zeke's Official Top-20 Center Rankings

[leaffaninvancouver]

As always Zeke at least backs up his opinion. He built a list based on what he considers the top factors for his list. Toronto does benefit a little because Tavares, Matthews and Kadri all have had tough qoc over the last two years and at least one one of them this season won't but it's still a well thought out list.

 

[Marshy]

Matthews not top 5. Stats check out.

-HFBoards

 

[shtorm2005]

Stats are great! You can pick and choose those which best fit your narrative....and downplay the relevance of the rest.

"The distinction is clear. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts."- Sherlock Holmes

 

[Ratsreign]

What is the narrative? The only one I can possibly see is that two-way forwards are maybe being ranked a little highly? I'm genuinely confused what your point is.

Sorry to confuse you, maybe I should've added a sarcastic emoji.
It's a general observation as to how many people will favor the stats that make their favorite player or team look better (that fit their narrative, whatever that narrative may be).

 

[leaffaninvancouver]

Sorry to confuse you, maybe I should've added a sarcastic emoji.
It's a general observation as to how many people will favor the stats that make their favorite player or team look better (that fit their narrative, whatever that narrative may be).

That's assuming they are manipulating data to get a predetermined result. Zeke for the most part has always valued QoC, The stats he listed are stats he generally uses. It's not like he cherry picked what looked good for the Leafs. You can argue that stats aren't the best stats to determine whose the best center but their wasn't Leaf bias in choosing them.

Kadri and Tavares will likely drop in QoC this year which will drop them further down the list but this based on the past two seasons not the one coming up.

 

[Edgelord]

for the record, this appeal to authority isn't a great argument, imo.

like the list and process. did you factor in faceoff winning %'s?

 

[zeke]

Kadri and Tavares will likely drop in QoC this year which will drop them further down the list but this based on the past two seasons not the one coming up.

all else being equal, their drop in QOC should result in improved stats, imo, so it shouldn't drop them down the list at all.

we shall see how it turns out.

 

[zeke]

like the list and process. did you factor in faceoff winning %'s?

nope.

too small a factor I think.

 

[Ratsreign]

That's assuming they are manipulating data to get a predetermined result. Zeke for the most part has always valued QoC, The stats he listed are stats he generally uses. It's not like he cherry picked what looked good for the Leafs. You can argue that stats aren't the best stats to determine whose the best center but their wasn't Leaf bias in choosing them.

Kadri and Tavares will likely drop in QoC this year which will drop them further down the list but this based on the past two seasons not the one coming up.

That's assuming they are manipulating data to get a predetermined result. Zeke for the most part has always valued QoC, The stats he listed are stats he generally uses. It's not like he cherry picked what looked good for the Leafs. You can argue that stats aren't the best stats to determine whose the best center but their wasn't Leaf bias in choosing them.

Kadri and Tavares will likely drop in QoC this year which will drop them further down the list but this based on the past two seasons not the one coming up.

As I stated in the post you are replying to, it was a general statement. It wasn't aimed towards Zeke, he stated the stats he used and was (imo) objective in making his list. It was more towards fans/commenters, here and on other threads and other sites, who do exactly as you said, "manipulate data to get predetermined result.." by ignoring some stats while putting all of their stock in others.
It's kinda funny that you automatically assume I'm calling out "Leaf bias", it was directed at fans of any and all teams, as it's a widespread practice.

 

[Edgelord]

nope.

too small a factor I think.

As a fellow Leaf fan you must remember the countless times we were hemmed in our zone due to a lost draw. what if you throw out neutral zone draws and just use def and oz %'s and do the ranking thing you do

 

[Holymakinaw]

Good list. I have no problem with the rankings.

REALLY nice to see the Leafs with 3 of the top 20 Centres in the league.

 

[Drytoast]

or maybe I can do better than just eyeball it.

If I add their combined PP RANK to their previous overall "score", the list comes out like this:

1.McDavid 33
2.Crosby 49
3.Scheifele 70
4.Mackinnon 71
5.Bergeron 79
6.Barkov 87
7.Tavares 91
7.Backstrom 91
9.Kopitar 92
10.Stamkos 93
11.Matthews 95
11.Couturier 95
13.Getzlaf 98
14.Toews 103
15.Malkin 109
16.Kadri 113
17.Seguin 117
18.Staal 124
19.Barzal 127
20.Monahan 140

something like that. this probably actually weighs PP production too heavily. but whatever.

but even PP success doesn't let a guy like Malkin overcome his weak competition and possession numbers in this comparison`, surprisingly.

His motivation was to get Bergeron ahead of Matthews...duh.

 

[Finnish your Czech]

Zeke do you have any proof that QOC has a significant affect on players statistics. Not saying it's not very valuable but just curious.

 

[Murky]

Nice list with an open methodology. A good and fresh point of few.

Well done.

 

[WetcoastOrca]

for the record, this appeal to authority isn't a great argument, imo.

Pointing out anomalies in your list is not an appeal to authority. As a true statistician you should welcome opinions that point out where your formula doesn’t yield defendable results. If every GM in the NHL would disagree then you can either dig in your heels or maybe question the formula.
In other words, you can come up with an objective formula but it doesn’t mean that the formula works in all cases. It’s not really just about Kadri although I think he’s probably the most egregious example. I would argue that Malkin is just as much an anomaly.

 

[PenguinSpeed]

Nice try. Pointing out anomalies in your list is not an appeal to authority. As a true statistician you should welcome opinions that point out where your formula doesn’t yield defendable results. If every GM in the NHL would disagree then you can either dig in your heels or maybe question the formula.

-Arizona hired one of these types. John Chayka, 29 years old, youngest GM in NHL history who ran a company called stathletes, an NHL player analysis website prior to becoming GM. Arizona is still arguably the worst team in the league in the worst division in the league and has gotten worse with his "stat" metrics.

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

I think there's a lot "wrong" with the list, but I applaud the effort.

 

[Mickey Marner]

The last time we saw that happen was 7 seasons ago, though. Malkin's 32 now, not 25.

32 year old Malkin isn't as good as 25 year old Malkin. Is a correct statement supported by evidence.

Malkin's stats are inflated with Sidney Crosby in the lineup, beyond what he could otherwise achieve without him. Is not.

Regardless of what degree you personally believe Malkin's QoC has on his stats. The adjustment you use obviously over-compensated the effect. Based on a ~100 GP sample size of Malkin producing at an elite rate relative to himself without Crosby.

The QoC argument (against Malkin) really only holds weight in the playoffs, where, for example, Crosby ended up playing double to triple the amount of time against Datsyuk/Zetterberg/Lidstrom as Malkin did.

Any amount Malkin benefits from QoC is usually hurt by him dragging around mediocre wingers, for the most part, anyway.

 

[WetcoastOrca]

I think there's a lot "wrong" with the list, but I applaud the effort.

Agreed. I think it really shows just how relying on a few stats can yield results that, while objective, really aren’t any better than a number of lists prepared by any poster. I’m not a stats person but I suspect that any NHL stats person would tell you it’s a very complicated process that uses a wide variety of stats and is only used as one piece of information in assessing players.
It’s a fascinating discussion though.

 

[Kelly]

We don’t often agree but credit where credit is due. I think it’s a good list and backed up with objective stats. The only one I strongly disagree with is Kadri. Way too high imo. This is why I think using certain stats leads to anomalies. I doubt that there’s a single GM in the league who would take Kadri over a number of the players behind him. I also think Couts and Toews are quite a bit too high. Overall I think you’re over estimating how QOC impacts rankings.

Really? Malkin is 15th and the only thing you disagree with is Kadri?! Lol ok.

 

[WetcoastOrca]

Really? Malkin is 15th and the only thing you disagree with is Kadri?! Lol ok.

I said Malkin and Kadri were the most obvious anomolies.
There are others such as Toews and Monahan as well and Couts.
Perhaps if you read the thread before attacking you’d have noticed that.

 

[Kelly]

I said Malkin and Kadri were the most obvious anomolies.
There are others such as Toews and Monahan as well and Couts.
Perhaps if you read the thread before attacking you’d have noticed that.

Just found it funny that was the first thing you pounced on. Kadris much closer to a top 20 center than Malkin is to 15th.

Anyway, good job Zeke I commend the effort, a straight up no bias list at all. But I think this shows why we also need to use the eye test, some glaring ommisions, and some guys where they shouldn't be.

 

[Notsince67]

And by official, I mean mine, of course.

So after all the fighting on the other threads, i tried to crank out a stats-based Center ranking, but nothing too fancy. At the same time it's both complicated and simple.


NOTE: IF YOU HATE STATS JUST SKIP TO THE BOTTOM FOR THE FINAL RANKINGS

Here's how I approached it.

I looked at the last 2 seasons. This imo is the best combo of "recent" and "good sample size" to judge a player's current value. But it's not perfect, of course, especially when it comes to very young or old players. But it's a good place to start. Second, I put an absolute cutoff at a minimum of 14 ES minutes played per game.

So firstly, I used "Offense" as my most basic criteria for the list of "top centers". i.e. to be a top center, you have to score like one, and if you can't score, you're not a top center no matter how good you are defensively. To judge offense, I used the even strength p/60 and p1/60 stats - basically I ranked the top-30 centers in p/60, and the top-30 centers in p1/60, and then combined the ranks. I know some people might complain about ignoring PP production, but imo PP production is way too noisy and small sample and any offensive ability the players have should show up at even strength anyways. But that wasn't enough - I wanted to adjust this offense for quality of competition as well - so that guys with easier matchups didn't get extra credit. I used opponents' ice time (TOIqoc) to judge quality of competition, and combined it with the scoring ranks. Note that this used their league-wide TOIqoc ranks, of all centers who played minimum 14es mpg. Here's the list of Top Offensive Centers I came up with:

Top Offensive Centers Last 2yrs

1.McDavid 7
2.MacKinnon 22
3.Scheifele 25
4.Crosby 27
5.Matthews 31
6.Barkov 33
7.Malkin 34
8.Stamkos 37
9.Tavares 40
10.Getzlaf 41
11.Backstrom 46
11.Couturier 46
13.Kopitar 48
13.Barzal 48
15.Toews 49
15.Monahan 49
17.Kuznetsov 52
18.Seguin 54
19.Kadri 56
20.Staal 58
21.Bergeron 60
22.Eichel 60
23.Point 68
24.Duchene 72
25.Stastny 72
26.Zetterberg 73
27.Krejci 89
28.Horvat 92

Some surprises on this list when QOC is factored in - namely, that a guy like Toews is still quite good offensively, while guys like Malkin and Kuz really get hammered for going up against much easier competition than most of the others.


Secondly, I wanted to factor in Possession. This was a bit more complicated, but basically I averaged out zone/score adjusted CF% and xGF% and ranked them, and then averaged out zone/score adjusted CFrel and xGFrel and ranked them......and then combined their ranks. Now key here is that I kind of cheated - because I was using OFFENSE as the main determinant of "top center", I didn't look at league-wide possession, but I only looked at the 28 centers who made the Offense list and ranked their possession against each other. I think the basic principal makes sense, though of course my execution of it is pretty hacktastic. And then, again, I needed to adjust for Quality of Competition, so once again I combined the averaged possession ranks with the TOIqoc ranks, and ranked these 28 centers' possession against each other:

Last 2yrs best offensive centers in order of Possession:

1.Bergeron 10
2.McDavid 12
3.Crosby 18
4.Couturier 21
5.Kopitar 28
6.Toews 29
7.Barkov 30
8.Scheifele 32
9.Tavares 39
10.Backstrom 39
11.MacKinnon 41
12.Getzlaf 44
13.Stastny 49
14.Staal 51
15.Kadri 54
16.Stamkos 55
17.Matthews 57
18.Point 59
19.Zetterberg 60
20.Seguin 61
21.Barzal 61
22.Malkin 70
23.Monahan 71
24.Duchene 72
25.Eichel 74
26.Kuznetsov 82
27.Krejci 83
28.Horvat 87

this seems to pass the smell test to me. all the guys with the great defensive reputations are right at the top, while the guys at the bottom are the guys you expect.

So now with these two lists, I just combined the qoc-adjusted offense and the qoc-adjusted possession, and it spat out this list:

ZEKE'S PERFECT TOP-20 CENTER RANKINGS

1.McDavid 19
2.Crosby 45
3.Scheifele 57
4.Barkov 63
5.MacKinnon 63
6.Couturier 67
7.Bergeron 70
8.Kopitar 76
9.Toews 78
10.Tavares 79
11.Getzlaf 85
12.Backstrom 85
13.Matthews 88
14.Stamkos 92
15.Malkin 104
16.Staal 109
17.Barzal 109
18.Kadri 110
19.Seguin 115
20.Monahan 120
​

Some guys stick out in surprising ways here - Couturier comes out looking really, really good, while a guy like Malkin drops way down. Guys like Kuznetsov and Eichel don't even make the list at all. Thing is, I don't have any problem with any of those results. In the end, I love how the list rewards guys like Barkov and Bergeron while also acknowledging the question marks on guys like Malkin and Barzal.

Note, though, that this isn't a prediction of which centers are necessarily the best RIGHT NOW, heading into THIS SEASON. To do that I would want to add in some kind of Age adjustment, which would favor which would bump up kids like Eichel, Barzal, Matthews while knocking down guys like Backstrom and Staal a bit.



So what do you think? does my list beat the NHL's? or the famous Hockey Guy's?

or is it poop?

Interesting approach.
Would be interesting if you weighted not singularly by QoC but the net of QoC and QoT (which is equally as important to a center)

 

[Broad Street Buddies]

The last time that Couturier was that high, he scored a hat trick on a torn MLC in game 6 vs Pittsburgh.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Interesting approach.
Would be interesting if you weighted not singularly by QoC but the net of QoC and QoT (which is equally as important to a center)

The bolded is what I'm curious about.

For example, I'd think that Bergeron playing with Marchand and Pastrnak versus Malkin playing with Hagelin and Rust would factor in greatly to his overall numbers, despite Bergeron's line likely having a higher QoC.

At what point does playing with superior linemates offset having to face tougher opponents? I'm genuinely curious.