Taylor Hall and Eric Belanger have been on the ice for a total of four scoring chances thus far in 2011-12. Their paths don't often intersect, so their WOWYs should give us an idea, by proxy, of the strength of their linemates. Call it the transitive property of scoring chances.
All data compiled and published by Dennis King and mc79hockey.com
With Hall | Without Hall | Hall Without | |||||||||
# | CF | CA | % | CF | CA | % | CF | CA | % | ||
10 | 24 | 25 | 0.490 | 123 | 145 | 0.459 | 113 | 98 | 0.536 | ||
14 | 79 | 68 | 0.537 | 67 | 89 | 0.429 | 58 | 55 | 0.513 | ||
83 | 43 | 37 | 0.538 | 65 | 80 | 0.448 | 94 | 86 | 0.522 | ||
89 | 21 | 22 | 0.488 | 70 | 93 | 0.429 | 116 | 101 | 0.535 | ||
93 | 93 | 74 | 0.557 | 54 | 67 | 0.446 | 44 | 49 | 0.473 | ||
5 | 46 | 34 | 0.575 | 109 | 137 | 0.443 | 91 | 89 | 0.506 | ||
6 | 9 | 11 | 0.450 | 47 | 63 | 0.427 | 128 | 112 | 0.533 | ||
13 | 11 | 17 | 0.393 | 22 | 31 | 0.415 | 126 | 106 | 0.543 | ||
24 | 35 | 43 | 0.449 | 76 | 110 | 0.409 | 102 | 80 | 0.560 | ||
25 | 16 | 15 | 0.516 | 51 | 61 | 0.455 | 121 | 108 | 0.528 | ||
33 | 13 | 15 | 0.464 | 35 | 43 | 0.449 | 124 | 108 | 0.534 | ||
44 | 40 | 33 | 0.548 | 60 | 79 | 0.432 | 97 | 90 | 0.519 | ||
58 | 41 | 39 | 0.513 | 83 | 114 | 0.421 | 96 | 84 | 0.533 | ||
77 | 53 | 33 | 0.616 | 103 | 119 | 0.464 | 84 | 90 | 0.483 |
Exactly one player has been better without Hall and shockingly, it's Cam Barker. Every other player is worse, and significantly so, without Hall. Without Ryan Nugent-Hopkins or Tom Gilbert, however, Hall is underwater.
With Belanger | Without Belanger | Belanger Without | |||||||||
# | CF | CA | % | CF | CA | % | CF | CA | % | ||
14 | 8 | 13 | 0.381 | 138 | 144 | 0.489 | 76 | 106 | 0.418 | ||
28 | 50 | 71 | 0.413 | 58 | 61 | 0.487 | 34 | 48 | 0.415 | ||
37 | 3 | 14 | 0.176 | 25 | 32 | 0.439 | 81 | 105 | 0.435 | ||
55 | 21 | 19 | 0.525 | 25 | 36 | 0.410 | 63 | 100 | 0.387 | ||
89 | 28 | 40 | 0.412 | 63 | 75 | 0.457 | 56 | 79 | 0.415 | ||
91 | 27 | 30 | 0.474 | 23 | 22 | 0.511 | 57 | 89 | 0.390 | ||
94 | 17 | 21 | 0.447 | 138 | 153 | 0.474 | 67 | 98 | 0.406 | ||
5 | 26 | 41 | 0.388 | 129 | 130 | 0.498 | 58 | 78 | 0.426 | ||
6 | 16 | 19 | 0.457 | 40 | 55 | 0.421 | 68 | 100 | 0.405 | ||
13 | 7 | 12 | 0.368 | 26 | 36 | 0.419 | 77 | 107 | 0.418 | ||
24 | 20 | 31 | 0.392 | 91 | 122 | 0.427 | 64 | 88 | 0.421 | ||
25 | 13 | 18 | 0.419 | 54 | 58 | 0.482 | 71 | 101 | 0.413 | ||
33 | 13 | 11 | 0.542 | 35 | 47 | 0.427 | 71 | 108 | 0.397 | ||
44 | 27 | 27 | 0.500 | 73 | 85 | 0.462 | 57 | 92 | 0.383 | ||
58 | 21 | 47 | 0.309 | 103 | 106 | 0.493 | 63 | 72 | 0.467 | ||
77 | 24 | 28 | 0.462 | 132 | 124 | 0.516 | 60 | 91 | 0.397 |
Belanger on the other hand, is dragging on his teammates, at least in the scoring chance department. Only four players are better with Belanger than without: Ben Eager, Ryan Whitney, Colten Teubert and Corey Potter. Eager is easy to explain - his regular linemates, Lennart Petrell and Anton Lander should both in the AHL right now.
Of particular interest are the numbers with Magnus Paajarvi and Sam Gagner. Working as a line, those three are 12 CF - 9 CA (57%), which means that Gagner and Belanger without Paajarvi are 16 CF - 31 CA (34%) and Paajarvi and Belanger without Gagner are 15 CF - 21 CA (42%). It's far too small of a sample size to make inferences on who is driving the bus, but we can see how much both Paajarvi and Gagner's numbers are affected when on the ice with Belanger.