Best leagues in Europe

[slovakiasnextone]

Sooo what??? This is not a league ranking. This is a ranking about the league's champions. Nothing else. A ranking of the leagues should look at all teams in the leagues. HV 71 isn't even the champions in Sweden it's Färjestad. If Finland SM-liiga is so good then Finland should also dominate in WCH. Finland don't.

Yeah, because Sweden is just so awesome winning a gold medal every WHC....
The only two teams that you can say dominate the WHC are Canada and Russia right now.
It´s totally wrong to rank leagues based on national teams as almost every team has players from various leagues included. And I can tell you that for the Slovak NT amongst the two worst D-men in the last two WHC were two guys playing in Sweden, Majesky and Granak, mind you and I´m not gonna say that SEL sucks based just on that.

Btw,looking at the rosters from last WHC, this is a list of how many players from which league the teams whose leagues belong to the top 7 included:

Russia:
6 NHL
18 KHL

Sweden:
8 NHL
5 KHL
12 SEL

Imo the number of SEL players on team Sweden was lower than the number of players from the other leagues counted together.

Finland:
6 NHL
2 KHL
4 SEL
6 Sm-liiga
3 NLA

Switzerland:
3 NHL
21 NLA

Czech republic:
8 NHL
9 KHL
1 SEL
4 CZE Extraliga

Germany:
2 NHL
1 KHL
22 DEL

Slovakia:
5 NHL
7 KHL
4 SEL
1 NLA
6 CZE Extraliga
2 SVK Extraliga

Except for Russia, as the country of the top Euro league- KHL, the only two countries that included players mostly from the league of that country are Switzerland and Germany.

And btw have an another look at that link, it clearly says 2008.

 

[Peter25]

Best hockey clubs in Europe in 2008-2009 according to hockeyarchives.com:

1. Ak Bars Kazan
2. Salavat Julajev Ufa
3. Lokomotiv Jaroslavl
4. Atlant Mytitsh
5. Färjestad
6. Metallurg Magnitogorsk
7. Dynamo Moskova
8. ZSKA Moskova
9. JypHT
10. Davos

 

[worstfaceoffmanever]

Best hockey clubs in Europe in 2008-2009 according to hockeyarchives.com:

1. Ak Bars Kazan
2. Salavat Julajev Ufa
3. Lokomotiv Jaroslavl
4. Atlant Mytitsh
5. Färjestad
6. Metallurg Magnitogorsk
7. Dynamo Moskova
8. ZSKA Moskova
9. JypHT
10. Davos

I used those rankings to conduct a brief statistical survey of six of the top seven leagues (the excluded league being the Slovak Extraliga). The leagues used for this survey are:

Kontinental Hockey League
Elitserien
SM-Liiga
Deutsche Eishockey Liga
National Liga A
O2 Extraliga

First, I compiled point totals for all teams from the same leagues. Based on a rounded score, here are the rankings of these six leagues:

1. KHL - 960 points
2. SM-Liiga - 483 points
3. O2 Extraliga - 480 points
4. DEL - 476 points
5. Elitserien - 447 points
6. NLA - 415 points

It's easy to see that this sort of table would favor larger leagues - the KHL has twice as many teams as the Elitserien and the NLA. (Although the second largest league, the DEL, ranks 4th). So, I took the average size of the other five leagues and rounded up (to 14). I then took a percentage of points equal to the percentage of teams still "active" in the KHL (approx. 58%) and re-did the rankings to make things look a bit more favorable: even still, though, the KHL had 565 points, running away with the top spot.

Then, to make a study that favored the smaller leagues, I decided to perform the same procedure to bring the four bigger leagues down to the size of the Elitserien and NLA - 12 teams. With those numbers, the leagues rank as follows:

1. KHL - 460
2. Elitserien - 447
3. NLA - 415
4. SM-Liiga - 414
5. O2 Extraliga - 411
6. DEL - 357

I think this gives the most accurate representation of the six leagues in order, since they're placed on a level playing field.

For the second phase of the study, I took the mean point total of each of the six leagues (compiled from the original top 250 club rankings alluded to in the quoted post). This is more to determine the quality of the average club in each league, as opposed to each league relative to its peers. The scores run like this:

1. KHL - 38
2. Elitserien - 37
3. NLA - 35
4. SM-Liiga - 34
5. O2 Extraliga - 34
6. DEL - 30

For the final phase of the study, I took the range of scores from the clubs of each of the six leagues. I used the range number to determine top-to-bottom competitiveness. The lower the range number, the more internally competitive the league is. The results may be a bit surprising:

1. Extraliga - 18
2. SM-Liiga - 24
3. Elitserien - 25
4. NLA - 30
5. DEL - 32
6. KHL - 41

So, while the KHL is arguably the best league in Europe, it lacks the overall parity of many of its contemporaries.

I'll probably run numbers on most of the rest of the big leagues later tonight.

 

[SemireliableSource]

Very well done!

And what's with "Not Kentucky"

 

[Kamzik]

I don't see the need for this stastical nonsense. You can make numbers say anything. The best thing is to cut through the BS and list teams according to their player budget. Of course some teams don't spend money wisely, but in general there is a positive relationship between money and quality of teams and leagues.

 

[worstfaceoffmanever]

Very well done!

And what's with "Not Kentucky"

I went to school in Bowling Green for a year. Needless to say, I don't plan on going back.

 

[worstfaceoffmanever]

I don't see the need for this stastical nonsense. You can make numbers say anything. The best thing is to cut through the BS and list teams according to their player budget. Of course some teams don't spend money wisely, but in general there is a positive relationship between money and quality of teams and leagues.

And if European clubs didn't play cloak and dagger with their financials, this would be a big factor. As it stands, though, there really isn't much to go on.

My study is now complete in its entirety. I have found that, much like in international hockey, there are a "Big Seven," and that one or two of this group of elites is starting to backslide into a position not as low as those below it, but not good enough to compete with their superiors.

Here is the first tier ranking:

1. KHL - 460
2. Elitserien - 447
3. NLA - 415
4. SM-Liiga - 414
5. O2 Extraliga - 411
6. DEL - 357
7. Slovak Extraliga - 298

As you can see, the Slovak Extraliga is far behind the other six. Now, for numerical mean teams:

1. KHL - 38
2. Elitserien - 37
3. NLA - 35
4. SM-Liiga - 34
5. O2 Extraliga - 34
6. DEL - 30
7. Slovak Extraliga - 25

And with that, the first tier is complete. Now, for the second tier. You should be warned beforehand, many of these numbers are drastically lower and it may be a bit staggering how big the gap is between the first and second tiers. Also, many of the teams in the second tier were not ranked in the 250; therefore, to prevent dramatic skewing of the numbers when determining league mean, each of these teams will be credited with a score of 5 points (the 250th team got 6.38 points, so I feel this number is fair). Also, again due to the enormous size of the Vysshaya Liga, and partly due to my unwillingness to go insane, I've simply performed the same procedure as I did on the KHL and numerous other leagues, paring back the data I had from the 22 ranked teams, and effectively turning the Vysshaya Liga into a 14 team league. Conversely, the EIHL, Get Ligaen, AL-Bank Ligaen, and Serie A have fewer than 12 teams, so their numbers have been "boosted" in a similar fashion, up to what amounts to a 12 team league.

First, allow me to familiarize you with the second-tier leagues.

1. národní hokejová liga (Czech Repbulc)
2. Bundesliga (Germany)
AL-Bank Ligaen (Denmark)
Allsvenskan (Sweden)
Belarusian Extraliga (Belarus, Latvia, Ukraine)
Elite Ice Hockey League (United Kingdom)
Erste Bank Ligan (Austria)
Get Ligaen (Norway)
Ligue Magnus (France)
Mestis (Finland)
National Liga B (Switzerland)
Serie A (Italy)
Vysshaya Liga (Russia)

Here is the second tier ranking by point totals:

1. Allsvenskan - 201
2. Vysshaya Liga - 146
3. Belarusian Extraliga - 144
4. 1. národní hokejová liga - 124
5. 2. Bundesliga - 121
6. Erste Bank Ligan - 118
7. Ligue Magnus - 110
8. Get Ligaen - 115
9. AL-Bank Ligaen - 113
10. Serie A - 100
11. NLB - 100
12. Mestis - 100
13. EIHL - 100


And now for club mean scores:

1. Allsvenskan - 14
2. Erste Bank Ligan - 12
3. Vysshaya Liga - 10
4. Belarusian Extraliga - 10
5. Get Ligaen - 10
6. Serie A - 10
7. AL-Bank Ligaen - 9
8. NLB - 9
9. 2. Bundesliga - 9
10. EIHL - 8
11. Ligue Magnus - 8
12. 1. národní hokejová liga - 8
13. Mestis - 8


And there you go. That's how the top leagues of Europe break down. Enjoy.

 

[slovakiasnextone]

Great work. Just a few litle notes I believe the leaue that teams from Belarus, Latvia and Ukraine play is atually called "Belarus Open League", it´s not Extraliga anymore. Also in the EBEL league there aren´t only teams from Austria, but Slovenia, Hungary and I believe Croatia starting next season as well.

Some surprise there, I wouldn´t expect Mestis so low between the 2nd tier leagues. But all in all if I get it right you based this mainly on the top 250 European teams rankings, which differ evey season and it is possible for a team to jump as much as 100 (or even more) places up or down, so the results of your study might be different every year. Also, while I understand that you tried to show the overall quality of the leagues, in most of these leagues the difference between the top and bottom teams is huge and if there was a situation when for example a top EBEL team beats a middle of the pack DEL team, I wouldn´t call that an upset.

But it´s hard to create a believable study of European leagues based just on numbers, it would all require a deep study and watching a big number of games from all the leagues, because 3 games for example won´t give you much idea even about a league like the NHL. One might say that the proper way to tell the level of the leagues is international competition like the CHL for example, but based on the medicority of Swedish teams in such competition, I certainly doubt it.

 

[Ciccarelli]

And there you go. That's how the top leagues of Europe break down. Enjoy.

And you base all this on some ranking a french...hockey website made. TBH this little survey of yours isn't worth wiping my ass with.

 

[Ciccarelli]

One might say that the proper way to tell the level of the leagues is international competition like the CHL for example, but based on the medicority of Swedish teams in such competition, I certainly doubt it.

That isn't just the best way, that's the only way to rank leagues.

 

[slovakiasnextone]

And you base all this on some ranking a french...hockey website made. TBH this little survey of yours isn't worth wiping my ass with.

That´s alittle bit harsh. But you´re prety much right, especially since that website has a coeficient for every league based on which they give points t the teams, so they actually have already ranked the leagues themselves prior to ranking the teams based on who-knows-what.

That isn't just the best way, that's the only way to rank leagues.

Maybe, but the CHL won´t show you the overall level of the leagues, rather than top teams and why it is possible that a top team from NLA beats a top team from KHL, you can´t say that NLA is overall a better league than the KHL.

 

[worstfaceoffmanever]

And you base all this on some ranking a french...hockey website made. TBH this little survey of yours isn't worth wiping my ass with.

Well, thanks for being a complete and total ****bag about it.

The fact that it's in a language spoken on four continents has nothing to do with the validity of the rankings. Secondly, you can't use the the Champions' League to make a judgment on a league as a whole. An upset can happen in any given game. It's like saying the KHL is better than the NHL because Kazan beat the Red Wings in an exhibition game where Detroit's starting five sat out.

 

[Ciccarelli]

Well, thanks for being a complete and total ****bag about it.

That's me.

That "study" just isn't worth anything. I could put a top-250 euro team ranking on my website, insert all the Sm-liiga teams in 1-14 and then make a survey based on it, would you buy it?

+ that ranking you based your study in is pretty much BS. I can say this just by looking how they ranked the finnish teams.

 

[worstfaceoffmanever]

That's a little bit harsh. But you´re pretty much right, especially since that website has a coefficient for every league based on which they give points to the teams, so they actually have already ranked the leagues themselves prior to ranking the teams based on who-knows-what.

Well, that actually makes a degree of sense if they're attempting to compensate for level of competition. Otherwise, Nottingham Panthers could run the table in the EIHL and win the play-off crown and end up with the most points despite facing arguably the weakest competition. (I'm not saying it's likely to happen, although I'd be thrilled personally, but it's scenarios in that vein that a coefficient would prevent.)

As for the wild fluctuations in the rankings, that happens a lot, but you have to keep in mind that, especially relative to North American clubs, European clubs have a much higher potential for roster turnover, and generally do have high turnover, mainly because contracts are shorter. It may also reflect a change in ownership or simply a change in the current ownership's philosophy, a team going through hard times, etc., and those sorts of things, especially on broader scales (which happens often in lower-level sports), can affect the quality of a league. If the three best teams pare down payroll in a given year, that really hurts the overall quality and outward competitiveness of a league (although it helps top-to-bottom competitiveness). Does that make any sense?

 

[stv11]

As for the wild fluctuations in the rankings, that happens a lot, but you have to keep in mind that, especially relative to North American clubs, European clubs have a much higher potential for roster turnover, and generally do have high turnover, mainly because contracts are shorter. It may also reflect a change in ownership or simply a change in the current ownership's philosophy, a team going through hard times, etc., and those sorts of things, especially on broader scales (which happens often in lower-level sports), can affect the quality of a league. If the three best teams pare down payroll in a given year, that really hurts the overall quality and outward competitiveness of a league (although it helps top-to-bottom competitiveness). Does that make any sense?

Contracts may be shorter, but I think the biggest factor for the higher turnover is that restricted free agency does not exist in European leagues, players are not locked with a team until they're 27 like in the NHL. Also, the risk of losing its best players to a superior league does not exist in the NHL.

 

[slovakiasnextone]

worstfaceoffmanever, I looked over the numbers again and ranking the leagues the way you did, just counting together the team´s ranking does not make much sense, for example because of this:

The Slovak Extraliga will go down from 12 (+1-U20 team) teams to 10 in 2010/2011. If we assume that it will be the last two Extraliga teams in that ranking that will be relegated to 1.liga next year, the Extraliga ranking would go down fom 298 to 273 and can you really say that a league that will get rid of the two worst team is gonna get worse? If it will have any effect, then it should rather improve than decline, don´t you think?

Of course it is different with the average teams ranking, which would in this case go up from 25 to 27. But in this case we don´t really know the standards by which the teams were ranked by the website and to add to that the fact that most teams from the league have changed as much as half their roster and as well have gotten younger due to the financial crisis and such, makes this all unpredictable and in those ranking for example you have the team that finished 1. in the Slovak 1.liga in 2007/2008 and 8. after being promoted to the Extraliga jump up 131 places and noone can predict how the teams will play next season and how many teams ranking´s will rise and how many drop.

 

[Den]

That's me.

Me too.

Who cares how the mighty authority of hockeyarchives.com ranks whatever...