Riffing off my piece on potential scoring improvements for the LA Kings aka “LA Kids” in 2009-10, over at ESPN Insider (and reprinted at Puck Prospectus) this week, let’s take a quick look at the teams that had significant two year bouncebacks after posting a negative Relative Goals For (RGF):
-Total team-seasons since 1998-1999 = 235
-Total team-seasons with a negative RGF since 1998-1999 = 111
-Number of cases of a team with a negative RGF improving by 35+ RGF the next season, since 1998-1999= 18, or 16.2% of teams.
-Number of teams that improved RGF the following year after that = 5, or 4.5% of teams.
Who were they?
| Significant two year improvements in Relative Goals For (RGF) | ||||||||
| Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | Year 4 | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | Year 4 | |
| GF | GF | GF | GF | RGF | RGF | RGF | RGF | |
| LAK, 1998-9 to 2000-1 | 189 | 245 | 252 | 214 | -27 | 20 | 25 | -1 |
| TBL, 2001-2 to 2003-4* | 178 | 219 | 245 | 252 | -37 | 1 | 34 | -1 |
| NSH, 2001-2 to 2003-4 | 183 | 216 | 259 | 272 | -35 | 5 | 6 | 30 |
| BUF, 2002-3 to 2005-6 | 190 | 220 | 281 | 308 | -28 | 9 | 28 | 66 |
| PHI, 2006-7 to 2008-9 | 214 | 248 | 264 | 257** | -28 | 20 | 25 | 18** |
| *Won Stanley Cup | ||||||||
| **VUKOTA projection | ||||||||
Relative Goals For = Team’s Goals For – NHL average Goals For. RGF is a measure of how much better or worse than average the team is at scoring, taking out effects of annual scoring environment.