The latest Minnesota Hockey Recruiting Fallacy

It isn't unusual to see some posturing when it comes to college hockey recruiting.  And with 204 Minnesota-born players playing Division 1 hockey this season, it's easy to see why Minnesota is usually at the epicenter of many of these discussions.


I don't think I would be surprising many, if any, of the long-time Minnesota hockey fans if I told you that the current landscape of Minnesota High School hockey is changing.  Strike that, has been changing for some time.


Nowdays more-and-more players are choosing to forgo the end of their high school hockey careers to further their development playing in junior leagues such as the USHL, BCHL, etc... while others are choosing to play at prestigious prep schools such as Shattuck St. Mary's.


Minnesota High School Hockey still has it's place in the Minnesota Hockey world.  It is still the best high school hockey league (by miles and miles) in the United States.  And it is still one of the few high school hockey leagues in the country that is capable of providing a level of competition strong enough to produce NHL quality players.


That said, Minnesota High School Hockey is transitioning and becoming a younger players league.  We're seeing more-and-more high end young players break into the varsity rosters of some of the state's strongest high school hockey programs.  Joey and Mike Anderson, who have played for Hill Murray as 8th and 9th graders in the past, and Casey Mittlestadt of Eden Prairie this season are but a few of the many recent examples.  The reason they are able to is that more-and-more of the high-end upperclassmen are moving on to other leagues before their high school days are done.


I don't want to delve too deeply into this topic, as it isn't the purpose of this rant, but the point is that Minnesota High School Hockey has been changing for quite some time.  Long gone are the days when the vast majority of the state's best hockey players hang around high school hockey long enough to be eligible to win the prestigious Minnesota Mr. Hockey Award, which is given out to the state's best high school hockey senior every year.


That brings me to this article written during last year's Minnesota High School Hockey tournament.


I've reached out to David McCoy on Twitter to have a discussion about this article of his, and I don't want to be too brash about this, but this article was horribly researched.


It's quite clear that David fails to understand the changes that Minnesota High School Hockey has undergone, and continues to undergo. 


For instance, David mentions, "The boy’s state hockey tournament starts Wednesday at the Xcel Energy Center in St. Paul, Minn.  Every year, it’s the place to see many of Minnesota’s top players."


That is correct David, but why no mention of the fact that many, many, many more of Minnesota's "top players" at these age groups aren't playing Minnesota High School Hockey, but are playing hockey in junior leagues or elsewhere?


David goes on to ponder later in his article, "How can he [Dean Blais] get so many of these elite players out of Minnesota?"


Well David, let me ask you this.  The state of Minnesota produced 204 of this season's current Division 1 hockey players.  Considering the state of Minnesota only has 5 Division 1 college hockey programs (Minnesota, Minnesota-Duluth, St. Cloud State, Minnesota State, and Bemidji), who have under 30 players on their roster every season, how do you suggest we keep every Minnesota born player who wants to play college hockey inside the state of Minnesota?


Do great football players from Texas and Florida play outside those states?


College hockey programs only have so much room for players, and so many scholarships to hand out.  It always drives me nuts when I hear people remark about the players that "got away" from Minnesota.  Programs have to pick and choose which players they want to recruit and how much scholarship money they want to offer.  It's a balancing act.  Not just for the current season, but these decisions impact subsequent seasons down the line.


I'm not saying that the players he mentioned in his article aren't great hockey players.  They are all great hockey players.  And I am not saying that these players aren't worthy of playing for a school like Minnesota.  Minnesota produces MANY great players and MANY of those great players are more than worthy to play for a prestigious program like Minnesota.


If only the Gophers had room for them all, right?


It's the whole sense in the article that Minnesota is losing out on the top recruits in the state who are choosing to go elsewhere mentality of the article that really drives me nuts.  Let me put this into perspective for David and for others out there who still don't understand.


Of the 17 current non-goalie recruits that the Gophers have lined up, only 3 of the 17 are playing Minnesota High School hockey this season.  In fact, of those 17 recruits, 4 aren't even from the state of Minnesota.  Of the three who are currently playing Minnesota High School Hockey, only ONE is eligible to be even nominated for the Minnesota Mr. Hockey Award.  ONE.


What is the quality of Minnesota's recruits, you ask?  Here's a brief summary.


Ryan Lindgren-Defensemen (who is playing with the NTDP this season and has put up 1-5-6 in 16 games), Ryan Norman-Forward (who is playing for Shattuck St Mary's Prep team this season and has put up 17-26-43 in 34 games), Scott Reedy-Forward (who is playing with Shattuck St Mary's Prep team and has put up 18-19-37 in 34 games as a Sophomore), and Josh Maniscalco-Defensmen, who is from Pennsylvania (is playing for Shattuck St Mary's prep team this season and has put up 4-10-14 in 34 games as a Sophmore) all made Shattuck St Mary's Prep team as Sophomores.


You don't make Shattuck St. Mary's Prep program (the same program that has produced the likes of Sidney Crosby, Jonathan Toews, and Zach Parise) as a Sophomore if you aren't an elite talent.

Brannon McManus-Forward currently plays for Shattuck St. Mary's U16 team and has put up 29-23-52 in 36 games so far this season. He put up 68-52-120 in 65 games last season.

Tom Novak-Forward (6-21-27 in 27 games), Tyler Sheehy-Forward (11-18-29 in 27 games), Sam Rossini-Defensmen (0-2-2 in 16 games), and Rem Pitlick-Forward (6-4-10 in 27 games) all play for Waterloo in the USHL. Both Sheehy and Novak would have definitely been Mr. Hockey candidates last season had they stayed in Minnesota High School hockey. In fact, I think one of them would have won the award.  Rem Pitlick played at Shattuck St. Mary's before heading to the USHL.

Casey Mittlestadt-Forward is currently playing Minnesota High School Hockey with Eden Prairie as a freshman and has put up 16-14-30 in 16 games so far this season. Last season as a bantam he had 91 goals and was named the Bantam of the year in Minnesota. Of those 91 goals, 11 were game winners.

Jack Ramsey-Forward forwent his senior season at Minnetonka and has played the past few seasons in the BCHL with Penticton. He's put up 12-17-29 in 38 games this season.

Ryan Zuhlsdorf-Defensemen didn't finish his high school career at Edina and has instead decided to play for Sioux City in the USHL this season and has put up 2-11-13 in 29 games so far this year.

Then you have Tarek Baker-Forward (4-7-11 in 30 games) who plays with Des Moines and Bloomington in the USHL this season and Brent Gates Jr-Forward (10-18-28 in 30 games) with Green Bay in the USHL. Neither are from Minnesota. Baker is from Wisconsin and Gates is from Michigan.

Neither is William Fallstrom-Forward, who is from Sweden and is playing with Sweden's U17 team this season and has scored 7 goals in 10 games with them so far this year.

The only player of the Gopher's current recruits to be eligible to win (or even be nominated for) the Mr Hockey Award this season is Jack Sadek-Defensemen of Lakeville North, who has put up 2-11-13 in 16 games so far this season.


As for whether the best players Minnesota is producing are leaving the state to play elsewhere....

I don't have the time to go back and look at the stats for all 204 Division 1 college players from MN to see where things stand now, but as of mid December when I wrote This Article on the current demographics of college hockey, 4 of the Top 5 scorers from Minnesota were playing their college hockey inside Minnesota and 3 of those 4 were Gophers.


So, not sure if your article was written to stir the pot David, but if it was then congratulations because the good hockey fans of Minnesota have had this article thrown in our faces by many of the unknowledgeable hockey fans in the UNO fan base for months now.  Thanks for that.


If this was an honest attempt to cover the High School Tournament and the Mr. Hockey award, then I hope you will take the time to learn about the history of Minnesota High School Hockey and the changes it is undergoing before writing another article about how all of our top talent is leaving the state.


Because while you are right that an increasing number of our top players are leaving the state to play hockey, for many it is to play junior hockey in preparation to come back to this state to play college hockey.

PART 2: A Look at College Hockey Demographics

Welcome back!

I got some great feedback on my last College Hockey Demographics post, so I felt some extra enthusiasm as I put this second post together.  I really did my best to incorporate as many of the great suggestions I got into this as possible, but apologize if I left some things out.

Time permitting, I hope to make this an annual thing so that we can really start to make some good comparisons from season-to-season.

Anyways, if you haven't read Part 1: A Look at College Hockey Demographics, I suggest you give it a read.  In Part 1 I took a look at the total number of players playing college hockey this season from every country, state\province, and city.  I also did a brief break-down of where a majority of the points scored by college hockey players this season have come from geographically.

In Part 2 I hope to take things a bit further.  Based on some suggestions I got, I will be breaking those listings down even further to show the results per capita to give us a more normalized look at the data.  I was also able to dig up some stats that Inside College Hockey (INCH) did on player demographics back in the 2004-05 season, so I was able to do a really good job of providing some insight into the changes in college hockey demographics over the last 10 years.

I also wanted to dig a little deeper into where the scoring has been coming from because I have been very curious as to which states\provinces\countries have been producing the top scorers at the college level.  Probably won't tell us a lot to look at the data for 1\2 of a season, but as I continue to put these together perhaps some trends will emerge.  Hoping for some good insight there eventually.

To dig a little deeper into the player side of things, and to perhaps get some more insight into college hockey recruiting trends, I also did a player height\weight\and age analysis (both for the NCAA hockey as a whole and a team-by-team break-down).  Some pretty interesting stuff to look at here.

Finally, I decided to take a look at which leagues college hockey players are coming from pre-NCAA, and did a team-by-team break-down for some of the biggest college hockey filler leagues to determine which teams in which leagues are currently producing the most NCAA hockey players.

With that, let's get started!


Players by State\Province and Country Per Capita


The first thing I wanted to do was elaborate a little bit more on the demographics I listed in Part 1 of my demographics.  The point was brought up (and it was a good one) that these demographics would be a bit more meaningful if they were normalized by population.

If you look at the charts below, the rankings on the far left include the general rankings for number of college hockey players produced.  The first ranking is the overall ranking, and the second ranking is the ranking within Canada, Europe, and the United States specifically.

The group of rankings in the middle are the per capita rankings.  First the overall per capita ranking, then the ranking within Canada, Europe, and the United States specifically.

Finally, the rankings on the right (for goals and points) displays where each country, state, or province ranks in relation to goals and points produced per capita. The "+\-" fields to the right display the difference ranking for per capita goals and points produced in relation to their per capita ranking for number of players produced.

For example, in the chart directly below, New Brunswick ranks 35th overall per capita in players produced (having produced 1 player for every 751,171 people in New Brunswick), but they rank 62nd in terms of goals and points produced per capita.  The difference is 27 places in the rankings, or -27.

So essentially high numbers (Lativa is one) tell us that even though a region might not be producing a lot of players per capita, they are producing their share of players who have been scoring.  Vice versa, a low number (looking at you Vermont) tells us that even though a region may have ranked high in players produced per capita, those players aren't doing a lot of scoring in NCAA hockey this season.

Per capita NCAA hockey demographics for Canadian provinces

Per capita NCAA hockey demographics for European countries

Per capita NCAA hockey demographics for US states

As you can see in the chart below, there are some pretty drastic differences for some countries, states, and provinces when we rank them by players produced per capita instead of in general.  In Canada, Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba all produce a very respectable number of players for their population size.  Prince Edward Island's ranking went from tied for 32nd in the general rankings all the way up to 13th when we looked at player production per capita.

As for the European countries, the only country with a positive change was Latvia.  The rest saw negative moves when we looked at player production per capita.  Not surprising considering the still relatively low (but really growing) participation in NCAA hockey by European players and the relatively large population sizes.

Moving on to the United States, the big gainers when we looked at player production per capita were North Dakota, Alaska, New Hampshire, and Delaware.  Again, not surprising based on the strong hockey bases in these states and the relatively low population sizes.  Minnesota stands still for much the same reason, moderately low population size and strong participation level overall.  

The one decline that really jumped out at me was Michigan.  Always a strong hockey player producing state, it has seen it's numbers decline gradually over the last decade and it really shows up when we look at these rankings on a per capita basis.  For the health and future of USA Hockey, I hope to see Michigan's numbers jump back up where they belong in the near future.

What also becomes clear when looking at these numbers on a per capita basis is that while the big gains by states like Illinois, Pennsylvania, California, Texas, and Florida are really, really great to see, it reminds us that these states (considering their populations) had a long ways to catch up and have great potential to make even bigger gains moving forward.

Change in ranking from general ranking to per capita ranking for NCAA players produced

Players Produced by City Per Capita

I also wanted to revisit the data that I compiled for the number of players produced per city to determine which city has produced the most NCAA hockey players this season on a per capita basis.  It amazes me how many hockey players some of these tiny cities near the top have produced.

There were over 900 cities who contributed players to NCAA hockey this season, so I had to cut the list down to only those cities that have produced at least two players (or else I would still be compiling the list of populations for all the cities).  This season Strong Field, SK comes in at the top having produced two NCAA hockey players (Brady and Chase Norrish of RIT) despite Srong Field only having a population of 47 people.  That means that 1 out of every 24 people in from Strong Field players NCAA hockey this season.  Amazing stuff.  Take a peek at the rest of the list below to see the Top 240 cities that have produced at least two NCAA hockey players this sorted per capita.

Top NCAA hockey player producing cities per capita (1-80)

Top NCAA hockey player producing cities per capita (81-160)

Top NCAA hockey player producing cities per capita (161-240)

Lots of Change in Ten Years

I was really fortunate to remember that Inside College Hockey did a regular piece on geographic participation of college hockey every season because it afforded me the opportunity to do a comparison with the numbers for this season.  I was even more fortunate to find a piece that they did for the 2004-05 season because that will give us a 10 year span of time in which to make some more meaningful conclusions.  Before I discuss some of the changes I noticed, take a look at the charts I put together below that lay out some of the changes between the 2004-05 season and this season.

Change in NCAA hockey demographics for Canada between 2004-05 and 2014-15 seasons

Change in NCAA hockey demographics for Europe between 2004-05 and 2014-15 seasons

Change in NCAA hockey demographics for the US states between 2004-05 and 2014-15 seasons

Some pretty noticeable changes between 2004-05 and today.  First off, let me say, congratulations New Jersey.   You nearly doubled the number of NCAA hockey players you've produced in just 10 short years.  Pretty cool.  Also great to see such big gains in California, Florida, Illinois, Wisconsin, Texas, etc...

You might also notice that Michigan had a pretty noticeable positive gain between 2004-05 and this season as well.  Perhaps this is just the beginning of that comeback that I was talking about.  I hope so.

Also pretty hard not to notice the big increase in players from Sweden and Finland in NCAA hockey over the last 10 years as well.  While I am sure we will continue to have European countries pop on and drop off this list in the near future while the European presence in college hockey continues to grow, I think it is safe to say that some of these countries (Finland and Sweden for sure) have made solid inroads and will continue to produce more NCAA hockey players in the future.

It's a whole different tale when you take a look at the numbers for the Canadian provinces.  A part from British Columbia, which has made a considerable gain in the past 10 years (thanks to the BCHL in my opinion, but more on that later) and Prince Edward Island (which went from zero players to one this season), all of the Canadian provinces saw a decrease in NCAA player production over the past 10 years.

I'm not sure if it is getting harder to pry Canadian kids away from Canadian Major Juniors, whether coaches aren't recruiting North of the border as often because the supply of high quality players in the states is growing and more European kids are deciding to play college hockey, or whether coaches see more Canadian players as flight risks in the midst of the recent NCAA vs CHL recruiting battle.  

I don't have the answer, but I think it is very intriguing.  It could be all of the above, a combination of the above, or none of the above all together.  Whatever it is, I think it is safe to say we are seeing some shifts in college hockey's demographics.  For a clearer picture of these changes I put together the chart below that summarizes just how much the demographics of college hockey are starting to change.

Overall change in college hockey demographics from 2004-05 to 2014-15

 
Top NCAA Hockey Feeder Leagues


The next questions I wanted to answer relate not to where these players grew up, but which leagues and teams they played for before coming to play NCAA hockey.  I am hoping this data will give us a good idea of where college hockey players are playing their hockey now days (in hopes that we can spot some trends over time) and which teams in those leagues are turning out the most players.  Below is a list of the leagues that have produced the most of this season's NCAA hockey players broken down by overall percentage as well as percentage of defensemen, forwards, and goalies.

Breakdown of NCAA hockey players produced by league for 2014-15 season

As you can see in the chart above, the USHL has a pretty commanding lead in the number of NCAA hockey players it has produced with 35.55% of this season's NCAA hockey players having played in the USHL prior to playing college hockey.  What is noticeable to me is how many players are also coming from the BCHL and NAHL (15.26% and 12.89% respectively).  Between these three leagues, that accounts for roughly two thirds of this year's players.  Pretty remarkable.


Another thing that came to mind when I looked at these numbers, and I eluded to this earlier when we were looking at the per capita numbers for regions, is that it is probably no coincidence that the numbers from British Columbia have grown so much over the last 10 years considering the number of players the BCHL has been sending to college hockey.  

It's also hard to miss the low percentage total of players that have come directly from US high school hockey directly to the NCAA.  I don't have the numbers for 10 years ago that shows the break-down by feeder league back then (wish I did), but I am guessing that it was much higher than the 2.55% that we see today.  

No surprise here as NCAA teams have more and more success with players having honed their skills in leagues such as the USHL, BCHL, and NAHL prior to coming into the college ranks.  There will always be a player here and there that is skilled enough to jump right into the college ranks, but for the most part we are seeing college teams ask their recruits to play a year or two of juniors before coming into college hockey.  I expect this trend to continue. 


However, I didn't stop there.  The next thing I did was to break-down the Top two feeder leagues (USHL and BCHL) by team to see which teams within these leagues have produced the most players.  I am sure these totals will fluctuate over time, but I still think it is interesting to see which teams are producing the most college hockey players we watch every weekend.  Take a look at the results below.

 

NCAA hockey players produced by USHL team for 2014-15

NCAA hockey players produced by BCHL team for 2014-15

While there seems to be a much more clear-cut leader when it comes to the BCHL (Pentincton), there are quite a few teams in each league that have been contributing players to the NCAA ranks.  Note that the USNTDP leads the USHL in players produced.

The final analysis I wanted to do in terms of the NCAA feeder leagues was to break-down the number of players produced by these leagues by position and by production.  I took a look at which leagues have produced the most defensemen, forwards, and goalies.  Then I took a look at which league has produced the highest scoring defensmen and forwards and most productive goaltenders at the NCAA level.  

Again, these numbers will probably become more meaningful as I track these numbers over time and start to pinpoint some trends, but the results are interesting none-the-less.  In the chart below the leagues are ranked first by points\player produced, then by pts\player for defensemen and forwards.  Finally, on the far right, I ranked the leagues first by goaltenders produced who have played at least 100 minutes so far this season for their NCAA school, then ranked those leagues by the average Save Percentage of goaltenders produced who have played at least 100 minutes for their NCAA school.

 

Further break-down of NCAA feeder leagues by position and production

Player Height, Weight, and Age Demographics

Throughout the course of the season I tend to hear a lot of discussion about which team(s) in college hockey are the youngest, oldest, largest, and smallest, so I thought it would be fun to include some demographics on the age and size of college hockey players and NCAA rosters in this analysis.  Before we start breaking the numbers down, let's start with the average age, height, and weight of your typical NCAA hockey player.

The average Height, Weight, and Age of your typical NCAA hockey player

As you can see in the chart above, the typical NCAA hockey player is 6' 0.06" tall, weighs 189.02 lbs, and is roughly 21 years and 326 days old.  Not sure about you, but the stat that really jumps out at me is the average age of your typical NCAA hockey player.  Again, I don't have the numbers for size and age demographics from 10 years ago, but I would bet that we have seen an increase in age in your typical NCAA hockey player over the past 10 years.

That should come as no surprise if you think about it.  Going back to the discussion above regarding the likely drop in players coming directly from US high school leagues, teams are wanting their recruits to hit campus with more experience.  Players are increasingly being asked to play a year or two of junior hockey before coming to campus, so it makes sense that the average age of college hockey players has likely gone up.

I also took the time to break these demographics down by team.  The charts below are the age, height, and weight demographics and rankings for all NCAA teams, separated by conference.  The rankings on the far left indicate the NCAA ranking for each team on a combination of age, height, and weight (from the largest and oldest NCAA team to the youngest and smallest NCAA team).  I also ranked where each team ranks within their conference using the same criteria (again from the largest and oldest team to the smallest and youngest).

On the right side of each chart is a break-down of where each team ranks in the NCAA based on roster height, weight, and age individually.  Again, the rankings go from the oldest, tallest, and heaviest to the youngest, shortest, and lightest for each respective ranking.

Atlantic Hockey age and size demographics

Big Ten Hockey age and size demographics

WCHA age and size demographics

NCHC age and size demographics

Hockey East age and size demographics

ECAC age and size demographics

As you can see from above, Cornell (6' 1.22"), Merrimack (6' 0.86"), and Canisius (6' 0.77") have the tallest overall rosters this season, while Ferris State (5' 10.74"), St. Cloud State (5' 10.96"), and Mercyhurst (5' 11.22") have some of the shortest.

This season Western Michigan (199.76 lbs), Penn State (198.59 lbs), and Michigan (196.04 lbs) have some of the heaviest rosters in NCAA hockey, while Vermont (178.46 lbs), Quinnipiac (181.14 lbs), and American International (181.35 lbs) have some of the lightest.

The oldest roster in college hockey this season belongs to Alaska Anchorage (24.205 years) followed by Northern Michigan (22.767 years) and Alabama-Huntsville (22.690 years) and the youngest roster in college hockey this season belongs to Boston University (20.479 years) followed by Michigan (20.864 years) and then Boston College (20.865 years).

However, not wanting to stop there, I further broke-down the age and size demographics by position.  In the charts below (again split up between conferences), you will find each school's average age, height, and weight for their defensemen, forwards, and goaltenders.  The rankings you see for each category are the NCAA rank (smallest and youngest to oldest and largest), but the schools in each conference are again sorted by their overall ranking (smallest and youngest to oldest and largest.

Positional break-down of Atlantic Hockey age and size demographics

Positional break-down of Big Ten Hockey age and size demographics

Positional break-down of WCHA age and size demographics

Positional break-down of NCHC age and size demographics

Positional break-down of Hockey East age and size demographics

Positional break-down of ECAC age and size demographics

• This season Colgate, Alaska Anchorage, and Northern Michigan have the oldest defensive corps in college hockey, while Cornell, Minnesota, and Boston College have some of the youngest defensive corps.  

• If we were to measure defensive corps on height, Western Michigan, Minnesota State, and Rensselaer have some of the tallest defensive corps in college hockey this season while Ferris State, Mercyhurst, and Denver have some of the shortest.

• In terms of weight, Western Michigan, Nebraska Omaha, and Clarkson have some of the heavier defensive corps in college hockey this season while Mercyhurst, Ferris State, and Vermont have some of the lightest.

• Moving on to forward groups, Penn State, Alabama-Huntsville, and Mercyhurst have some of the older forward groups in college hockey this season, while Wisconsin, Michigan, and Boston University have some of the youngest,

• If big forwards are your thing, then Cornell, Merrimack, and Notre Dame's forward groups should interest you as they are some of the tallest in college hockey this season, while St. Cloud State, Quinnipiac, and Vermont's forward groups are some of college hockey's shortest this season.

• In terms of having some weight to throw around, Penn State, Notre Dame, and Cornell's forward groups have plenty as they are some of the heavier in college hockey this season, while Vermont, American International, and Quinnipiac's rosters are some of the lightest.

• Last but not least with goaltenders, Wisconsin, Alaska-Fairbanks, and Sacred Heart have some of the oldest goaltending groups in college hockey this season, while Ohio State, Harvard, and Notre Dame have some of college hockey's youngest goaltending groups.

• Big goaltenders are becoming a hot commodity in hockey these days, and if that is the case than Air Force, Boston University, and Harvard are in luck because they have some of the tallest goaltending groups in college hockey this season.

• In terms of weight, RIT, Mass-Lowell, and Providence have some of the heavier goaltending groups this season, while Lake Superior State, Rensselaer, and Army have some of the lightest.

Lost of info to digest, but a lot of interesting info to chew on if you're bored.

Closer Look at Where Scoring is Coming From

The last thing I want to do in this piece is take a closer look at where the top scoring in college hockey is coming from demographically.  You might recall that in my first segment I broke down how many goals, assists, and points came from each country, state, and province.  I also noted that I didn't like this approach because some states and provinces have a majority of the goals and points simply because of the vast number of players they produce.

I also didn't like the idea of doing a goals and points per game per region using all players in college hockey because some of the bottom tier players from each region can drag those averages down.  I want to focus just on the top players in college hockey, and where they come from.

If you take a look at the charts below, I tried to break-down where all of the scoring, and then top scoring, in college hockey is coming from this season.  For the sake of this exercise I have split the regions (countries, state, provinces) up into two groups.  The top chart shows the group of regions that have produced at least 5 NCAA hockey players this season.  The bottom chart shows the group of regions that has produced less than 5 players.

It was important to split the regions into these two groups because I wanted to take a look at the production of the Top 5 players from each region to see how they compare and I can't fairly do that when some regions haven't produced 5 players.

So, I did an overall analysis for every region (under heading "Overall" below), but I only did an analysis of Top 5 points and goals for the regions that have produced at least 5 players.  Make sense?  Good, now let's move on.

In the charts below, I started by listing how many players each region has that have produced double-digit points up until this point in the season.  That is the ranking you see (for all NCAA teams) on the far left.  The ranking that you see just to the right of that is the ranking of the number of double-digit point players produced adjusted by the number of games played by players in each region.  For instance, New York has produced 11 players who have put up double-digit points so far this season, which is tied with the 11 that Illinois has produced.  However, overall the players from New York have played in 10.76 games while the players from Illinois have only played in 10.71.  The second ranking makes the adjustment.

Moving further to the right on the charts you will see a segment with the heading "Overall".  This segment lists the points per game for players from each region and then ranks them accordingly.  This is just a straight-up ranking on average points per player for each region.  This is the order in which the list is sorted below as well.

On the far right of the charts you will see segments with the headings "Top 5 Pts" and "Top 5 Goals".  These are the segments I calculated just for regions that have produced at last 5 NCAA players this season.  I took the Top 5 point producing players from each region and then ranked their average points per game and then did the same with the Top 5 goal scorers from each region.

The idea is that this will give us a look at just the high-end players that were produced by each country, state, province.  By taking the Top 5 point producers and goal scorers and averaging out their points and goals per game, we can compare each country, state, and province to each other to see where they stack up in terms of high-end talent.

Probably not a flawless approach, but I think it is a good start.

Closer look at which regions have produced college hockey's elite scorers.  Table shows only regions with at least 5 players.

Closer look at which regions have produced college hockey's elite scorers.  This table shows regions with less than 5 players produced.

So, what did all of this work tell us?  Glad you asked.  Let's compare the rankings for number of players produced (both in general and per capita) to what the rankings are for pts/game and goals/game for the Top 5 players in each region.

Even though Minnesota is ranked #1 in the number of players produced in general and per capita, the state hasn't been as successful in producing the top-end players that are in college hockey this season compared to other states near the top.  Minnesota ranks #6 in points per game and #4 in goals per game for their top players.

Moving up about as much as Minnesota fell in the rankings is Massachusetts (hello Jack Eichel).  Massachusetts was ranked #6 in players produced in general and #5 in players produced per capita, but are ranked #1 in points per game and #3 in goals per game for their top players.

Another state that really jumped out at me was California.  Ranked tied for #9 overall and only #34 per capita, California came in at #5 for points per game and #10 for goals per game for it's top players.

Finally, even though British Columbia was ranked #4 in players produced overall and #3 in players produced per capita, they were ranked #2 in points per game and #1 in goals per game for it's top players.  Both are ahead of Ontario (#3 in points per game and #2 in goals per game) which leads British Columbia in players produced overall, but also trails British Columbia in players produced per capita.  That ought to put a few smiles on the faces of some B.C. hockey fans.


Conclusion

I think this was a fun exercise, and I am really glad I took the time to do it.  Like I said, I hope to make this an annual thing so that we can start comparing the results year-to-year to see if we can spot any trends.  I realize that the methods used aren't perfect, but I do think they produced some interesting results.  If you spot something in the data I failed to pick up on or didn't mention, please let me know.  Would love to hear it.

Sorry I wasn't able to implement all of the requests that I got, but I did do my best to work as many in as I could.  Some were left out because they were too hard to accomplish with the limited stats I have, and some were left off because I am just low on time.  Hope you understand.

Anyways, hope everyone has a very happy, safe, and healthy holidays and good luck to all the college hockey fans out there the remainder of the season.

   

Gophers Haven't Been Playing Gopher Hockey

Since we've reached the mid-point of the season and the Gopher's men's hockey team is in the midst of their holiday break, I thought I would take a moment to reflect on the season so far and compare what we have seen this season to what we have seen in recent Gopher Hockey season's.

The Gophers are currently 9-4-1, and while they started the season as the nation's #1 ranked team and odds-on favorite to win the National Championship, they have currently fallen to #8 in the latest USCHO Poll and more importantly currently sit at #11 in the Pairwise standings.

What did I learn in comparing what this season's Gopher team has done compared to successful Gopher teams of the recent past?  While the Gopher's haven't been horrible, I think they have a lot of work to do if they want this season to end the way we all hope.  In my eyes, this Gopher team hasn't been playing "Gopher Hockey" thus far, and they won't get far in the post-season if they don't turn things around.

A few things really stood out to me when I compared the numbers for this season side-by-side with the numbers from some of the more recent Gopher Hockey seasons.

• Gophers aren't controlling the puck the way they usually do
• Gophers aren't scoring nearly enough 5-on-5
• Gophers are more dependent on getting early momentum to get wins

I know that none of these points probably jumps out at you as being all that surprising, but when you take a look at the numbers side-by-side with other seasons, it becomes crystal clear that these issues are real.  Let's take a look at each of these points individually, then we can discuss what the Gophers need to do to turn things around in the second half.


Controlling the Puck


One thing that has really jumped out at me this season is the absence of what has become a Gopher Hockey staple.  That's puck control.  The Gophers under Don Lucia have been at their best when they are controlling the puck and not letting other team's have it.  Sounds like a pretty common sense approach for any team to have success, but the Gophers have been one of the best in college hockey in recent season's at controlling the puck. 

Yet, so far this season we haven't really seen the type of puck control play that Gopher fans have become accustomed to.  Teams are enjoying more offensive zone time against the Gophers, and the Gophers have at times struggled to break out of their zone and maintain offensive zone time of their own. 

While there isn't currently stat tracking for shot attempts and blocked shots (that I know of), so I can't compute the Corsi and Fenwick numbers, I did take a look at shots for and against and the shot margin of this season's team and compared it to other recent seasons.  Take a look below.

Gopher Hockey goals and shots differentials for the last 5 seasons

GPG = Goals Per Game

GAPG = Goals Against Per Game

GM = Goals Margin

SPG = Shots Per Game

SAPG = Shots Against Per Game

SM = Shots Margin

As you can see in the chart above, the Gophers haven't been too far off their traditional pace in terms of Goal differential.  They are currently scoring 3.43 goals per game while allowing 2.14 goals per game, which comes out to a 1.29 goals per game margin over their opponents.

This is right in line with their average over their last 3 seasons (in which they have won 3 Conference Championships and made 2 Frozen Fours).  Between the 2011-12 and 2013-14 seasons, they have averaged 3.52 gpg and 2.13 gapg for a scoring margin of 1.39 goals.  They are a bit down in scoring, but their scoring margin thus far hasn't been too concerning.  But that can be a bit deceiving, as we will see in a moment.

The big concern for me is that the Gophers aren't averaging as many shots on goal as they have in recent seasons.   A lot of people will tell you that shots on goal are irrelevant compared to scoring, but they can be a really strong indicator of how much a team possesses the puck (not as much as Corsi or Fenwick, but without attempted shots and blocked shots, I can't compute those).  And if you possess the puck more than your opponent, you will likely have more chances to score than you opponent.

The Gophers have averaged 29.4 shots on goal per game and have given up and average of 28.8 shots per game so far this season.  The number of shots allowed per game is about 5 more than they allowed in the 2011-12 and 2012-13 seasons, but roughly in line with what they gave up last season (in which they surrendered an average of 29.4 shots per game).

Those extra 4 shots per game weren't as noticeable last season partly because Adam Wilcox was playing some lights out hockey in net, but also because the Gophers were themselves averaging the roughly 35 shots per game last season that they averaged in the 2011-12 and 2012-13 season.  So far this year, they are averaging roughly 5 shots less on goal per game than they have in the past 3 seasons.

So, if you take away 5 shots on goal per game and then give your opponents an additional 5 shots on goal per game, that is a swing of 10 shots per game.  You can see by the shot margin in the chart above that the Gopher's shot differential was roughly 10 shots in the 2011-12 and 2012-13 season, but has fallen to virtually even so far this year.

That means the Gophers aren't possessing the puck nearly as much as they have been in recent seasons, and a lot of that has to do with the way the team has been playing 5-on-5.  The Gophers are currently 8-0-0 when out-shooting their opponents, but only 1-4-1 when getting out-shot.  All four of their losses have come in games where they were out shot.  And in my opinion they are lucky it hasn't hurt them more.  While it hasn't burnt them in terms of scoring differential as of yet, like I said before, that can and probably will change soon if they don't start playing better hockey 5-on-5.

Scoring 5-on-5

So, if the Gophers are enjoying a scoring differential that is somewhat similar to what they have had in recent, successful seasons, why should you be concerned about their scoring?  The answer is that the Gophers have been relying far too much on a power play that is humming along at a ridiculous 34% success rate.  They haven't been scoring nearly enough goals 5-on-5 and if that power play rate comes back down to Earth some (and odds are it will), then that Goal Differential that we discussed above will come crashing down with it.  Don't believe me?  Take a look at the chart below.

The 2014-15 Gopher Hockey Power Play Dependency

PP = Power Play Percentage

PK = Penalty Kill Percentage

TOTG = Total Goals Scored

PPG = Power Play Goals Scored

5x5G = 5x5 Goals Scored

%PPG = Percentage of Total Goals Scored on Power Play

As you can see in the chart above, odds are that the Gopher's power play will not sustain the 34% conversion rate that they have enjoyed so far this season.  The power play has been terrific, and they have a great chance of eclipsing the 24.6% rate that they enjoyed a few years ago, but odds are we will see their power play rate dip down some.

That is concerning because so far this season the Gopher's have relied on their power play to score goals far more than they have in recent seasons.  The Gophers have scored a total of 48 goals so far this season.  17 of those goals have come on the power play and 31 have come while playing 5-on-5 hockey.  That means 35.4% of the goals they have scored this season have come with a man advantage.

Again, it's great that their power play is humming at the ridiculous rate that it is, but if you look at past seasons you can see that power play goals have traditionally accounted for roughly 28-29% of the team's goals.  Another strong indication that the power play likely won't be able to sustain the level it has been at, and the Gopher's scoring differential is going to come crashing down to Earth if they don't find a way to put the puck in the net 5-on-5. 

Too Dependent on Early Momentum to Win

The final thing that really jumped out at me when I was comparing the stats for this season with recent seasons is just how dependent this Gopher Hockey team is on early momentum to win hockey games.  While it's always great to jump out to an early lead, over the course of a season you are going to fall behind early in some games (either because you get a bad bounce, run into a hot opponent, etc..).  A team needs to be able to dig deep, stick to their style of play, and dig themselves out of early deficits when they occur.

While it is rare to be able to win more games when you fall behind early than when you grab an early lead, this season's Gopher Hockey team appears to be more dependent upon early momentum than Gopher teams of recent seasons, as shown in the chart below.

Gophers have been especially dependent on early momentum this season

As you can see in the chart above, the Gophers are 8-1-0 (0.889) when they score the first goal, but only 1-3-1 (0.300) when their opponent scores first.  So far this season, they have only won 1 game that they fell behind early.  While it's still early in the season, they are likely to fall behind again this season and they need to find a way to keep their composure, stick to their system, and find a way to come back. 

Last season the Gophers actually had a winning record (10-6-1) in games where they surrendered the first goal.  As I said, this is rare and doesn't need to be matched by this year's Gopher squad, but they need to be much better than they have been at dealing with adversity and falling behind early.  

You're going to surrender early leads in hockey, but good teams find a way to keep composed and come back in those games.  That falls on the on-ice leadership in my opinion, and the Gophers have some strong leaders on their squad.  Time for those guys to step up and show the way.

What the Gophers Need to Do Better

This list is a lot longer than I expected it to be at this time of the season, and I am not going to dive deep into everything at this point, but I do have a short list of things the Gophers absolutely must improve for them to have the sort of success the team and the fans expected this season.

First off, they need to start possessing the puck more.  That means getting the puck out of their zone more efficiently and sustaining a fore check more often.  Far too often this season the Gophers have gotten hemmed up in their own end as the result of an opponent's aggressive fore check.  While we do have some youth on the back end, we have enough talent and experience back their where this is absolutely unacceptable.  Our defensemen must be better at moving the puck out of our zone and up the ice.

We also need our forwards to take some pressure off our defensemen and do a better job of gaining the offensive zone and sustaining a fore check.  If you are going to dump the puck in the zone, you better go in and get it.  Teams have been able to move the puck out of their defensive zone far too easily on us at times and that absolutely must change.

In my eyes, that means that our 3rd and 4th lines must be a lot better.  While some of these guys haven't played a ton in the past few years, or are in their first year or two of college hockey, they have had enough experience this season where we need to start seeing some improvement.  If they continue to play at the possession disparity that they have been, I don't see any options for the coaching staff other than to shorten their bench a little.

The final thing I want to touch on is for the most part out of the Gophers control, but they must find a way to stay healthy from here on out.  We don't have nearly the depth that I thought we would coming into this season as some guys just haven't taken the steps that I thought they would yet.  If we lose some of our top line forwards for an extended period, we might be in serious trouble.

Anyways, that is my analysis of where the Gophers are at right now.  Still plenty of hockey left to be played and plenty of opportunity for guys to take a step in their development.  This team has more than enough talent to make a deep run in the post season, but in order to do that some guys are going to have to take a long look in the mirror and ask themselves if they are giving it everything they have.  I can't imagine that guys came back this year to have the type of season they have been having.

PART 1: A Look at College Hockey Demographics

Since we are roughly half way thru the hockey season, and seeing that we've hit that lull in the season right before the holidays, I thought it would be fun to take a look at some of the demographics of college hockey this season.  In case you've ever wondered where college hockey players come from, which countries, states\provinces create the best scoring players, etc... this is the article for you.


Let's start by taking a look at which countries produced the most of this year's NCAA Hockey players.  Below is a break-down of which countries have produced this season's NCAA players and how many.  Probably not much of a surprise that the United States and Canada lead the way by a wide margin, but it is nice to see the number of European countries on this list grow.

Also not surprising is that the big three hockey states in the United States (Minnesota, Michigan, and Massachusetts), as well as the larger provinces in Canada, continue to lead the way in terms of NCAA hockey players developed in North America.

However, there are new states that pop up on this list ever year (currently 41 of the 50 states in the US are represented), and there has been a surge in some non-traditional hockey states that makes me very excited about the future growth of college hockey in this country.  Take a look at the chart showing the break-down by State\Province below and let me know what sticks out to you.

Like I said, no real surprises at the top, but to see states like Texas and Florida producing as much Division 1 talent as they are is great to see.  And to see states like Georgia, North Carolina, Arizona, Nevada, etc... make the list and continue to make gains is a great sign for the future of college hockey.

I also thought it would be interesting to see which cities in the World were producing the most Division 1 hockey players.  My guess before I compiled this data was that it would be from some of the bigger cities in Canada or the Northern United States, and I was right.  I had a few people guess Toronto on Twitter, and they weren't too far off.  The top Division 1 hockey producing city in the World is Calgary.  In fact, the top 3 Division 1 hockey producing cities in the World are in Canada.  Here is a look at the top 21 cities in the World in terms of how many current Division 1 NCAA hockey players they have produced.

Considering the size of those Canadian cities, and the popularity of the sport in Canada, it should surprise no one that they lead the way in players produced.  What is kind of neat to see is Anchorage coming in at #4 and the relatively smaller Minneapolis suburbs of Edina, Plymouth, and Eden Prairie (49,000, 74,000, and 62,000 people respectively) come in near the top.  In fact, 7 of the top 21 NCAA producing cities in the world are within the state of Minnesota.  Pretty cool.

Even though this information gives us a pretty good understanding of where a majority of college hockey players come from, I didn't think it gave us the complete picture.  I wanted to take things a step further and break it down by where a majority of the points in college hockey are coming from in relation to college hockey's demographics.

I started by looking at North America.  I ranked each state and province by how many cumulative games played, goals, assists, and points players who originated from there have accumulated so far this season.  I then narrowed the list down to just those states and provinces that have produced players who have accumulated an aggregate of at least 200 games played thus far this season.  That gave me a list of 17 states and provinces.

Below are capsules of each state or province on this list that detail the cumulative number of games played, goals, assists, and points by players from that state or province so far this season.  I also listed the Top 5 scoring players (so far this season) for the state or province in case you aren't familiar with the college hockey players from that area.  

 

 

Some pretty interesting results.  We'll get to those in a minute, but first let's take a look at the point break-down of players who have come from Europe.  Again, I have provided some capsules below that detail the games played, goals, assists, and points for some of the top point getters in college hockey this season who came by way of European\Russia.

All I can say is, there are some pretty fantastic hockey players coming from all over the world to play college hockey, and we are extremely fortunate to have this talent to watch on a weekly basis.  I'm not going to go too in-depth in my analysis of the data above as I have another segment planned that I am going to post later this week.  

In that post I will break down the points\game for each state\province, as well as Europe, to get a better understanding of where all of the top point producers are coming from.  I think we have a pretty good understanding now of where the majority of the points are coming from, but much of that is due to the sheer volume that states and provinces like Ontario, Minnesota, Michigan, etc... produce.  I'd like to know is if some states\provinces\countries are doing better than others in producing the elite talent that plays in college hockey.

Yes, I list the pts\game for each state above, but keep in mind that those stats are for all players that come from those state\provinces\countries.  I would like to take just the top X number of players from each and see what the points\game is when we look at an even number of a state\province\country's best players.

I am also going to touch on some things I noticed as far as school recruiting goes, as well as maybe look at a few other things that caught my eye.   

Anyways, hope you found this information as interesting and insightful as I did. Was a lot of fun (and work) to put together.  If there is any specific piece of demographic data that I didn't cover (or mention that I plan to cover) that you are interested, let me know and I will see what I can do.