Here's my eye-tested offensive data. Pen and paper. I've collected all 4 games and put them together.
First of all, I inform something about the point-scoring system. This is how it goes:
3p = Goal
1p = Assist (2p, if quality assist)
2p = Quality scoring chance
1p = Scoring attempt (not blocked)
2p = Assisted Quality scoring chance
1p = Assisted scoring attempt
2p = Screen for a goal
1p = Screen for an attempt or chance
1p = Other good offensive play which did lead to an attempt or a chance, (Drawn penalty, Takeaway, Off.Zone.Faceoff win etc.)
2p = Other defensive play which did prevent opposite Quality chance (pass interception, block etc.)
1p = Other Defensive play, which did prevent opposite attempt (Blocked shot, good clear/takeaway on penalty kill etc.)
Last year I did have a system which did weighed all scoring attempt with same value. That was very misleading. As for now, this kind of 3-point weighted-scale still includes amounts of scoring attempts, but also weights them differently. From latest web analyzes I've found from the web, shots from High-Danger slot have at least double probablity to go in, so that has been the reasoning for this kind of system. It should determine well our scoring power.
Some teams shoot more some teams less. Some teams are weak and some teams are strong. Team which will shoot less, are not always weak teams. They could shoot less, but they won't play bad because they shoot more from high-danger slot. Less shots, more goals. Some teams shoot like mad, but from Low-danger zones, to get rebound in front of the net. I try to bring these differencies up in overall, when I analyze teams, but I'm also collecting data from individuals at same time. Overall, strong teams will shoot a lot and really strong teams shoot a lot from high-danger zone.
Here are our boys so far on my scale:
Player, (Goals+Assists) + (Chances+AllAttempts) + (CreatedQuality+AllCreatedAttempts) + (Screens+OtherGoodOffensivePlay+GoodDefensivePlay) = Total
W Tomas Tatar, (0+1) + (8+15) + (2+3) + (4+3+1) = 37 (So at First there's raw points scored, then at second there's all shooting data, at third there's playmaking/creating data and at last are intangibles)
LW Tomas Vanek, 3+3 + 3+7 + 4+10 + 3+3+0 = 36
W H.Zetterberg, 0+2 + 4+6 + 5+15 + 2+1+0 = 35
C Frans Nielsen, 1+2 + 3+8 + 4+11 + 2+1+0 = 32
C Dylan Larkin, 0+1 + 3+9 + 3+13 + 1+1+0 = 31
C Darren Helm, 3+0 + 8+9 + 1+2 + 0+2+3 = 28
C Glendening, 0+2 + 1+4 + 4+6 + 2+2+6 = 27
W R.Sheahan, 0+1 + 4+9 + 1+4 + 2+0+3 = 24
RW G.Nyquist, 0+3 + 2+3 + 3+8 + 0+1+1 = 21
RW Abdelkader, 0+0 + 2+4 + 0+3 + 4+2+2 = 17
W Athanasiou, 0+0 + 1+3 + 1+3 + 0+0+0 = 8
RW Steve Ott, 0+0 + 0+1 + 0+0 + 0+0+0 = 1
RD M.Green, 3+2 + 3+7 + 3+6 + 0+0+3 = 27
LD DeKeyser, 1+0 + 1+4 + 2+5 + 0+0+10 = 23
LD Ericsson, 0+0 + 0+6 + 1+3 + 0+1+4 = 15
LD B.Smith, 0+0 + 3+5 + 1+3 + 0+1+2 = 15
RD Marchenko, 0+0 + 0+2 + 1+5 + 1+0+6 = 15
RD Ouellet, 0+1 + 0+1 + 0+2 + 0+0+3 = 7
Tatar (37 points) has not scored much goals/points yet, but that doesn't say that he has been bad. Tats has had most chances, but has also had unbelieveable bad puck luck. He had glorious chances both against Sens and Rags, but they just din't go in. Soon they will go, if he just keeps repeating the shot volume and finds those good areas from where to score. He has most high-danger shots (8) together with Helm. Helm has just had the puck luck. This will equalize on the long run. Everybody knows Tatar can score and he has been best getting chances at even strentgh.
Vanek (36 points) has scored most real points and has looked very dangerous on the PP. But, his data mostly comes from there (17 points of all 36 are from PP) and at is average at even strength.
Zetterberg (35 points) has been the best playmaker by far, with 15 created attempts for a teammate with 5 quality created chances. He also thrives on the PP, but has been average at ES, just like Vanek.
Nielsen (32 points) has been quite good overall, scored some points, has had nice amount of attempts, also created some, and had also some intangibles like screens and key faceoff wins. This is what Frans Nielsen is, great overall player.
Dylan Larkin (31 points) hasn't had the puck luck like he had year before, but has contributed almost at identical level and data distribution than Nielsen. Only points are missing.
Helm (28 points) has scored three goals as been a surprising scoring threat with many high-danger chances. He hasn't created many chances for teammates, but has been strong on intangibles side. Drawn penalties and good defensive plays.
Glendening (27 points) has surprised most. Has been strongest forward defensively, with also some offense.
Riley Sheahan (24 points) has been kind of mediocre. Has shot attempts, but those seem to be weak usually. Doesn't create, has some intangibles, goes net-front and defends well. Should be put to defensive line, imo.
Nyquist (21 points) is underachieving again. We should expect more from him. He has had 3 assists, but his total amount of created chances per ice-time is only 10th best. That's unacceptable for a TOP9 forward, or, lets say, our 3rd high-priced scoring forward. Also, that 2nd PP has not worked at all with him running it.
Drew Miller (21 points) has also been a big surprise. Goes hand-in-hand with Glendening.
Abdelkader (17 points) has been bad. He was same also at World Cup. Only thing he has been good is those intangibles with 8 points. Goes net-front, forechecks, draws penalties, defends well and blocks shots. Of course important teamwork, but we should expect more from him at scoring department.
Athanasiou (8 points) is struggling. Nothing is working for him. Has looked like Jurco after a back injury. If he doesn't get adjusted soon, I think is better to swap him in AHL and bring Manthrax in.
Steve Ott (1 point) had one weak attempt on his only game he played. Also started that fight which did wake up "sleeping" Tampa on the season opener and we lost the momentum after that. Deserved to be benched.
***
I'm not going to analyze any defencemen from my data, because I like that BinCookin system more. My data is just "who creates offense". I don't count bad plays, just some cardinal mistakes. I hope I'll insert in some kind of plus/minus system at some day, but time for that is not now. Have to "develop" my eye at first for this current system. But it was an interesting to find out that DeKeyser has most good defensive plays (10) on my notes and Smith has least (2).
