Rankings of best on best rosters, right now

[Czechboy]

Problem for that argument, if you look at the 15 years old of right now, many great prospects again. Draisaitl will have a long-lasting impact in a larger population.



Statistically, tiers usually mean "standard of deviation" of performance. In this case, Canada and US can be in the same tier even if Canada is superior. It just means that the standard deviation between the 2, would be under 1.

The WJC data from 2008 to 2018 is probably the most predictive data we have to look at. However, its far from perfect, as teams like the Czech often have 2-3 great players playing with an overall weak team in juniors, but then when you look at the senior level these great players aggregate together to elevate the senior level.

So when you say 'data' you are talking the U20 results. The second someone puts Canada (who has won everything) and the US together (who hasn't won anything) in the same tier.. it is clear we are using U20 results.

Let me help you.. use the U18 stats... they demonstrate that the US is actually better than Canada. Just don't use the Hlinka results becuase they show Canada is clearly better.

 

[czechmate]

Problem for that argument, if you look at the 15 years old of right now, many great prospects again. Draisaitl will have a long-lasting impact in a larger population.



Statistically, tiers usually mean "standard of deviation" of performance. In this case, Canada and US can be in the same tier even if Canada is superior. It just means that the standard deviation between the 2, would be under 1.

The WJC data from 2008 to 2018 is probably the most predictive data we have to look at. However, its far from perfect, as teams like the Czech often have 2-3 great players playing with an overall weak team in juniors, but then when you look at the senior level these great players aggregate together to elevate the senior level.

Thats a hypothetical. Germany surely has a lot of potential, but we will have to see if everything pans out accordingly. By the way: Peterka, Reichel, Kahun and Draisaitl all have a Czech background.

In your previous post you've basically stated that Germany (moving up to 2nd tier) is going to overtake the Czechs (trending to 3rd tier) within the next 10 years. To me there is very little to no chance of that happening. Also, where is the data that supports such a claim?

The main problem of the Czechs is their defense. If they manage to develop 4-5 quality defensemen over the next few years and one of the elite goalie prospects (i.e. Dostal) pan out, they have a legitimate shot at competing with the top teams again.

 

[JackSlater]

World junior results aren't all that useful in this. Canada won 7 out of 8 WJCs at the beginning of the 90s - Canada also had a summit in the late 90s to figure out why the country was doing a poor job of producing great players. The Czechs won 0 WJCs prior to winning the 1998 Olympic tournament, and then proceeded to win two shortly after. Likewise Sweden only won a single WJC before winning the 2006 Olympic tournament, and that was a quarter century earlier. USA had never won the WJC prior to winning the 1996 World Cup and wouldn't win the WJC until nearly a decade later. Honestly when you look at the players who were missing from the WJC (because they were good enough to be in the NHL) that tends to be a better predictor, as those players are often best on best contributors.

World championship results are also not particularly useful for reasons that I'm sure everyone knows. The only thing that is predictive is the quality of the players available. Nearly all of the best players play in the same league - we don't need to look at results from junior tournaments or a senior tournament where the vast majority of the best players don't participate in order to compare teams. Best on best results from a decade ago also hold no relevance. Past results don't win tournaments, players do.

 

[SOLR]

So when you say 'data' you are talking the U20 results. The second someone puts Canada (who has won everything) and the US together (who hasn't won anything) in the same tier.. it is clear we are using U20 results.

Let me help you.. use the U18 stats... they demonstrate that the US is actually better than Canada. Just don't use the Hlinka results becuase they show Canada is clearly better.

The WJC is the 2nd best evaluation stick after the Olympics by quite a bit. Not sure why you are throwing all the nonsense around this.

U18, Canadians can't go.
Hlinka, Canadians are more ready in August.

It was clear after the 2005 WJC that was truly a best on best because of the lockout + a best on best in generational talents, that Canada would dominate the next 2 Olympics. Only Crosby and Bergeron remain, it's been 8 years since the last real best v best, all the tools are imperfect.

So you are planning to look at the last 40 years of senior data to define the tiers? Sounds like a losing plan. Even worse, you are not even trying. Find a better solution, I'm open-minded.

 

[SOLR]

World junior results aren't all that useful in this. Canada won 7 out of 8 WJCs at the beginning of the 90s - Canada also had a summit in the late 90s to figure out why the country was doing a poor job of producing great players. The Czechs won 0 WJCs prior to winning the 1998 Olympic tournament, and then proceeded to win two shortly after. Likewise Sweden only won a single WJC before winning the 2006 Olympic tournament, and that was a quarter century earlier. USA had never won the WJC prior to winning the 1996 World Cup and wouldn't win the WJC until nearly a decade later. Honestly when you look at the players who were missing from the WJC (because they were good enough to be in the NHL) that tends to be a better predictor, as those players are often best on best contributors.

World championship results are also not particularly useful for reasons that I'm sure everyone knows. The only thing that is predictive is the quality of the players available. Nearly all of the best players play in the same league - we don't need to look at results from junior tournaments or a senior tournament where the vast majority of the best players don't participate in order to compare teams. Best on best results from a decade ago also hold no relevance. Past results don't win tournaments, players do.

As I said, imperfect, but about the only data we have.

 

[JackSlater]

As I said, imperfect, but about the only data we have.

It's imperfect to the point of being poor. You can get something from the WJC but not a whole lot. If a country is not competitive at the WJC level then it likely isn't going to win a best on best, but that's seemingly the only bar that a country needs to clear. The best data by far is what can be seen in the NHL, where (in 2021 at least) nearly all of the best players play and the sample size is huge. That isn't to say that the team with the best NHLers, or the best players in general, is a given to win a tournament by any stretch.

 

[Voodoozz]

To me the only objective way how to tell which "tier" each country belongs to is to look at the number and overall quality of its NHL Players. Everything else is just way too subjective for my taste - which tournaments you look at, what result you consider a success, what other factors you take into consideration etc.

So it goes something like this: 1. Canada ..................... 2. USA ........ 3. Sweden ..... 4. Russia, Finland .........5. Czech Rep. ..................... 6. Germany, Switzerland, Slovakia

 

[FiLe]

It seems to me that some people are not understanding the question originally asked. It's not about the best hockey countries, which would be measured by overall depth, but ranking their best hypothetical best-on-best rosters. To me. that means taking your 25 best players and measuring them against the other guys' best 25-man-squads. Depth shouldn't matter - if you have the best 25-man squad, but the 26th guy is a scrub, you're still ranked #1.

Of course, in reality depth matters, because countries practically never get to field their absolute best 25 thanks to injuries - not to mention an event in which all countries would have their best 25 dressed. But IMO we don't have to take reality into account when dealing with hypotheticals, especially because reality itself matters little, considering that on-paper rankings never respond to results on ice.

So, in order to answer the original question, try to think which country would have the best 25-man on-paper squad with no injuries. Then think which would have the second best using the same criteria - and so forth.

 

[Czechboy]

The WJC is the 2nd best evaluation stick after the Olympics by quite a bit. Not sure why you are throwing all the nonsense around this.

U18, Canadians can't go.
Hlinka, Canadians are more ready in August.

It was clear after the 2005 WJC that was truly a best on best because of the lockout + a best on best in generational talents, that Canada would dominate the next 2 Olympics. Only Crosby and Bergeron remain, it's been 8 years since the last real best v best, all the tools are imperfect.

So you are planning to look at the last 40 years of senior data to define the tiers? Sounds like a losing plan. Even worse, you are not even trying. Find a better solution, I'm open-minded.

I am going back to my first statement.. you are basing on a 2 week tournament at Xmas. States, at the senior level, are almost 25 years removed from a gold medal. Yet you have them tied with Canada and are calling my take nonsense. Gotcha.

 

[Goodman68]

Not sure why this is so complex:

Tier 1 (should win it all if they play at their level)
Canada
US

Tier 2 (no surprise if they win it all, however unlikely, probable finalists)
Russia
Sweden
Finland

Tier 3 (no surprise if they cause a surprise or reach the semi-finals, extremely unlikely that they win it all).
Czech
Germany
Swiss

Tier 4 (Could cause surprises in group play)
Slovakia
Latvia
Denmark

Tier 5 (Unlikely to cause any surprise)
Kazaks
Norway
France
Belarus
Austrian
Italians

The Czechs are not really heading for tier 3.
What dates are you writing about?

 

[Czechboy]

Also, where is the data that supports such a claim?

I can answer that!

He uses the World Junior tournament and in the last 2 tournaments the German's were better than the Czechs so, therefore, they are better. FTR.. by better... that's debatable too. Eg. Czechs have made the quarters the last 5 U20's... Germany has made them once. Last 10 years, we've made the quarters 9 times and semi's once. Germany has made the Quarters once. Last 10 years we've had how many Czechs drafted? Last 5 years?

None of that matters!

FTR.. I'm all for the German's and love what they are doing. Big fan. I really want hockey to become bigger than a big 5. I'd love a big 8 where every quarter is a marquee matchup!

However, all the 'data' is the WJHC.

 

[Czechboy]

It seems to me that some people are not understanding the question originally asked. It's not about the best hockey countries, which would be measured by overall depth, but ranking their best hypothetical best-on-best rosters. To me. that means taking your 25 best players and measuring them against the other guys' best 25-man-squads. Depth shouldn't matter - if you have the best 25-man squad, but the 26th guy is a scrub, you're still ranked #1.

Of course, in reality depth matters, because countries practically never get to field their absolute best 25 thanks to injuries - not to mention an event in which all countries would have their best 25 dressed. But IMO we don't have to take reality into account when dealing with hypotheticals, especially because reality itself matters little, considering that on-paper rankings never respond to results on ice.

So, in order to answer the original question, try to think which country would have the best 25-man on-paper squad with no injuries. Then think which would have the second best using the same criteria - and so forth.

My answer stays the same.
Canada
small gap
Finns/Russia/US/Sweden tied
bigger gap
Czechs
small gap
Swiss/German/Slovak/Denmark/Latvia

 

[Czechboy]

I've been saying for awhile that if the Czechs didn't make the quarters but had 4 or 5 guys from that failing team drafted in round 1.. I'd be ecstatic!

Eg. Canada doesn't win gold at a tournament but then has 15 guys go in Round 1. That's better than a gold at the WJHC.

Or the Swede's have almost no golds at U20's yet seem to have at least 10 guys every year go in Round 1 and are near 100 in the NHL.

 

[SOLR]

I can answer that!

He uses the World Junior tournament and in the last 2 tournaments the German's were better than the Czechs so, therefore, they are better. FTR.. by better... that's debatable too. Eg. Czechs have made the quarters the last 5 U20's... Germany has made them once. Last 10 years, we've made the quarters 9 times and semi's once. Germany has made the Quarters once. Last 10 years we've had how many Czechs drafted? Last 5 years?

None of that matters!

FTR.. I'm all for the German's and love what they are doing. Big fan. I really want hockey to become bigger than a big 5. I'd love a big 8 where every quarter is a marquee matchup!

However, all the 'data' is the WJHC.

No, you are completely misrepresenting the argument.

 

[SOLR]

The Czechs are not really heading for tier 3.
What dates are you writing about?

For the past 10 years and likely the next 10. Not sure who knowledgeable would believe the Czech are still in tier 2.

 

[SOLR]

It's imperfect to the point of being poor. You can get something from the WJC but not a whole lot. If a country is not competitive at the WJC level then it likely isn't going to win a best on best, but that's seemingly the only bar that a country needs to clear. The best data by far is what can be seen in the NHL, where (in 2021 at least) nearly all of the best players play and the sample size is huge. That isn't to say that the team with the best NHLers, or the best players in general, is a given to win a tournament by any stretch.

That's fine, I'm using this as well. But the WJC is more predicting than you believe it is. It wasn't in the 90s because the integration of systems was very different between junior and Pro (I get this argument), but this changed drastically from 2002+.

 

[b0rn2beWild]

1. Canada

(quite big cap)

2. USA
(tiny cap)
3. Finland
3.Russia
3.Sweden

(bigger cap)

6.Czech Rep.

 

[ORRFForever]

1. Canada

(quite big cap)

2. USA
(tiny cap)
3. Finland
3.Russia
3.Sweden

(bigger cap)

6.Czech Rep.

I remember, in the late 90's, early 2000's, when everyone, including Canada, was scared of Czechs (Czechoslovakia). Such a shame.

 

[Czechboy]

That's fine, I'm using this as well. But the WJC is more predicting than you believe it is. It wasn't in the 90s because the integration of systems was very different between junior and Pro (I get this argument), but this changed drastically from 2002+.

I know you feel I misrepresented you. But here you are again using WJHC. Can you please make an argument for your theories about how the us and Canada are a tier above the rest AND why the Germans are taking over the Czechs without citing the U20 tourney?

 

[GettingYourMoms]

WJC medal rates are starting to show that it's Canada-US in tier 1. Would agree Canada still has a small edge, but we really didn't have a best-on-best in a while at this level so I'm playing it safe. Canada is producing at replacement rate, US is producing over replacement rate.

Czechs have been in tier 2 for a long time, however, they are clearly trending towards tier 3 while Germany is improving rapidly.

While the Czech seems to be showing some better talent coming (at least at a replacement rate to stabilize them in tier 3), if one nation reaches tier 2 at some point in the next 10 years it's Germany (way over replacement).

I could have formed a tier for Slovaks, Latvia and Denmark I guess.

What Germany does, Austrians often do, I expect Austrian to start a climb towards that Slovak-Latvia-Denmark tier.

disagree, i doubt germany will be as deep as cz. Czech players are developing later. Kubalik, Hronek, Zohorna all latebloomers and Spacek is looking insanely good now, i believe he has top6 upside. Zboril and hajek are new addition to our weak D core and much superior defense in Hamara, Jiricek(these two has top pair potential), Kral and Svozil is on it's way. I believe there is top 5 but 6 is pretty much cemented by Czechs and recent world jrs will change nothing in the longrun 2001-2004 is the weakest generation in history for us

 

[Goodman68]

For the past 10 years and likely the next 10. Not sure who knowledgeable would believe the Czech are still in tier 2.

It doesn't matter how many levels you create. The Germans are not at the level of the Czechs and will not be in the near future. In the following years, they do not have the talents they had recently, on the contrary, the Czechs have a very good group of defenders against the draft, and defense is now their biggest problem. So I have no idea how you figured out that the Germans would overtake the Czechs.

 

[Namejs]

It's completely ridiculous to use the WJC as a measuring stick.

Countries with an extremely high number of players are always going to be the favorites there. They can always muster up a great team by picking players only born in a limited age cohort.

Smaller countries, be it Finland or the Czech Republic, will have bad years from time to time, but that does not in any way impede the quality of their best-on-best roster at the senior level.

The smaller the age cohort, the more variance there is going to be for smaller countries. But their job is not about winning gold at the WJC, it's not even that important for them. They only need to consistently produce a few elite prospects every year or two.

Their 3rd or 4th lines at the WJC might be significantly worse than Canada's, but that really doesn't matter.

WJC is almost meaningless as an indicator here.

 

[Goodman68]

It's completely ridiculous to use the WJC as a measuring stick.

Countries with an extremely high number of players are always going to be the favorites there. They can always muster up a great team by picking players only born in a limited age cohort.

Smaller countries, be it Finland or the Czech Republic, will have bad years from time to time, but that does not in any way impede the quality of their best-on-best roster at the senior level.

The smaller the age cohort, the more variance there is going to be for smaller countries. But their job is not about winning gold at the WJC, it's not even that important for them. They only need to consistently produce a few elite prospects every year or two.

Their 3rd or 4th lines at the WJC might be significantly worse than Canada's, but that really doesn't matter.

WJC is almost meaningless as an indicator here.

Exactly

 

[Eye of Ra]

It's completely ridiculous to use the WJC as a measuring stick.

Countries with an extremely high number of players are always going to be the favorites there. They can always muster up a great team by picking players only born in a limited age cohort.

Smaller countries, be it Finland or the Czech Republic, will have bad years from time to time, but that does not in any way impede the quality of their best-on-best roster at the senior level.

The smaller the age cohort, the more variance there is going to be for smaller countries. But their job is not about winning gold at the WJC, it's not even that important for them. They only need to consistently produce a few elite prospects every year or two.

Their 3rd or 4th lines at the WJC might be significantly worse than Canada's, but that really doesn't matter.

WJC is almost meaningless as an indicator here.

no offence, but when was the last time czech made semifinals in wjc? 1999? so its not years from years for them, they have been bad at wjc for a long time.

 

[Goodman68]

no offence, but when was the last time czech made semifinals in wjc? 1999? so its not years from years for them, they have been bad at wjc for a long time.

You probably mean the year of birth 1999, right?