Complete statistical team organization rankings

[DownFromNJ]

I took the top 10 forwards, 5 dmen, and 2 goalies from each team and averaged their average together.


1 Atlanta* 7.133
2 Washington* 6.933
3 Pittsburgh 6.883
4 New York Rangers 6.766
5 Vancouver 6.733
6 Columbus 6.683
7 Edmonton* 6.63
8 Boston 6.583
9 Anaheim 6.566
10 Nashville 6.54
11 Phoneix 6.533
12 Montreal 6.516
13 Ottawa 6.516
14 Dallas 6.46
15 Minnesota 6.43
16 Philidelphia 6.4
17 Detroit 6.4
18 Los Angeles* 6.4
19 New Jersey 6.387
20 Carolina 6.38
21 Chicago 6.366
22 Tampa Bay 6.28
23 New York Isles 6.262
24 San Jose 6.228
25 Florida 6.21
26 Toronto 6.125
27 Calgary 6.06
28 Buffalo 5.883
29 Colorado 5.833



Four teams I had to change due to the way they were rated. Edmonton was rated too high, in part due to liberal use of the letter grade system (Shremp is not a 9, but 9D may be fair). Same for Los Angeles, and a little but for Atlanta. For Washington, I changed Quellet from an 8.5 to an 8, because thats what all other comparable goalie prospects got.

St. Louis was entirely left out because their rankings are way out of whack. I suggest completely reranking them. In fact, I suggest completely reranking all those with * by their team.

Click to read more...

 

[Holly Gunning]

You do realize that (by and large) the teams you starred are using the new system, where the numbers are mitigated by the letters, while most of the others have not switched over yet, right? It makes a difference.

 

[David A. Rainer]

Four teams I had to change due to the way they were rated. Edmonton was rated too high, in part due to liberal use of the letter grade system (Shremp is not a 9, but 9D may be fair). Same for Los Angeles, and a little but for Atlanta. For Washington, I changed Quellet from an 8.5 to an 8, because thats what all other comparable goalie prospects got.

Lol!

You may want to re-read the new rating article. That is because the letter grade is supposed to reduce the number grade by a certain %. So those pages that re-rated their prospects raised all the numbers across the board with the understanding that the letter grade would bring it back in line.

For example, a letter grade of B will reduce the number grade by 90% (it says so in the article). So a 7B = 7 x .9 = 6.3. So a 7B is really about a 6 or 6.5. I think if you take into account the letter, you'll find that those that appear out of whack are right back in line.

For example, there is obviously no way that Tuuka Mantyla (Kings) is a 6 under the old system. But under this new system, he is a 6F = 6 x .5 = 3. Yes, he's a 3.

So of course, by taking only the number grade, some of them are going to be WAAAAAAAY out of whack. But then, you can't just take the number grade.

EDIT - what Holly said.

 

[David A. Rainer]

And I went ahead and played your little game and crunched the numbers for the Kings after taking into account the letter grade, and the Kings average fell to a whopping 5.93. For this statistical breakdown to be fair, I would advise waiting until all the pages have caught up to the new system. Teams under the new system are going to be, on average, about .5 ahead of everyone else when not factoring in the letter.

 

[DownFromNJ]

HF Online Editor
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 1,578

You do realize that (by and large) the teams you starred are using the new system, where the numbers are mitigated by the letters, while most of the others have not switched over yet, right? It makes a difference.

Do you realise that the vast majority of teams were not rated with letters?

 

[degroat*]

St. Louis was entirely left out because their rankings are way out of whack. I suggest completely reranking them. In fact, I suggest completely reranking all those with * by their team.

What makes you more qualified than Brian Wiedler who just recently put together those rankings? One might think that he has done considerably more research than you.

 

[DownFromNJ]

Because St. Louis's rankings were not consistant with the rest of the teams.

St. Louis's forward base came out to an average of 7.2, it's defense to 6.7, and it's goaltending to 7.75. That is unprecedented among any other group.


Only teams to use letters:

Montreal
Boston
Toronto
Rags
Calgary
Edmonton
Atlanta
LA
Phoneix


So 2/3 of the teams did not use letters.

By the way, the teams with the * I changed the numbers to better reflect the letter grade.

 

[degroat*]

St. Louis's forward base came out to an average of 7.2, it's defense to 6.7, and it's goaltending to 7.75. That is unprecedented among any other group.

Okay... then let's look at this.

What numbers do you think are off?

I'll give you a few of the numbers I think are a little off...
Sejna 7.5 instead of 8
McClement 6 or 6.5 instead of 7
DiSalvatore 6 instead of 6.5
Cash probably 7 instead of 7.5

Every other ranking there I think is right on the money.. or at least very close.

The reasons for your findings is actually quite simple...
1. The Blues have incredible depth in their farm system.
2. The Blues system is a LOT better than anyone gives it credit for. If this was the farm system of say, Detroit, they'd be ranked in the top 5.

 

[DownFromNJ]

No team had more than one 8+ forward, but St. Louis has three. No team has a goaltending duo with a 7.75 ratings (even Atlanta and Pittsburgh with their 9s). The defensive linesups look ok, but I know little about St. Louis's system so they could be overrated as well.

The others I changed because I had the letter system to work with. St. Louis is rated just plain high.

 

[degroat*]

No team had more than one 8+ forward, but St. Louis has three. No team has a goaltending duo with a 7.75 ratings (even Atlanta and Pittsburgh with their 9s). The defensive linesups look ok, but I know little about St. Louis's system so they could be overrated as well.

The others I changed because I had the letter system to work with. St. Louis is rated just plain high.

In other words you went with every teams rankings but chose to ignore the Blues rankings, not because you actually have any amount of knowledge of the actual players that suggests the rankings are off, but because you refuse to believe it.

Perhaps you forgot what the old system was, but an 8 mean first line potential. I don't understand how the Blues are the only team with more than one prospect with 1st line potential and if they are the scoring in this league is going to drop even further.

As far as the goaltending... let's look at your logic. Because no other team has a good 2nd goaltending prospect then the Blues couldn't possibly have a good 2nd goaltending prospect. That makes a ton of sense.

 

[degroat*]

I made some changes for you... I made each of the changes above that I suggested (putting Cash as a 7) and made each of the forwards that were 8's a 7.5. The Blues STILL ended up with a 7.06.

So.. now they have no forwards that are an 8, no defenseman over 7, and their goaltending average of 7.5 is VERY reasonable given their goaltending prospects.

 

[DownFromNJ]

By reading his bio, Bacashihua cannot be described as a 7+. He's a 7.5D at best.

To compare, Liv was rated a 7, Daigneault a 7, Zepp a 7, Anderson a 6.5, Krahn a 7, etc. Bacashihua is not a 7.5.

 

[Gwyddbwyll]

Thanks for putting the data together.

Obviously it has its limitations as any statistical analysis will do and you'll get criticised for that, but I appreciate the work you did here and Im sure others do too as it provides an interesting take on things.

St.Louis is indeed underrated on HF (probably largely because they dont have many fans on here). They have some nice prospects for sure but Im not sure their editor has the same approach as most. It doesnt mean his ratings are wrong, just that it makes it harder to compare.

 

[degroat*]

By reading his bio, Bacashihua cannot be described as a 7+. He's a 7.5D at best.

To compare, Liv was rated a 7, Daigneault a 7, Zepp a 7, Anderson a 6.5, Krahn a 7, etc. Bacashihua is not a 7.5.

I just said that I made Cash a 7.

 

[DownFromNJ]

By virtue of his bio, he's at best a 6.5

 

[degroat*]

By virtue of his bio, he's at best a 6.5

While I don't agree with that at all...

Fine give him a 6.5... then Barulin is a 7 thus making the average of the top 2 goaltenders still a 7.5.

 

[NYRangers]

Nevermind this post.

 

[NYRangers]

"No team has a goaltending duo with a 7.75 ratings"

You mean averaged? Then Rangers do. Montoya is a 8.5 and Lundqvist is a 7.5.

 

[degroat*]

Hell... if Montoya is an 8.5 then so is Schwarz...

 

[Chaos]

Good effort, but if I were you, I would go back and to this all over again once all the teams have had their prospects re-ranked under the new system, because some teams(like the Stars for example) havent been updated in forever, so your dealing with out of date ratings.

 

[CaptainBure]

nah if montoya is an 8.5 than schwarz is an 8,keep it like that,just make schwarz an 8A,because Montoya is an 8.5 B right now,either way, I think theyll both end up reaching level 8 eventually.

 

[SneakerPimp82]

nah if montoya is an 8.5 than schwarz is an 8,keep it like that,just make schwarz an 8A,because Montoya is an 8.5 B right now,either way, I think theyll both end up reaching level 8 eventually.

And why would Montoya's numerical rating be higher when most believe Schwarz's potential is higher?

 

[Drake1588]

All the rankings are in the process of being updated... and about a third have actually been updated to date, so this is premature until there is a common thread running across the teams, one would think.

 

[DownFromNJ]

Ok, well when all are up to date I'll redo the ranking.

 

[Drake1588]

Ok, well when all are up to date I'll redo the ranking.

It's a worthwhile exercise, and should serve to help keep the various criteria used for the team rankings consistent. Teams wildly out of place ought to set off alarm bells. That has to be a good thing.