zeke's Official Top-20 Center Rankings

[TDK67]

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.

Agree with this. And the same can be said for Scheifele. I'm not sure he's spent much time without two great-to-elite wingers (Wheeler, Connor, Ehlers & Laine) on his flanks over the last two years which isn't the case for a lot of other Cs on this list.

 

[Regal]

The issue I have is that something like competition should be weighted according to the actual differences between the players, and not their spot on a list. Doing it this way is going to overemphasize the difference between 1 and 28, and can lead to situations where, say, there might be a significant difference between spots 6 and 7, but 7-14 is all pretty similar, but whoever is 14th is going to be greatly impacted by that difference, not number 7.

 

[Notsince67]

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.

I would imagine it affects it tremendously. On ice production is hampered by QoC and helped by QoT.
The outlier on the list is Couturier by eye. His QoT is quite high

 

[zeke]

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.

just years of tracking the data way too closely and way too often. I can go through lots of examples with you at some point, but no I don't have the stats chops to crunch the data properly - if you do, I've got some good ideas on how to approach the proof. we can make millions. or at least hundreds.

biggest mistake the analytics community ever made was dismissing qoc from the start based on poorly thought out experiments.

 

[zeke]

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.

you purporting to speak for every gm in the league is a classic bad argument.

 

[zeke]

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)

1. first thing to consider is that I'm already including a teammate factor in these stats by using the relative stats as equal to the raw possession stats - so a large part of this is already accounted for (though yeah that breaks down a bit with player's who have very strict pe4manent on ice partners).

2.i've found TOI works increeibly well for qoc, where you're using every coach in the league's average distribution of ice time as a proxy for opponent quality.....but it doesn't really make any sense for teammates, as it's just one coach's distribution of ice time for his specific set of players on his specific quality of team, so it doesn't tell us enough about the quality of his teammates imo.

I am open to the idea that CFqot might make some sense, but imo it's a blurry one, and likely not a big enough upgrade on CFrel to make much a difference. I could be wrong though.

 

[zeke]

I would imagine it affects it tremendously. On ice production is hampered by QoC and helped by QoT.
The outlier on the list is Couturier by eye. His QoT is quite high

remember, couturier has always looked great at even strength by both production and possession, despite the toughest matchups.....trust me when I say his good ranking here was no surprise to me based on tracking him for a long while.

it's actually a much better argument to say that Giroux can thank Couturier for his massive bounce back year.

 

[zeke]

The issue I have is that something like competition should be weighted according to the actual differences between the players, and not their spot on a list. Doing it this way is going to overemphasize the difference between 1 and 28, and can lead to situations where, say, there might be a significant difference between spots 6 and 7, but 7-14 is all pretty similar, but whoever is 14th is going to be greatly impacted by that difference, not number 7.

for the record, I have a quality of competition measure that does exactly what you want it to do there. and it would be fairly si.ple to do something similar for production too.

the toughest one to do this for is the possession....but as I sit here on the toilet, I think I may have thought of a way to do it.

I shoulda known this post would only cause more work for me. I'll see if i can do this without using ranks but it ain't easy.

 

[Notsince67]

Agree with this. And the same can be said for Scheifele. I'm not sure he's spent much time without two great-to-elite wingers (Wheeler, Connor, Ehlers & Laine) on his flanks over the last two years which isn't the case for a lot of other Cs on this list.

Sorted QoT by descending rank

List Rank	Name	QoT	QoT Desc Rank
1	Bergeron	31.41	20
2	McDavid	30.78	16
3	Crosby	30.63	13
4	Couturier	31.51	21
5	Kopitar	31.88	24
6	Toews	30.17	5
7	Barkov	31.87	23
8	Scheifele	32.14	27
9	Tavares	30.32	6
10	Backstrom	31.3	19
11	MacKinnon	32.1	26
12	Getzlaf	32.04	25
13	Stastny	30.85	17
14	Staal	30.76	15
15	Kadri	30.39	7
16	Stamkos	30.58	12
17	Matthews	31.25	18
18	Point	30.01	4
19	Zetterberg	30.46	8
20	Seguin	31.61	22
21	Barzal	29.69	3
22	Malkin	30.57	11
23	Monahan	32.27	28
24	Duchene	30.5	9
25	Eichel	30.72	14
26	Kuznetsov	30.51	10
27	Krejci	29.51	1
28	Horvat	29.63	2

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

 

[TDK67]

Sorted QoT by descending rank

List Rank	Name	QoT	QoT Desc Rank
1	Bergeron	31.41	20
2	McDavid	30.78	16
3	Crosby	30.63	13
4	Couturier	31.51	21
5	Kopitar	31.88	24
6	Toews	30.17	5
7	Barkov	31.87	23
8	Scheifele	32.14	27
9	Tavares	30.32	6
10	Backstrom	31.3	19
11	MacKinnon	32.1	26
12	Getzlaf	32.04	25
13	Stastny	30.85	17
14	Staal	30.76	15
15	Kadri	30.39	7
16	Stamkos	30.58	12
17	Matthews	31.25	18
18	Point	30.01	4
19	Zetterberg	30.46	8
20	Seguin	31.61	22
21	Barzal	29.69	3
22	Malkin	30.57	11
23	Monahan	32.27	28
24	Duchene	30.5	9
25	Eichel	30.72	14
26	Kuznetsov	30.51	10
27	Krejci	29.51	1
28	Horvat	29.63	2

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

So Monahan has the best linemates and Scheifele is in 2nd place? Am I reading that correctly?

In other words, #1 = worst linemates and #28 = best linemates in the "QoT desc rank" column?

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

What do they use to measure QoT? Because at first glance, I don't know how Monahan plays with better players than Bergeron. Gaudreau, yes, but the other wing isn't close to Pastrnak/Marchand level, both in terms of raw production and possession metrics.

 

[Gary Nylund]

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.

No list is ever perfect but I wouldn't say Kadri is an anomaly. And if the list is mostly accurate than you may want to consider that the things you don't consider to be accurate may be closer to the truth than you think. There's been so many Leaf haters who have been calling him a 3rd line centre for years, repeat anything long enough and people start to believe it I guess but those of us that watch him regularly have been saying for some time now that he's somewhere in the low end #1 / high end #2 range and these numbers back that up.

 

[WetcoastOrca]

you purporting to speak for every gm in the league is a classic bad argument.

Nope. It’s simply stating a fact. You need to work on your formula. It has anomolies.
I’m just giving some constructive criticism.

 

[WetcoastOrca]

No list is ever perfect but I wouldn't say Kadri is an anomaly. And if the list is mostly accurate than you may want to consider that the things you don't consider to be accurate may be closer to the truth than you think. There's been so many Leaf haters who have been calling him a 3rd line centre for years, repeat anything long enough and people start to believe it I guess but those of us that watch him regularly have been saying for some time now that he's somewhere in the low end #1 / high end #2 range and these numbers back that up.

Yep. And a low end number one high end number two isn’t anywhere near the 15th best center in the league. If that’s being a Leaf hater then no wonder some of you feel persecuted on here.

 

[leaffaninvancouver]

Yep. And a low end number one high end number two isn’t anywhere near the 15th best center in the league. If that’s being a Leaf hater then no wonder some of you feel persecuted on here.

You really should read posts in full before you reply, at no point did he suggest your opinion made you a Leaf hater, he said that people who said Kadri was a third line center were.

 

[WetcoastOrca]

You really should read posts in full before you reply, at no point did he suggest your opinion made you a Leaf hater, he said that people who said Kadri was a third line center were.

I read the post. Honestly, can we just retire the term Leaf hater. It’s an intellectually weak argument and over used on this site.

 

[Sentinel]

A top line center on a Cup winning team is laughing hard at this list.

 

[leaffaninvancouver]

I read the post. Honestly, can we just retire the term Leaf hater. It’s an intellectually weak argument and over used on this site.

I hate the term Leaf hater but it's naive to pretend some posters don't like trying to stick it to other fan bases this includes some Leaf "fans" as well. I realize it's really easy to get a response by dogging on the Leafs from Leaf fans but that doesn't mean some people don't seem to go out of there way to make anything into a shot at the Leafs.

 

[WetcoastOrca]

I hate the term Leaf hater but it's naive to pretend some posters don't like trying to stick it to other fan bases this includes some Leaf "fans" as well. I realize it's really easy to get a response by dogging on the Leafs from Leaf fans but that doesn't mean some people don't seem to go out of there way to make anything into a shot at the Leafs.

Posters take shots at all of the teams. Take it as a compliment. When the Canucks were a top team they got lots of attacks. Honestly it’s childish to refer to people who disagree as haters. People need to develop a thicker skin. I mean it’s just hockey, not life or death.

 

[leaffaninvancouver]

A top line center on a Cup winning team is laughing hard at this list.

Why exactly? Winning a cup doesn't make you a better center it just means you won a cup. Chris Osgood won two Stanley cups as a starter and one as a back-up, how often is he listed in the best goalies list?

 

[leaffaninvancouver]

Posters take shots at all of the teams. Take it as a compliment. When the Canucks were a top team they got lots of attacks. Honestly it’s childish to refer to people who disagree as haters. People need to develop a thicker skin. I mean it’s just hockey, not life or death.

Again I don't disagree the term hater and fanboi should result in an instant ban in my opinion. Still doesn't change the fact that there are some posters who go out their way to rile up the Leafs and they did it regardless if they were bad or good. I mean it's easy to troll Leaf fans, we are beyond a shadow of a doubt the easiest fan base to get a reaction from.

 

[Gary Nylund]

Posters take shots at all of the teams. Take it as a compliment. When the Canucks were a top team they got lots of attacks. Honestly it’s childish to refer to people who disagree as haters. People need to develop a thicker skin. I mean it’s just hockey, not life or death.

To take a page out of your book, take it as a compliment. Or develop a thicker skin.

I agree that I wouldn't put Kadri in the top 15. He's way closer to that than a 3rd line centre though and he really is a lot better than most people here realize. Most arguments against Kadri being that good consist of zero facts, just people saying he's not that good with nothing to back it up.

 

[Sentinel]

Why exactly? Winning a cup doesn't make you a better center it just means you won a cup. Chris Osgood won two Stanley cups as a starter and one as a back-up, how often is he listed in the best goalies list?

1. Chris Osgood won two Stanley Cups as a starter, in 98 and in 08, and almost won the third one in 09. You bet your ass he was one of the Top 10 goalies in the league those years. He had a legitimate claim for a Conn Smythe in 08 and would unquestionably win in 09, had the Wings repeated.

2. Winning a Cup absolutely makes you a better center, or, at least, a more highly ranked center (Toews' entire claim to immortality lies with the fact that he was the 1C on three Cup winners). But Kuznetsov didn't just win the Cup. He lead his team in points while winning the Cup and had a legitimate claim for the Conn Smythe. He is in the Top 5, worst case scenario.

To sum up: this list is ridiculous and best left where no one can see it.

 

[LeafGrief]

Always enjoy seeing what you come up with. I'm a fan of TOIQoC as well, but I think it's getting a little too much weight in this list. Matchups are a good indicator of ability and they do impact production, but it's still a coach driven statistic. Malkin won a hart trophy in 2011-2012 playing tough competition, he really shouldn't have any question marks. I like where this list is going, but I think it's a little too punishing for players on good teams and a little too generous for guys who are their coach's only option. Because TOIQoC's getting factored in for both offense and possession, it's double counted and therefore far and away the most important stat. I'd recommend separating it from each list and then adding it in at the end, so as to not have it count twice.

 

[WetcoastOrca]

To take a page out of your book, take it as a compliment. Or develop a thicker skin.

I agree that I wouldn't put Kadri in the top 15. He's way closer to that than a 3rd line centre though and he really is a lot better than most people here realize. Most arguments against Kadri being that good consist of zero facts, just people saying he's not that good with nothing to back it up.

We’re in agreement on Kadri. I didn’t expect it to be controversial to say he shouldn’t be in the top 15 TBH. High end number three or low end number two is where I’d slot him.