As we reach the midway point of the hockey season, it’s the perfect time to evaluate team performances across the league. To provide a comprehensive assessment, we employed a grading system that assigns letter grades (A, B, C, D, F) based on key performance metrics for each team. This system enables quick recognition of standout teams and highlights potential areas for improvement.
Our analysis uses data from the Daily Report for the ECHL, generated on January 13, 2025, at 10:31 am. This report presents statistics for games played between October 14 and January 12, 2025, concluding Week 13 of the league. The data is derived from the number of weeks played (13) compared to the total games played, which differs by team due to the ECHL schedule.
With no games being played on January 13th that would affect the report’s outcome, teams have now played an average of 34.55 games each out of a 72-game season. The exact midpoint of the season is 36 games, so some teams might be just under halfway through their schedule. Nevertheless, this date is still a good time for a mid-season evaluation.
Introduction
Using a comprehensive grading scale, we’ve assessed all 29 teams based on their current standings and various performance metrics. This grading system provides a clear and fair assessment of how each team is faring.
While stats give us a good snapshot of each team’s performance, they don’t tell the whole story. We should remember that injuries and player absences can impact how a team plays. Team chemistry and coaching decisions are also huge factors that stats just can’t capture. Plus, the difficulty of a team’s schedule and psychological aspects, like momentum and confidence, also play a big role. Don’t forget the power of fan support—cheering for your team, especially at home games, can make a big difference!
So, while we break things down here by the numbers, you should also look beyond them and stay updated with team news and player updates to get a fuller picture. Support your team through the highs and lows, knowing that temporary setbacks like injuries or tough opponents can affect their stats, especially at this point in the season. There is plenty of hockey ahead, and this is just a snapshot of where each team is today.
Inside the Rink will feature articles by our writers covering several ECHL teams, offering their unique perspectives on how this information plays into the second half of the season. Stay tuned for in-depth team and division-based analysis and insights as well.
Grading Criteria
To determine each team’s grade, we considered the following key metrics as of January 13th:
- Points Percentage (PCT): The primary metric, representing the percentage of possible points a team has earned. Higher percentages indicate a better performance by that team.
- Wins (W): Total number of games won by the team. More wins contribute positively to the grade.
- Losses (L): Total number of games lost by the team. Fewer losses contribute positively to the grade.
- Overtime Losses (OTL) and Shootout Losses (SOL): Considered separately from regular losses, as teams earn points for these games.
- Goals For (GF) and Goals Against (GA): Number of goals scored by the team (GF) and the number of goals conceded (GA). A higher GF and a lower GA indicate strong offensive and defensive performance, respectively.
- Penalty Minutes (PIM): Total penalty minutes accumulated by the team. High penalty minutes can indicate discipline issues.
- Regulation Wins (RW) and Regulation + Overtime Wins (ROW): Number of games won in regulation time and the total number of wins including overtime. Higher numbers indicate a team’s ability to win games without relying on shootouts.
- Home and Road Records: Performance at home and on the road. Strong records in both areas indicate a well-rounded team.
- Recent Performance (Last Ten Games): The team’s performance in the last ten games. A strong finish or recent improvement can positively influence the grade.
- Streaks: Current winning or losing streaks. A positive streak can boost the grade, while a negative streak can lower it.
Grading Scale
A+ (0.750 – 0.765 PCT) Exceptional performance, consistently winning and dominating games. Strong offense and defense.
A (0.700 – 0.749 PCT) Excellent performance with a high win rate. Strong in both home and away games.
A- (0.650 – 0.699 PCT) Very good performance, solid win rate, and competitive in most games.
B+ (0.600 – 0.649 PCT) Good performance, above average win rate, and competitive in many games.
B (0.550 – 0.599 PCT) Above average performance, decent win rate, and competitive in several games.
B- (0.500 – 0.549 PCT)Average performance, balanced win and loss rate, competitive in some games.
C+ (0.450 – 0.499 PCT) Below average performance, more losses than wins, struggling in several areas.
C (0.400 – 0.449 PCT) Poor performance, significant struggles, and more losses than wins.
C- (0.350 – 0.399 PCT) Very poor performance, consistently losing, and struggling in most games.
D (0.300 – 0.349 PCT) Extremely poor performance, rarely winning, and significant struggles in all areas.
Team Grades
- Wheeling: A+
- Florida: A+
- Trois-Rivières: A+
- Toledo: A
- Tahoe: A-
- Norfolk: A-
- South Carolina: A-
- Kansas City: B+
- Jacksonville: B+
- Fort Wayne: B+
- Iowa: B+
- Tulsa: B
- Wichita: B
- Savannah: B
- Idaho: B
- Orlando: B-
- Atlanta: B-
- Bloomington: C+
- Indy: C+
- Greenville: C+
- Worcester: C+
- Maine: C+
- Adirondack: C
- Reading: C
- Utah: C-
- Rapid City: C-
- Allen: C-
- Kalamazoo: D
- Cincinnati: D
Team Leaders
Mountain Division
- Tahoe Knight Monsters: PCT: 0.671 – Grade: A-
- Kansas City Mavericks: PCT: 0.647 – Grade: A-
- Tulsa Oilers: PCT: 0.600 – Grade: B+
Central Division
- Toledo Walleye: PCT: 0.722 – Grade: A
- Fort Wayne Komets: PCT: 0.632 – Grade: B+
- Iowa Heartlanders: PCT: 0.629 – Grade: B+
North Division
- Wheeling Nailers: PCT: 0.765 – Grade: A+
- Trois-Rivières Lions: PCT: 0.750 – Grade: A+
- Norfolk Admirals: PCT: 0.662 – Grade: A-
South Division
- Florida Everblades: PCT: 0.750 – Grade: A+
- South Carolina Stingrays: PCT: 0.652 – Grade: A-
- Jacksonville Icemen: PCT: 0.643 – Grade: A-
(Edit -01/14/2025)
Grades for When Scoring First
To evaluate each team’s performance when scoring first, we used their win percentage as the key metric. The grading scale was established based on the best and worst values as of January 13th. This approach provides a clear and concise evaluation of each team’s ability to capitalize on scoring first.
Why is this important? Historically, teams that score first in hockey have a higher probability of winning the game. This is due to the combination of psychological and strategic factors that come into play once a team takes the lead.
The dynamics of the game can change significantly after the first goal. The trailing team may take more risks to equalize, potentially leaving themselves vulnerable to additional goals from counter-attacks.
Grading Scale – When Scoring First (Win Percentage)
A: 0.90+
B: 0.75-0.89
C: 0.60-0.74
D: 0.45-0.59
F: Below 0.45
How Grades Were Determined
The grades were assigned based on each team’s win percentage when scoring first. Teams with higher win percentages received higher grades, reflecting their ability to maintain and convert early leads into victories. Conversely, teams with lower win percentages received lower grades, indicating a need for improvement in holding onto leads.
Adirondack: Win Percentage: 0.682 – Grade: C
Allen: Win Percentage: 0.47 – Grade: D
Atlanta: Win Percentage: 0.781 – Grade: B
Bloomington: Win Percentage: 0.794 – Grade: B
Cincinnati: Win Percentage: 0.567 – Grade: D
Florida: Win Percentage: 0.810 – Grade: B
Fort Wayne: Win Percentage: 0.719 – Grade: C
Greenville: Win Percentage: 0.632 – Grade: C
Idaho: Win Percentage: 0.846 – Grade: B
Indy: Win Percentage: 0.833 – Grade: B
Iowa: Win Percentage: 0.750 – Grade: B
Jacksonville: Win Percentage: 0.789 – Grade: B
Kalamazoo: Win Percentage: 0.708 – Grade: C
Kansas City: Win Percentage: 0.850 – Grade: B
Maine: Win Percentage: 0.733 – Grade: C
Norfolk: Win Percentage: 0.587 – Grade: D
Orlando: Win Percentage: 0.719 – Grade: C
Rapid City: Win Percentage: 0.607 – Grade: C
Reading: Win Percentage: 0.643 – Grade: C
Savannah: Win Percentage: 0.765 – Grade: B
South Carolina: Win Percentage: 0.868 – Grade: B
Tahoe: Win Percentage: 0.786 – Grade: B
Toledo: Win Percentage: 0.841 – Grade: B
Trois-Rivières: Win Percentage: 0.773 – Grade: B
Tulsa: Win Percentage: 0.842 – Grade: B
Utah: Win Percentage: 0.667 – Grade: C
Wheeling: Win Percentage: 0.912 – Grade: A
Wichita: Win Percentage: 0.725 – Grade: C
Worcester: Win Percentage: 0.567 – Grade: D
Special Team Grades
To evaluate each team’s performance on the power play and penalty kill, we used their percentages as the key metrics. The grading scale was established based on the best and worst values in the 2024-25 season. This approach provides a clear and concise evaluation of each team’s special teams’ effectiveness.
On the Power Play
How Grades Were Determined
The grades were assigned based on each team’s power play percentages. Teams with higher percentages received higher grades, reflecting their effectiveness in these areas. Conversely, teams with lower percentages received lower grades, indicating a need for improvement.
Power Play Percentage (PP%)
A: 25.0%+
B: 20.0%-24.9%
C: 15.0%-19.9%
D: 10.0%-14.9%
F: Below 10.0%
Grades
Adirondack (ADK): Power Play Percentage: 13.8% – Grade: D
Allen (ALN): Power Play Percentage: 22.0% – Grade: B
Atlanta (ATL): Power Play Percentage: 13.2% – Grade: D
Bloomington (BLM): Power Play Percentage: 19.2% – Grade: C
Cincinnati (CIN): Power Play Percentage: 17.1% – Grade: C
Florida (FLA): Power Play Percentage: 18.1% – Grade: C
Fort Wayne (FW): Power Play Percentage: 19.7% – Grade: C
Greenville (GVL): Power Play Percentage: 16.8% – Grade: C
Idaho (IDH): Power Play Percentage: 17.4% – Grade: C
Indy (IND): Power Play Percentage: 18.4% – Grade: C
Iowa (IA): Power Play Percentage: 15.5% – Grade: C
Jacksonville (JAX): Power Play Percentage: 14.5% – Grade: D
Kalamazoo (KAL): Power Play Percentage: 12.8% – Grade: D
Kansas City (KC): Power Play Percentage: 18.6% – Grade: C
Maine (MNE): Power Play Percentage: 15.8% – Grade: C
Norfolk (NOR): Power Play Percentage: 21.5% – Grade: B
Orlando (ORL): Power Play Percentage: 19.5% – Grade: C
Rapid City (RC): Power Play Percentage: 14.7% – Grade: D
Reading (REA): Power Play Percentage: 18.1% – Grade: C
Savannah (SAV): Power Play Percentage: 22.7% – Grade: B
South Carolina (SC): Power Play Percentage: 23.6% – Grade: B
Tahoe (TAH): Power Play Percentage: 20.2% – Grade: B
Toledo (TOL): Power Play Percentage: 25.4% – Grade: A
Trois-Rivières (TR): Power Play Percentage: 28.0% – Grade: A
Tulsa (TUL): Power Play Percentage: 19.8% – Grade: C
Utah (UTA): Power Play Percentage: 17.5% – Grade: C
Wheeling (WHL): Power Play Percentage: 25.2% – Grade: A
On the Penalty Kill
How Grades Were Determined
The grades were assigned based on each team’s penalty kill percentages. Teams with higher percentages received higher grades, reflecting their effectiveness in these areas. Conversely, teams with lower percentages received lower grades, indicating a need for improvement.
Grading Scale – Penalty Kill Percentage (PK%)
A: 90.0%+
B: 80.0%-89.9%
C: 70.0%-79.9%
D: 60.0%-69.9%
F: Below 60.0%
Grades
Adirondack (ADK): Penalty Kill Percentage: 74.1% – Grade: C
Allen (ALN): Penalty Kill Percentage: 79.1% – Grade: C
Atlanta (ATL): Penalty Kill Percentage: 78.6% – Grade: C
Bloomington (BLM): Penalty Kill Percentage: 80.9% – Grade: B
Cincinnati (CIN): Penalty Kill Percentage: 77.7% – Grade: C
Florida (FLA): Penalty Kill Percentage: 82.6% – Grade: B
Fort Wayne (FW): Penalty Kill Percentage: 83.8% – Grade: B
Greenville (GVL): Penalty Kill Percentage: 81.6% – Grade: B
Idaho (IDH): Penalty Kill Percentage: 83.9% – Grade: B
Indy (IND): Penalty Kill Percentage: 89.7% – Grade: B
Iowa (IA): Penalty Kill Percentage: 77.0% – Grade: C
Jacksonville (JAX): Penalty Kill Percentage: 82.8% – Grade: B
Kalamazoo (KAL): Penalty Kill Percentage: 75.0% – Grade: C
Kansas City (KC): Penalty Kill Percentage: 77.0% – Grade: C
Maine (MNE): Penalty Kill Percentage: 78.7% – Grade: C
Norfolk (NOR): Penalty Kill Percentage: 80.6% – Grade: B
Orlando (ORL): Penalty Kill Percentage: 88.0% – Grade: B
Rapid City (RC): Penalty Kill Percentage: 79.8% – Grade: C
Reading (REA): Penalty Kill Percentage: 76.3% – Grade: C
Savannah (SAV): Penalty Kill Percentage: 85.0% – Grade: B
South Carolina (SC): Penalty Kill Percentage: 90.4% – Grade: A
Tahoe (TAH): Penalty Kill Percentage: 83.7% – Grade: B
Toledo (TOL): Penalty Kill Percentage: 82.5% – Grade: B
Trois-Rivières (TR): Penalty Kill Percentage: 81.9% – Grade: B
Tulsa (TUL): Penalty Kill Percentage: 83.6% – Grade: B
Utah (UTA): Penalty Kill Percentage: 67.0% – Grade: D
Wheeling (WHL): Penalty Kill Percentage: 88.0% – Grade: B
Wichita (WIC): Penalty Kill Percentage: 84.4% – Grade: B
Worcester (WOR): Penalty Kill Percentage: 73.8% – Grade: C
Goals For and Goals Against Per Game Grades
To evaluate each team’s performance in terms of goals for and goals against per game, we used their goals per game (GF/G) and goals against per game (GA/G) as the key metrics. The grading scale was established based on the best and worst values as of January 13th. This approach provides a clear and concise evaluation of each team’s offensive and defensive effectiveness.
Goals For Per Game
Grading Scale for Goals For Per Game (GF/G)
A: 4.00+
B: 3.50-3.99
C: 3.00-3.49
D: 2.50-2.99
F: Below 2.50
How Grades Were Determined
The grades were assigned based on each team’s goals for (GF) per game. Teams with higher goals for per game and lower goals against per game received higher grades, reflecting their offensive and defensive strengths. Conversely, teams with lower goals for per game and higher goals against per game received lower grades, indicating areas for improvement.
Grades
Adirondack: Goals For Per Game: 2.64 – Grade: D
Allen: Goals For Per Game: 2.54 – Grade: D
Atlanta: Goals For Per Game: 2.61 – Grade: D
Bloomington: Goals For Per Game: 2.47 – Grade: F
Cincinnati: Goals For Per Game: 2.31 – Grade: F
Florida: Goals For Per Game: 3.32 – Grade: C
Fort Wayne: Goals For Per Game: 3.21 – Grade: C
Greenville: Goals For Per Game: 2.67 – Grade: D
Idaho: Goals For Per Game: 3.40 – Grade: C
Indy: Goals For Per Game: 2.09 – Grade: F
Iowa: Goals For Per Game: 2.83 – Grade: D
Jacksonville: Goals For Per Game: 3.09 – Grade: C
Kalamazoo: Goals For Per Game: 2.24 – Grade: F
Kansas City: Goals For Per Game: 3.53 – Grade: B
Maine: Goals For Per Game: 2.63 – Grade: D
Norfolk: Goals For Per Game: 4.15 – Grade: A
Orlando: Goals For Per Game: 2.62 – Grade: D
Rapid City: Goals For Per Game: 2.57 – Grade: D
Reading: Goals For Per Game: 2.67 – Grade: D
Savannah: Goals For Per Game: 3.53 – Grade: B
South Carolina: Goals For Per Game: 3.91 – Grade: B
Tahoe: Goals For Per Game: 3.97 – Grade: B
Toledo: Goals For Per Game: 3.42 – Grade: C
Trois-Rivières: Goals For Per Game: 3.75 – Grade: B
Tulsa: Goals For Per Game: 3.46 – Grade: C
Utah: Goals For Per Game: 3.19 – Grade: C
Wheeling: Goals For Per Game: 3.65 – Grade: B
Wichita: Goals For Per Game: 3.21 – Grade: C
Worcester: Goals For Per Game: 2.86 – Grade: D
Goals Against Per Game
Grading Scale for Goals Against Per Game (GA/G)
A: 2.00 or less
B: 2.01-2.50
C: 2.51-3.00
D: 3.01-3.50
F: Above 3.50
How Grades Were Determined
The grades were assigned based on each team’s goals against (GA) per game. Teams with higher goals for per game and lower goals against per game received higher grades, reflecting their offensive and defensive strengths. Conversely, teams with lower goals for per game and higher goals against per game received lower grades, indicating areas for improvement.
Grades
Adirondack: Goals Against Per Game: 3.67 – Grade: F
Allen: Goals Against Per Game: 4.09 – Grade: F
Atlanta: Goals Against Per Game: 3.24 – Grade: D
Bloomington: Goals Against Per Game: 2.65 – Grade: C
Cincinnati: Goals Against Per Game: 3.20 – Grade: D
Florida: Goals Against Per Game: 1.97 – Grade: A
Fort Wayne: Goals Against Per Game: 2.82 – Grade: C
Greenville: Goals Against Per Game: 3.55 – Grade: F
Idaho: Goals Against Per Game: 3.40 – Grade: D
Indy: Goals Against Per Game: 2.27 – Grade: B
Iowa: Goals Against Per Game: 2.69 – Grade: C
Jacksonville: Goals Against Per Game: 2.54 – Grade: C
Kalamazoo: Goals Against Per Game: 3.06 – Grade: D
Kansas City: Goals Against Per Game: 2.82 – Grade: C
Maine: Goals Against Per Game: 3.50 – Grade: D
Norfolk: Goals Against Per Game: 3.15 – Grade: D
Orlando: Goals Against Per Game: 2.79 – Grade: C
Rapid City: Goals Against Per Game: 3.71 – Grade: F
Reading: Goals Against Per Game: 3.31 – Grade: D
Savannah: Goals Against Per Game: 3.32 – Grade: D
South Carolina: Goals Against Per Game: 2.55 – Grade: C
Tahoe: Goals Against Per Game: 3.23 – Grade: D
Toledo: Goals Against Per Game: 2.50 – Grade: B
Trois-Rivières: Goals Against Per Game: 2.50 – Grade: B
Tulsa: Goals Against Per Game: 3.09 – Grade: D
Utah: Goals Against Per Game: 4.41 – Grade: F
Wheeling: Goals Against Per Game: 2.38 – Grade: B
Wichita: Goals Against Per Game: 2.55 – Grade: C
Worcester: Goals Against Per Game: 3.56 – Grade: F
Offensive and Defensive Strength
In this analysis, we evaluate the offensive and defensive strengths of various teams based on their Goals For percentage (GF%) and Shots For percentage (SF%). The GF% helps measure a team’s offensive strength relative to their defensive capabilities, with a higher GF% indicating a stronger offensive performance. The SF% indicates how well a team controls the game by taking more shots compared to the shots they face, with a higher SF% suggesting better offensive pressure and control.
The grading scale is based on the ratio of Goals For (GF) to Goals Against (GA) and Shots For (SF) to Shots Against (SA).
Grading Criteria
We are looking at two main things to grade each team:
- Goals For percentage (GF%): This tells us how many goals a team scores compared to how many they let in. A higher percentage means the team is scoring more goals than they are conceding.
- Shots For percentage (SF%): This shows how many shots a team takes compared to how many shots they face from their opponents. A higher percentage means the team is taking more shots than they are allowing.
How We Graded
We used a simple grading scale, similar to what you might see in school:
A: Top 25% (the best teams)
B: Next 25% (good teams)
C: Middle 25% (average teams)
D: Next 15% (below average teams)
F: Bottom 10% (the weakest teams)
Offensive Strength (GF%)
A: The team scores a lot more goals than they let in.
B: The team scores more goals than they let in, but not as much as the top teams.
C: The team scores about as many goals as they let in.
D: The team scores fewer goals than they let in.
F: The team scores a lot fewer goals than they let in.
Defensive Strength (SF%)
A: The team takes a lot more shots than they face.
B: The team takes more shots than they face, but not as much as the top teams.
C: The team takes about as many shots as they face.
D: The team takes fewer shots than they face.
F: The team takes a lot fewer shots than they face.
Overall Grade Calculation (How We Calculated Each Grade)
To get an overall grade for each team, we combine their grades for GF% and SF%. Here’s how it works:
- We give each grade a number: A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1, F = 0.
- We add the numbers for GF% and SF% and then divide by 2 to get an average.
- We convert this average back to a letter grade:
- A: Average is 3 or higher
- B: Average is between 2 and 3
- C: Average is between 1 and 2
- D: Average is between 0 and 1
- F: Average is less than 0
For example, if a team has a GF% grade of B (3) and an SF% grade of C (2), the average would be (3 + 2) / 2 = 2.5, which corresponds to an overall grade of B.
Overall Grades
Adirondack:
GF%: 71.90 – Grade: F
SF%: 101.58 – Grade: C
Overall Grade: D
Adirondack struggles defensively, conceding more goals than they score. However, they manage to maintain a balanced shot ratio, suggesting they generate a fair number of shots but have significant defensive weaknesses.
Allen:
GF%: 62.24 – Grade: F
SF%: 68.92 – Grade: F
Overall Grade: F
Allen faces challenges both offensively and defensively, scoring fewer goals and taking fewer shots compared to their opponents. They need to improve in both areas to become more competitive.
Atlanta:
GF%: 80.49 – Grade: C
SF%: 94.81 – Grade: D
Overall Grade: D
Atlanta has a below-average goal ratio but maintains a decent shot ratio. They generate shots but need to focus on converting these opportunities into goals.
Bloomington:
GF%: 93.33 – Grade: C
SF%: 93.27 – Grade: D
Overall Grade: C
Bloomington performs averagely in both scoring and shooting, indicating a balanced but unremarkable performance. They are neither excelling nor struggling significantly in either area.
Cincinnati:
GF%: 72.32 – Grade: D
SF%: 104.33 – Grade: B
Overall Grade: C
Cincinnati struggles with goal scoring but manages to take more shots than they face. They need to improve their goal conversion rate to capitalize on their shooting opportunities.
Florida:
GF%: 168.66 – Grade: A
SF%: 118.48 – Grade: A
Overall Grade: A
Florida excels in scoring and maintains a good shot ratio, indicating a strong offensive performance. They are a formidable team in both scoring and shooting.
Fort Wayne:
GF%: 113.54 – Grade: B
SF%: 114.80 – Grade: B
Overall Grade: B
Fort Wayne has a balanced performance, scoring slightly more goals and taking more shots than they concede and face. They have a solid overall performance with room for improvement.
Greenville:
GF%: 75.21 – Grade: D
SF%: 85.15 – Grade: D
Overall Grade: D
Greenville struggles with both scoring and shooting, suggesting a need for significant improvement in both areas to become more competitive.
Idaho:
GF%: 100.00 – Grade: C
SF%: 95.11 – Grade: C
Overall Grade: C
Idaho maintains an even goal ratio and a balanced shot ratio, indicating a stable but unexceptional performance. They are consistent but not outstanding.
Indy:
GF%: 92.00 – Grade: C
SF%: 118.84 – Grade: A
Overall Grade: B
Indy has a balanced goal ratio and a good shot ratio. They take more shots but need to improve their goal conversion rate to enhance their overall performance.
Iowa:
GF%: 105.32 – Grade: B
SF%: 106.67 – Grade: B
Overall Grade: B
Iowa performs slightly above average in both scoring and shooting, indicating a solid but not outstanding performance. They are competitive but have room for improvement.
Jacksonville:
GF%: 121.35 – Grade: A
SF%: 96.06 – Grade: C
Overall Grade: B
Jacksonville scores more goals than they concede but has a balanced shot ratio. They have strong scoring but average shooting, suggesting they could benefit from generating more shots.
Kalamazoo:
GF%: 73.27 – Grade: D
SF%: 77.01 – Grade: F
Overall Grade: D
Kalamazoo faces challenges in both scoring and shooting, suggesting a need for significant improvement in both areas to become more competitive.
Kansas City:
GF%: 125.00 – Grade: A
SF%: 133.82 – Grade: A
Overall Grade: A
Kansas City performs well in both scoring and shooting, indicating a strong overall performance. They are a formidable team in both areas.
Maine:
GF%: 75.00 – Grade: D
SF%: 106.65 – Grade: B
Overall Grade: C
Maine struggles with scoring but maintains a good shot ratio. They need to improve their goal conversion rate to capitalize on their shooting opportunities.
Norfolk:
GF%: 131.78 – Grade: A
SF%: 109.75 – Grade: A
Overall Grade: A
Norfolk excels in scoring and maintains a good shot ratio, indicating strong offensive performance. They are a competitive team in both scoring and shooting.
Orlando:
GF%: 93.58 – Grade: C
SF%: 82.21 – Grade: F
Overall Grade: D
Orlando has a balanced goal ratio but struggles with shooting. They need to improve in maintaining offensive pressure and generating more shots.
Rapid City:
GF%: 69.23 – Grade: F
SF%: 97.37 – Grade: C
Overall Grade: D
Rapid City struggles with scoring but maintains a balanced shot ratio. They need to improve their goal conversion rate to enhance their overall performance.
Reading:
GF%: 80.67 – Grade: C
SF%: 88.96 – Grade: D
Overall Grade: D
Reading faces challenges in both scoring and shooting, suggesting a need for significant improvement in both areas to become more competitive.
Savannah:
GF%: 106.19 – Grade: B
SF%: 124.73 – Grade: A
Overall Grade: A
Savannah performs well in both scoring and shooting, indicating a strong overall performance. They are a competitive team in both areas.
South Carolina:
GF%: 153.57 – Grade: A
SF%: 118.87 – Grade: A
Overall Grade: A
South Carolina excels in scoring and maintains a good shot ratio, indicating strong offensive performance. They are a formidable team in both scoring and shooting.
Tahoe:
GF%: 123.01 – Grade: A
SF%: 103.15 – Grade: B
Overall Grade: A
Tahoe performs well in both scoring and shooting, indicating a strong overall performance. They are a competitive team in both areas.
Toledo:
GF%: 136.67 – Grade: A
SF%: 117.35 – Grade: A
Overall Grade: A
Toledo excels in scoring and maintains a good shot ratio, indicating strong offensive performance. They are a formidable team in both scoring and shooting.
Trois-Rivières:
GF%: 150.00 – Grade: A
SF%: 93.04 – Grade: D
Overall Grade: B
Trois-Rivières excels in scoring but has a balanced shot ratio. They have strong scoring but average shooting, suggesting they could benefit from generating more shots.
Tulsa:
GF%: 112.04 – Grade: B
SF%: 113.11 – Grade: B
Overall Grade: B
Tulsa performs well in both scoring and shooting, indicating a strong overall performance. They are a competitive team in both areas.
Utah:
GF%: 72.34 – Grade: D
SF%: 90.31 – Grade: D
Overall Grade: D
Utah struggles with both scoring and shooting, suggesting a need for significant improvement in both areas to become more competitive.
Wheeling:
GF%: 153.09 – Grade: A
SF%: 96.75 – Grade: C
Overall Grade: B
Wheeling excels in scoring but has a balanced shot ratio. They have strong scoring but average shooting, suggesting they could benefit from generating more shots.
Wichita:
GF%: 125.77 – Grade: A
SF%: 92.43 – Grade: D
Overall Grade: B
Wichita performs well in scoring but has a balanced shot ratio. They have strong scoring but average shooting, suggesting they could benefit from generating more shots.
Worcester:
GF%: 80.47 – Grade: C
SF%: 98.52 – Grade: C
Overall Grade: C
Worcester faces challenges in both scoring and shooting, suggesting a need for significant improvement in both areas to become more competitive.
Summary
In summary, the teams in ECHL currently exhibit a wide range of performances, with some excelling in both scoring and shooting, while others struggle significantly. Teams like Florida, Kansas City, and South Carolina demonstrate strong offensive capabilities, making them formidable opponents. On the other hand, teams such as Allen and Kalamazoo face challenges in both scoring and shooting, indicating a need for some improvement.
Overall, the grades reflect a point in time in the diverse competitive landscape of the ECHL, highlighting areas of strength and opportunities for growth across the board. As the season progresses, it will be interesting to see how these teams adapt.
Discover more from Inside The Rink
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
