Hits, points, keep coming for Penguins |

Hits, points, keep coming for Penguins

Broken bones. Blood clots. Torn ligaments. Concussions. Strokes. The 2013-14 Penguins have suffered all of those and more, churning through 39 players and leading the NHL with 513 man-games lost.

For all of their scars, the Penguins managed to earn the second Eastern Conference playoff seed and compile 108 points through Saturday’s games, trailing only the 2011-12 and 1992-93 squads for the highest single-season total in franchise history.

Historically, teams decimated by injuries are fortunate to rack up even half of their total possible points, much less compete for the Stanley Cup. Since 2009-10, nine teams have endured at least 400 man-games lost during the regular season. The 2013-14 Penguins and Red Wings are the first clubs crossing that threshold to make the playoffs. None of these creaky teams compares to the Penguins in points percentage:









Blue Jackets11-12409.396

Red Wings13-14412.562



Sidney Crosby, shelved by concussion and jaw injuries in years past, has been a picture of health. But the Penguins have been forced to battle without many of their best — and highest-paid — players.

Evgeni Malkin, James Neal, Paul Martin, Pascal Dupuis, Brooks Orpik, Kris Letang and Rob Scuderi, whose combined cap hit exceeds $33 million, have missed considerable time.

With so many skilled, well-compensated players ailing, the Penguins lead the NHL in a stat called Cap Hit of Injured Player. CHIP measures the quality of players lost to injury by calculating the portion of a player’s total cap hit accumulated while he’s out of the lineup. The Penguins’ CHIP is nearly 2 12 times higher than the NHL average.

TeamCHIP (in millions)


Red Wings$11.27




NHL avg.$5.33

David Golebiewski is a freelance writer.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.