he didn't have the legs to maintain the duties he did when he was younger, but he still had much of the skill and skating. When on the fourth line, he achieved strong results with a mix of Scott Wilson, Tom Kuhnhackl, and Eric Fehr, a trio where the post-Cullen highwater mark is Kunhackl's 23 points in 133 games in two and a bit seasons. He elevated them.
Patric Hornqvist has become an increasingly common component of the bottom six as the Penguins seem to shift focus in their top six build, and his presence has been a boon. No player has driven xGF% quite like Hornqvist, with three seasons in the Penguins' top fifteen in the period, and only one below 52 xGF%. This isn't surprising given that Hornqvist had the league leading HDCF rate as a forward from 16-17 to 18-19; his battle-ready style has always driven possession. It what made him a legitimate top six forward for so long. There's a drift in Penguins fan opinion (which I'll admit to sometimes sharing) that says we should look to move Hornqvist before too long due to fear of having his cap hit on the books when his age and style catch up with. There's a reason for that fear, but it should be counter-balanced with the knowledge that in Hornqvist, the Penguins have a quality player who will embrace the bottom six driver role in a way Kessel or Brassard never could. That is valuable and shouldn't be given away thoughtlessly.
2. Skill Blend
Simon-Bjugstad-Hornqvist is probably the gold standard of Penguins third lines since HBK. Simon and Hornqvist have been a strong wing combination since 17-18, with 476 minutes logged for a 57.58 GF% and 54.04 xGF%. The complimentary nature of their styles is obvious from watching - Simon's anticipation and vision makes him a very effective player in the area from circle to circle, while Hornqvist makes his living mostly between circle and net. It's a similar pairing to Sheary-Hornqvist, previously of a Stanley Cup win and a brief but intriguing line with Sheahan. Nick Bjugstad wasn't the most obvious compliment but he did provide a few valuable things; a shooting threat from above the hashmarks, a good puck carrier (Simon is inconsistent at it), and in general, showed no particular weakness while with the line. The wing pairing has performed well with other centres too; it seems anathema to the way Sullivan organises his lines (and also Crosby's preference to play a bunch with Simon) but perhaps that pairing should be considered as one that doesn't get split up in future.
Other successful lines or pairings show similar blends. McCann and Kahun worked as a centre who liked to play defence, rush the puck, and gun the puck, and a winger who liked to have the puck, keep the puck, and then pass it. Bonino and Rust worked as a responsible centre who liked to spring attacks from deep and a wing who likes being given the puck from deep so he could rush towards the other end of the ice. It is not a revolutionary concept, and well blended lines have failed, but it is a pre-requisite for success.
The Future
In theory, the Penguins' bottom six already looks quite set for next year. McCann and Blueger will probably be the centres, notionally as 3C and 4C. Blueger will probably be kept with Aston-Reese and Tanev. McCann will probably be mostly deployed with Hornqvist, with an open question at LW that could be filled with any of Simon, Lafferty, Poulin if he makes the team, or AN Other. It's a good bottom six, although arguably a bit one-note; looking at Bryce Chevaller's model shows that five man probably unit has very strong defensively and in transition, but that Blueger is the only player there who's regularly trying to act as a playmaker with the puck.
In practice, and maybe this is cynicism and scarring talking, it is probably safe to bet on the Penguins' bottom six being somehow different for much of the season. I cannot tell you how or why, although I can list many scenarios such as injury, or a storming playoff success from Bjugstad, a trade to free up cap, prospect coming through very fast, major collapse of form, or injury again. Yes, I do like to talk about injuries as a Penguins fan.
Back to theory, and the one hole that needs plugging seems to be a playmaker on the third line. Both Simon and, theoretically, Poulin could fill that hole. Yet there are questions over both. Can Simon's poor finishing by sufficiently masked with third line talent? Will he even be available? Is Samuel Poulin ready? It would be very easy to derail the Penguins' full potential here and there is no player available in WBS who pegs as a likely savior here. It is possible that Rutherford will look to try and sign/trade for a cheap creative gamble late in the free agency window should Poulin not make it out of camp.
It could be the difference between good and great.
It was a fitting crowning moment for Washington's tormentors in chief. The HBK line had six unanswered goals over the series. The Capitals can beat the Penguins' first line, they can neutralise the second, but they are helpless to deal with the third. And for one glorious summer, many Penguins fans think this will be forever. Three lines, each spearheaded by a legit star, offering opponents a horrendous choice - which one of Crosby, Malkin, or Kessel do you want to let at your normally shielded skaters?
I believed along with them. I was a new hockey fan, sucked in by a woman who'd told me I was now a Pittsburgh Penguins fan with no choice, seeing no reason a line wouldn't be forever. They looked great together. I didn't know much about hockey, but I knew that. My girlfriend (now wife) got me a HBK line t-shirt. I was really excited to watch them ride again 2016-17. That didn't happen. What has happened is a carousel of uncertainty, disappointment, change, arguments, and more uncertainty. The result is that nobody outside the coaching staff - and maybe not even them - seems to know what really makes a good bottom six group in Pittsburgh. Rutherford's recent admission on Friedman's 31 Thoughts that they have to be very careful about who they bring in and who'll fit with the team's stars, using Brassard as an example, is evidence of how it has not been smooth sailing.
The point of this article is to try and find some of the moments it has been and see what way the wind blew.
I have little by the way of objective comparison but it the Penguins bottom six seems to be a more challenging role than usual. Crosby and Malkin demand as much quality attacking time as any top 6 line group can, making hard assignments very normal. The Penguins are as cap challenged as any team and, as a peculiarity of a team that seemingly couldn't draft dmen with a time machine but finds another intriguing winger ever time it turns around, the cost savings usually come from moving on depth forwards regularly. It also means Crosby and Malkin have usually been surrounded by complimentary wingers of the type that lack consistency, resulting in frequent line changes. Finally, the Penguins remain one of the most injured groups in the NHL. It all adds up considerable difficulty in finding and maintaining chemistry. Since 2016-17, 33 different forwards have recorded at least 100 regular season minutes away from Crosby and Malkin, with the number of such never dropping below 13 different names a season. Only Rust and Hornqvist have been in that number for all four seasons.
In 2016-17, only three forwards managed a higher 5v5 xGF% than team average in just their non-Crosby/Malkin minutes - Hornqvist, Scott Wilson, and Kuhnhackl. In 17/18, that's just Hagelin and Rust. In 18/19, we have all of Simon, Bjugstad, McCann, Hornqvist, and Garrett Wilson, but there's all sorts of problems with that. Finally, in 19/20, we are down to just Aston-Reese. In terms of score effects, the picture is slightly rosier; 4, 6, 5 and 5 respectively for beating 5v5 GF%. It stands to reason that beating an average set partially by the two best centres of their generation isn't that easy but nevertheless, this should illustrate how hard it is has been for bottom six lines to excel here post-HBK.
Also, while Penguins bottom sixers do at least tend to post respectable results, it seems to be easier for them to post horrible numbers than great numbers. Great has 6 seasons above 60% GF% and horrible 12 seasons below 40% and with xGF% has 3 above 55% and 10 below 45%. The Penguins don't need their bottom six to excel (although it doing so is usually the sound of the team going into overdrive) but they do need it to avoid being a hole on the waterline. There was one awful GF% season in 16-17 from Hagelin; six in 17-18 from McKegg, Reaves, Hagelin, Kuhnhackl, Simon, Rowney; three in 18-19 from Brassard, Pearson and Sprong; and two in 19-20 from Blandisi and Simon. Some of those seasons can be shrugged off as coming from birds of passage or little played rookies and depth players. But there's quite a few bad seasons from highly paid, highly talented players that maybe shouldn't be happening.
That is the overview. Constant change. Overperformance is rare and high level underperformance is relatively common. It's been a unit that has infrequently looked like it's contribution to a Stanley Cup win will be more than doing its part, even with a lot of talent thrown at it. One final point - obviously the injuries, cap churn, and rightful determination to support Crosby and Malkin first has also led to instability on the blueline behind the bottom six. This article won't go heavily into that, but will try to touch on it when relevant.
2016-17
The tale of the Penguins' bottom 6 is usually the tale of its centres. Going into the back to back attempt, the Penguins' roster was very stable thanks to a slew of of ELCs and undervalued contracts, which included Nick Bonino and Matt Cullen. Fan confidence in them was wildly high - this was a time of HBK line t-shirts and "One More Year" chants - with reason. They have together provided eight goals (four of them gamewinners), sixteen assists, a combined +12 and 4:10 a night on the 85.1% PK unit that held Ovechkin and all of San Jose alike to 1 goal each. If anyone was to do an article on greatest bottom six performances for Stanley Cup winners, it would be well up there and in retrospect, the standard could never stay that high. Cullen's line remained a contributor, albeit not as wildly successful, with a GF% and xGF% of 51.85 and 51.54 respectively. Bonino's 45.31 and 46.83 scores were not so hot and probably increased Rutherford's reluctance to offer Bonino the contract he wanted at the end of the season.
It is probably not surprising that when we look at the high and low performers that year, we find Cullen's wings at the top and Bonino's at the bottom. Fehr, Kuhnhackl, and the call-ups of Archibald and Rowney all posted 55+ GF%s in their limited minutes with the lowest PDO being Rowney's with 1.018. Kessel, Hagelin and Rust made up the Pens' worst GF%s with Bonino (Kessel highest with 45.65), and while there was a degree of bad luck, their xGF%s (Rust highest with 47.73) show it was only a degree. Worryingly, Kessel actually beat his xGF%. It should be noted at this point that there are very few excuses for the Pens forwards in terms of blueline support as a loaded d-corps resulted in Justin Schultz in his career year being on the bottom six's most regularly seen pairing.
Best and Worst Cullen Lines
Cullen's most regular line was Fehr and Kuhnhackl, and it was also his best with a 71.43 GF% and 59.45% xGF%. There were variations on it where Scott Wilson replaced one or other of the wingers, and the 33.33 GF% and 43.20 xGF% achieved with Fehr and Wilson is Cullen's worse. Those were Cullen's only two lines with over 100 minutes that year, and that one replacement absolutely sank the line. That's probably not on Wilson, who played 142 minutes with Cullen away from that line that year with respectable results of 47.06 GF% and 56.41 xGF%, but something about the chemistry didn't work. And speaking of things didn't work, Cullen's 4th most common line combination saw him at wing with Bonino and Kessel. It should have worked with a 54.81 xGF%, but going -1 with only one goal scored in its 47 minutes meant it didn't (although maybe it would with more time).
Best and Worst Bonino Lines
Should have worked but didn't was the Bonino-Kessel motto that season. HBK got 208 minutes to refind the magic but it's 38.46 GF% and 43.43 xGF% was as magical as food poisoning. Without the playoff intensity and will to win, it didn't work. Bonino didn't play more than 100 minutes with any other line, but he did post over 200 minutes with both Rust and Wilson with decent separated results and a GF% of 66.67 (i.e. +1 from 2-1) and xGF% of 60.21 with them both together for 58 minutes. For want of a better candidate, that is Bonino's best line.
Rugged Carter Rowney
Injuries meant a decent amount of time for the Penguins 5C that year, a spot that became a battle between promising prospect Oskar Sundqvist and Carter Rowney, a 27 year old who'd spent most of his first post NCAA season with the Wheeling Nailers and had clawed his way up the professional ranks season by season to reach the NHL precipice. Sundqvist posted less than 100 minutes with disappointing sub-40 numbers. Rowney got 210 minutes as 4C (and spells as a wing for both Cullen and Bonino) with a 53.85 GF% and 51.5 xGF%. It was a good result and even better story, one that combined with his style, name and face led to the tongue-in-cheek nickname of Rugged Carter Rowney and his most regular line of Archibald and Scott Wilson went 4-2 on the score sheet with a 51.57 xGF%.
2017-18
Then the churn started. Bonino left for Nashville, Cullen for Minnesota. 850 minutes of wing time had gone with Fehr and Kunitz. Fans spent all summer identifying spare 3Cs around the league and came up with a pretty solid list, only for Vegas to draft all of them. Given the front office's seeming inactivity, it seems a reasonable guess we had most of the same names they'd come up with too. There was a rumour from a fairly reliable source that once Vegas had worked out which centre they liked least, there'd be a deal, but that didn't help at the start of the season (or, in fact, at all). We then noticed/circled back to Riley Sheahan a few weeks before Jason Mackey broke rumours about a potential deal there. I say this less to glorify the fan community I'm part of and more to make a point about how easy it is to work out every potential spare 3C in the NHL every summer. It's not a large pool. And that is part of why the Pittsburgh Penguins, one of the league's power franchises, started the 17-18 season with Greg McKegg and Carter Rowney as their bottom six centres. Great names, but they had a combined 16 NHL points at that stage. We all knew they were fill-ins and over the season Sheahan (at the cost of Scott Wilson) and Derick Brassard were brought in, but with 20-20 hindsight, it might have been part of the foundation of shifting instability that has come to typify the bottom six. Defence wise, the bottom six lost a lot of their champion in Schultz to injury and promotion, but they did receive a boon in return; an increase to 343 minutes with Letang and Dumoulin. The response? A 36.36 GF%. Ouch. But then, there was a similar result in the limited minutes available in 16-17 too. Coincidence, a result of seeing top opposition, or a result of Letang's risky style needing great talent to safeguard it? In any case, the bottom six champion here was Olli Maatta, whose 500 plus minutes weren't quite as good as Schultz's but still better than average.
The best bottom six performer that season was Bryan Rust by quite a distance with a 55.56 GF% and 54.15 xGF%. The other only other players above 50 GF% were Brassard, Sheary, and Sheahan. The extensive list of shame for bad GF% - McKegg, Reaves, Hagelin, Kuhnhackl, Simon, Rowney - was mostly unlucky (particularly Hagelin who posted a 55.15 xGF%) and the one exception, Simon, was a mostly attack minded rookie still learning his trade. Incidentally, technically Simon shouldn't be counted for this as he was three seconds short of my 100 minute cut-off. I felt ridiculous not counting him because of that so in he is.
A Leg for an Arm and an Arm for a Leg
McKegg's Penguins career started promisingly but petered out rapidly. His most common line of Reaves and Kuhnhackl probably had something to do with that; their xGF% of 46.30 wasn't great but going 1-5 in their 86 minutes (16.67 GF%) was just ugly. He was actually a 50% GF player with a nice high xGF% away from them, although I can't find a semi-regular line that was actually good. Hagelin was a solid linemate though for possession.
Nobody will be shocked to hear that Reaves and Kuhnhackl had a similarly deleterious effect on Rowney too; 33.33 GF% and 42.06 xGF% with them. Rowney however managed to be even worse away from them, at least in terms of GF%. He was just generally a nightmare. His next most common line was Hagelin and Rust, which had a 72.32 xGF% to go with its only 33.33 GF%. This isn't great statistical analysis but I'm calling the hunt there for his best line.
Best and Worst Sheahan Lines
Sheahan got to spend 187 minutes with Guentzel and Kessel - roughly 20% of his time - and shockingly enough it went great with a 60 GF% and 49.87 xGF% (better than Guentzel and Kessel together without Sheahan). No other line got over a 100 minutes; his next most common were Hagelin and Rust (47.42 xGF% but 33.33 GF%) and Sheary and Hornqvist which had an impressive 75 GF% and 64.87 xGF%. I don't know whether I can say that was Sheahan's best line when it had so much less time than Guentzel and Kessel, but they were both good lines. And Hagelin and Rust would be the worst. However, I will mention one more line. Reaves and Kuhnhackl? The wing combo that destroyed the Penguins careers of two guys who have done well elsewhere? 60 GF%, 50.21 xGF%.
Brassard: The Promise
There's not a lot to say here. None of the lines had enough time to prove much. They were all decent to good and all featured Phil Kessel, with a rotation of linemates to try and find the right match. Simon and Rust did (in tiny periods), and Sheary and Sheahan was just okay.
2018-19
This introductory paragraph will be painful to write. The start of 18-19 felt like the return of a loaded Pens bottom six with Cullen coming back to join Sheahan and Brassard. There a number of ways it could be spun, but there was going to be a good 3C and great 4C at the very least. The best case scenario where Kessel and Brassard found the chemistry they'd hinted at the year before The worst case scenario was... I can't remember what it was meant to be. Brassard completely imploding and Sheahan's production disappearing was not on the menu. The next thing we know, those two are traded, Nick Bjugstad and Jared McCann are rolling up right before game day, and the churn continues. It should be noted that between the major injury to Schultz, a horrendous season from Jack Johnson, and Maatta's worst season as a Penguin, defensive support is probably at its worst for any of the listed seasons.
Brassard: The Disappointment
I hope that one day those involved in Brassard's time in Pittsburgh will speak in detail and with unvarnished honesty. I live for that day. I wasn't expecting it to be a huge success but I wasn't expect it to be what it was either. Brassard's most used line was Pearson-Brassard-Kessel for only 88 minutes, a testament to Sullivan's attempts to find something that worked. It seems plausible the search became counter-productive, but probably not in splitting that line up before its 50 GF% caught up with its 36.43 xGF%. About the closest the line came to working was 40 minutes with Aston-Reese and Kessel; 60 GF%, only 42.91 GF%.
Sheahan and Cullen
Sheahan would admit at some point during the season that the signing of Cullen had knocked his confidence, which is infuriating when him continuing to have played as he had would have meant he had nothing to worry about. Sheahan never really centered one line long enough in Pittsburgh for it to be meaningful that season. Neither, in truth, did Cullen, perhaps hampered by finally feeling some pressure from Father Time; but the one in which both were joined by Aston-Reese was probably their best, with a 3-0 100 GF% from 52.45 xGF%.
McCann and Bjugstad
After the two arrived, beat reporters said that that team sources reckoned McCann would be 3C and Bjugstad would fill a top 6 RW role. It is typical of the Penguins' plans then that McCann's single most common line was with Crosby and Guentzel, and the next two were with Blueger at C, and the next was with Bjugstad at C; McCann spent just 89 minutes not playing with another C.
Bjugstad did seem to nail down the nail the role though. His line with Simon and Hornqvist was the only Penguins bottom six line to log more than 100 minutes - 147 minutes to be precise - and achieved a whopping 71.43 GF% and 65.64 xGF.
2019-20
Needless to say, the promise of a potentially settled continuous situation soon proved hollow as Nick Bjugstad got injury after injury. So did everyone else, starting with Malkin and Crosby leaving more of a bottom nine situation than a bottom six. That the Penguins survived and thrived was testament to how well their depth could play, mostly centered by Jared McCann and Blueger. However, after a tailing off in form, the question is which bottom six will turn up to the playoffs - the one up to the New Year, or the one after? And which one will show up next season? The answer probably lies at least partially with their supporting cast.
Blueger's Best and Worst Line
People keep referring to Blueger's line as the 4th, but it frequently saw more ice time and responsibility than McCann's. It's iconic form was Aston-Reese Blueger Tanev - BART to some - and while its 50 GF% and 53.89 xGF% don't look strong, they were considering they were frequently used to shutdown opposition best. In the line's one game against Edmonton, they saw over half their time again McDavid, and used it to outshoot him 7-1 - something of an outlier in terms of results, but not responsibility. The worst lines were virtually every form of the line without Aston-Reese - something I would put down to a missing ingredient rather than quality.
McCann's Best and Worst Line
If Blueger's line was the anvil on which opposition stopped, McCann's line was the hammer. There was no single outstanding line so much as there was a partnership - 300 minutes with Kahun produced a 64.29 GF% and 52.92 xGF%. Their pairing was a tale of two halves, having played more than half its minutes by the end of November with a 75 GF% and 60.94 xGF%, before cooling down to a line that only broken even on the back of a 43.25 xGF%. Between time spent as a top 6 winger and a rotating cast of wingers, no one line really stayed together long enough to be identified as the worst.
Conclusions
Mike Sullivan's first Stanley Cup was built to no small extent on his bottom six. Ever since then, he has found himself constantly searching for one with as much impact, a process that has instead usually been about fixing the problems that emerge in the unit over the season. To an extent, there is nothing wrong with that. The 15-16 bottom six was meant to have Eric Fehr as a Centre, but became built around Bonino and Cullen after an injury to Fehr, and it took the trade of Perron for Hagelin and another injury to Malkin to find the HBK line (Bonino having underperformed for much of the season). However, continual surgery is rarely going to be totally successful. Finding increased stability and continuity in the bottom six would be a boon for the Penguins. There would seem to be two main points of failure for the major disasters.
1. Mentality
I tread carefully here as we are dealing with the realm of rumour, supposition, and speculative extrapolation from quotes, but there is reason to think that the mental element has played a big part in the failure of several of the bigger names to strike out as Penguins bottom sixers. Brassard, the most obvious one, just couldn't make the adjustment, whatever the adjustment was - I guess it's the pressure of having a lot to prove with less tools than usual, of needing to be a big fish and a little fish at once. Pearson, his partner in crime for much of it, came to Pittsburgh after a difficult season in LA and was perhaps still shook by leaving his first NHL team in such inglorious circumstances. Kessel, a common thread in worse lines (and some best), was said to have been vocal in his desire to be on Malkin's line rather than in the bottom six. Sheahan's confidence was, by his own admission, shook by the idea that he might be replaced.
To be in Pittsburgh's bottom six is effectively to have been asked to serve in heaven rather than rule in hell. You will not get the best of the wingers. You will not get the best attacking minutes. You will get a great shot at a Stanley Cup and to be around some of their generation's finest, but you'll rarely be on the ice with them and their presence invites pressure. It seems that not everybody is comfortable enough with that situation to give their best. This goes double for players who are unfortunate enough to have their arrival coincide with injuries - Brassard, Pearson, and you could add Galchenyuk here - as the time delay between faith invested and faith paid back only increases pressure for those feeling it. It is perhaps telling that the best additions to the Penguins' bottom six after the back-to-back have mostly been young players with little to live up to and everything to gain - players like McCann, Blueger, Aston-Reese - and the worst have mostly been players with reputations to protect.
2. Lack of Skill
Sullivan tends to work in terms of pairings, leaving him free to move spare parts between the pairings as injuries, form, injuries, match-ups, and yet more injuries dictate. They're usually C-W, but the W-W pairing of Kuhnhackl-Reaves migrated from Centre to Centre and might have just been the worst pairing in recent Penguins bottom six history. They lacked enough skill to make the plays that kept play going the right way. This difficulty was exacerbated by centres like McKegg and Rowney who weren't fantastic; it took a guy like Sheahan, who showed a good ability to keep the puck that season, to make it halfway work.
This problem is also partially behind the bad seasons of Hagelin and Simon. Both are very good players, well capable of driving possession, but both lack finish. Hagelin's 17-18 season and Simon's 19-20 seasons in the bottom six should have ended up a lot better than they did but the line's inability to score goals sunk them. Both players have two seasons in the ten worst on-ice shooting percentages for the Penguins. This issue hasn't stopped either player from being part of fantastically productive lines in the top six, but in the bottom six, they need players who can shoot and finish to work with.
Successes
The first clue to HBK's success lay in it being overqualified. Kessel's case for being capable of being deployed higher is obvious, but both Bonino and Hagelin flirted with being second liners, albeit of a complimentary type, at times in their career. With both in top form, it was at the very least capable of being a high end second line anywhere else. The second clue lies in the blend of skills. HBK boasted speed, skill, and sheer hard work in abundance. It could score from anywhere - the last game six goal was a messy net front goal, the first game six goal a snipe from the circles - and was difficult to take advantage of. To what extent has this, and can this, be replicated?
1. Overqualified
This rotates around two people; Matt Cullen and Patric Hornqvist. Cullen scored at a 50 point pace pace in 16-17 when deployed away from the fourth line; he didn't have the legs to maintain the duties he did when he was younger, but he still had much of the skill and skating. When on the fourth line, he achieved strong results with a mix of Scott Wilson, Tom Kuhnhackl, and Eric Fehr, a trio where the post-Cullen highwater mark is Kunhackl's 23 points in 133 games in two and a bit seasons. He elevated them.
Patric Hornqvist has become an increasingly common component of the bottom six as the Penguins seem to shift focus in their top six build, and his presence has been a boon. No player has driven xGF% quite like Hornqvist, with three seasons in the Penguins' top fifteen in the period, and only one below 52 xGF%. This isn't surprising given that Hornqvist had the league leading HDCF rate as a forward from 16-17 to 18-19; his battle-ready style has always driven possession. It what made him a legitimate top six forward for so long. There's a drift in Penguins fan opinion (which I'll admit to sometimes sharing) that says we should look to move Hornqvist before too long due to fear of having his cap hit on the books when his age and style catch up with. There's a reason for that fear, but it should be counter-balanced with the knowledge that in Hornqvist, the Penguins have a quality player who will embrace the bottom six driver role in a way Kessel or Brassard never could. That is valuable and shouldn't be given away thoughtlessly.
2. Skill Blend
Simon-Bjugstad-Hornqvist is probably the gold standard of Penguins third lines since HBK. Simon and Hornqvist have been a strong wing combination since 17-18, with 476 minutes logged for a 57.58 GF% and 54.04 xGF%. The complimentary nature of their styles is obvious from watching - Simon's anticipation and vision makes him a very effective player in the area from circle to circle, while Hornqvist makes his living mostly between circle and net. It's a similar pairing to Sheary-Hornqvist, previously of a Stanley Cup win and a brief but intriguing line with Sheahan. Nick Bjugstad wasn't the most obvious compliment but he did provide a few valuable things; a shooting threat from above the hashmarks, a good puck carrier (Simon is inconsistent at it), and in general, showed no particular weakness while with the line. The wing pairing has performed well with other centres too; it seems anathema to the way Sullivan organises his lines (and also Crosby's preference to play a bunch with Simon) but perhaps that pairing should be considered as one that doesn't get split up in future.
Other successful lines or pairings show similar blends. McCann and Kahun worked as a centre who liked to play defence, rush the puck, and gun the puck, and a winger who liked to have the puck, keep the puck, and then pass it. Bonino and Rust worked as a responsible centre who liked to spring attacks from deep and a wing who likes being given the puck from deep so he could rush towards the other end of the ice. It is not a revolutionary concept, and well blended lines have failed, but it is a pre-requisite for success.
The Future
In theory, the Penguins' bottom six already looks quite set for next year. McCann and Blueger will probably be the centres, notionally as 3C and 4C. Blueger will probably be kept with Aston-Reese and Tanev. McCann will probably be mostly deployed with Hornqvist, with an open question at LW that could be filled with any of Simon, Lafferty, Poulin if he makes the team, or AN Other. It's a good bottom six, although arguably a bit one-note; looking at Bryce Chevaller's model shows that five man probably unit has very strong defensively and in transition, but that Blueger is the only player there who's regularly trying to act as a playmaker with the puck.
In practice, and maybe this is cynicism and scarring talking, it is probably safe to bet on the Penguins' bottom six being somehow different for much of the season. I cannot tell you how or why, although I can list many scenarios such as injury, or a storming playoff success from Bjugstad, a trade to free up cap, prospect coming through very fast, major collapse of form, or injury again. Yes, I do like to talk about injuries as a Penguins fan.
Back to theory, and the one hole that needs plugging seems to be a playmaker on the third line. Both Simon and, theoretically, Poulin could fill that hole. Yet there are questions over both. Can Simon's poor finishing by sufficiently masked with third line talent? Will he even be available? Is Samuel Poulin ready? It would be very easy to derail the Penguins' full potential here and there is no player available in WBS who pegs as a likely savior here. It is possible that Rutherford will look to try and sign/trade for a cheap creative gamble late in the free agency window should Poulin not make it out of camp.
It could be the difference between good and great.
Comments
Post a Comment