Should NHL Teams Aim for Cheap or Expensive Depth?

Taking a look at which team-building approach is the most successful.

We don’t think about it much, but players in the bottom half of an NHL lineup have a huge impact on a hockey game. While they don’t have the flash and charisma of stars, they see the ice enough to where the low-end ones can be exploited by those on the higher end of that spectrum. This can be the difference between winning and losing.

So, should NHL teams spend more on their depth or save the money and use it elsewhere? I looked at a 200-plus sample size of players who signed a contract in the 2024 calendar year under $4 million in average annual value (AAV). I grouped the players in the following:

• Cheap; $750,000 to $1,499,999 AAV

• Expensive; $1,500,000 to $3,999,999 AAV

The higher end of this range (nearly $4 million AAV) might seem a bit too expensive, but the league has shifted to a place where that isn’t all that much. Consider this: a 22-man lineup could be made out of just players making $3,999,999 AAV with the league’s $88 million ceiling—that’s an average salary in the NHL nowadays. The inclusion of these players isn’t swaying the data much at all, nor invalidating it. I just felt some of those in that salary range deserved to be included.

For any definitions of the analytical terms used in this article, please refer to this guide.

---

Heavy Spending Has Superior Results (Part One): Skaters

Rather unsurprisingly, the more expensive bottom-half-of-the-lineup players brought better results. And to a pretty significant degree.

Cumulatively, the less expensive skaters have the following even-strength statistics to this point (through Nov. 6):

• $934,096 AAV (1.06 percent of the salary cap ceiling)

• 1.43 average years on their contract

• 43.71 goals percentage

• 48.16 expected goals percentage

The cheap, filler lineup throw-ins don’t play very well. In the cases where these players are fixtures, it’s generally not a great sight. Getting outscored 510-396 overall in the sample, that’s a minus-114 rating. Not only that, but they’re losing the expected goals battle 488.53-453.93.

An expected goals percentage of 48.16 is passable, but a 43.71 real goals percentage is not. At that point, it’s not even worth icing these players. Low-talent players make less because they bring low-talent results. They undershoot their “expected” potential and have proven to be a net negative overall.

As an emergency fill-in, these players work fine. Plus, their metrics will be better if they’re surrounded with higher-quality depth. But if a team isn’t willing to spend on the lesser half of its lineup, there will be consequences, and the numbers show it.

But let’s look at the more expensive side of this argument. Just how different are the numbers?

• $2,539,179 AAV (2.89 percent of the salary cap ceiling)

• 2.34 average years on their contract

• 52.38 goals percentage

• 51.44 expected goals percentage

Here, we see the effects that spending the extra money has. Sure, it costs an additional $1,605,083 AAV per player for these results, but they are noticeable. Here is the difference between our “cheap” and “expensive” skaters in the data in goals percentage (GF%) and expected goals percentage (xGF%):

The difference in GF% and xGF% between the “cheap” and “expensive” skaters in the data (accurate through Nov. 6, 2024). Graph courtesy of Microsoft Excel.

The higher-paid players are scoring more goals and allowing fewer. For just 2.89 percent of the salary cap for each player, they help control the pace of the game. That’s a win, and a massive one at that.

---

Heavy Spending Has Superior Results (Part Two): Goalies

As opposed to the nearly 200 skaters, there are fewer than 20 goalies. However, that doesn’t mean they don’t deserve their own section. Let’s assess the totals.

The “cheap” netminders: