NHL Power Rankings Based On Positional Rankings

[Larry Fisher]

After ranking all 31 NHL teams by positional strength — in terms of forwards, defencemen and goaltenders — I used those results to form power rankings. Your thoughts? http://thehockeywriters.com/nhl-power-rankings-based-on-positional-rankings/

Click to read more...

 

[DANOZ28]

i think my wild at #11 is fair. interesting formula, thx 4 the article. hopefully parise & coyle will step up and we'll have 6 - 20G scorers. our D & goaltending will keep GAA near 200. ennis will bounce back. we should have a very good year. if we hit the playoffs healthy & with a hot goaltender lookout.

 

[Benttheknee]

Well done! I enjoyed the article quite a bit.

 

[DearDiary]

lol at the leafs homer in the comments

 

[Maplebeasts]

lol at the leafs homer in the comments

I think he went overboard saying we have the best group of forwards in the League, but I think we definitely are better than 7th. I have a hard time seeing us as the 19th best team heading in to the season, as Andersen is a quality goaltender, our high end talent and depth in forwards is crazy good, and our depth at defence is improved. Our only big weakness is that we lack a true #1 D, but signing Hainsey, Rosen, and Borgman, along with the continued development of Dermott and Nielsen likely mean our top 2 pairings will be at least passable, and our third pairing will be much improved. I'd say we should be somewhere between 10-13.

 

[mikeyp24]

The jackets seem way low on forwards and defense should be at least top 5. They are 4th in power ranking but 14th and 7th in D so it seems weird they can also be 4th.

 

[Lapa]

I disagree with you about the Wild's offense, but #11 sounds more or less fair, and the rankings look pretty decent.

 

[Larry Fisher]

Remember these power rankings are basic math — add up the three positional rankings, divide by three and round off that number. Tiebreakers took into account special teams, coaching, in-season management, cap space to be buyers, etc., but these aren't my personal power rankings. They are solely based on my positional rankings and if teams weren't tied, I didn't adjust the ranking at all and I didn't bump any teams up from where that formula placed them.

My personal power rankings would look quite different, as indicated in my offseason standings predictions, and yes Toronto would be ranked higher than 19th. Probably closer to 9th. I may include my actual power rankings with my preseason standings predictions to be published on Oct. 4, the first day of the regular season. Stay tuned!

 

[Maplebeasts]

Remember these power rankings are basic math — add up the three positional rankings, divide by three and round off that number. Tiebreakers took into account special teams, coaching, in-season management, cap space to be buyers, etc., but these aren't my personal power rankings. They are solely based on my positional rankings and if teams weren't tied, I didn't adjust the ranking at all and I didn't bump any teams up from where that formula placed them.

My personal power rankings would look quite different, as indicated in my offseason standings predictions, and yes Toronto would be ranked higher than 19th. Probably closer to 9th. I may include my actual power rankings with my preseason standings predictions to be published on Oct. 4, the first day of the regular season. Stay tuned!

I have no problems with your opinion or analysis of the teams asked on what you've seen, but I feel that your model for assigning these power rankings had a few flaws. A lot of facets of the game are very interlinked together from my experience as a viewer and hockey fan. What I mean by this is that ranking teams strictly by Forwards, Defense, and Goaltending based on your own personal opinion and certain stats works on paper, but a lot of forming conclusions that work consistently well relies on looking at context thoroughly in addition. For example, goaltenders often have better numbers and look better than they are when playing for teams with a strong defensive structure and roster. Offense generated by forwards can be severely hampered with a defence core that is poor at moving the puck and transitioning, and I think it is also hard to argue that any defence looks good when their goalie is having a rough night. As a Leaf fan I feel that for example Buffalo would have placed even higher on your forwards category if they weren't being coached by Disco Dan and his system that didn't play to Buffalo's key strength: High end talent of it's top 6. I feel like I'm the goaltending category, Nashville placing as high as they did was a result of their elite top four, not because Pekka Rinne is a high end goalie. He hasn't put together a strong regular season in quite some time. Again I think your personal rankings made more sense, and that some of the rankings here may defy what you thought yourself as the performance of players in one of your 3 segments can be heavily influenced by strength or deficiencies in other areas of the team's roster. The only problem with this being that it is next to impossible to measure just how much these "links" effect the numbers.

 

[DJJones]

Not sure if I agree with all three rankings being given equal ratings. Especially the goaltenders. After the top 4, those rankings could vary wildly and they'd still be legit. A 10 or 15 rank drop in goaltending means much less than the other two rankings.

 

[Maplebeasts]

Not sure if I agree with all three rankings being given equal ratings. Especially the goaltenders. After the top 4, those rankings could vary wildly and they'd still be legit. A 10 or 15 rank drop in goaltending means much less than the other two rankings.

A valid point imo that I didn't mention. You can win without a high end goalie (e.g, 2009 Pens, 2010 Hawks.) but you need to be strong in the other two if you want a shot at a cup.

 

[major major]

Not sure if I agree with all three rankings being given equal ratings. Especially the goaltenders. After the top 4, those rankings could vary wildly and they'd still be legit. A 10 or 15 rank drop in goaltending means much less than the other two rankings.

If you look at the "goals saved above average", or heck, just save percentage, there isn't much difference between the 10th through 40th goalies in the league. That's why an average starter is so cheap. But a goalie like Bobrovsky or Price or Matt Murray is another story. Bobrovsky last year made a bigger difference on goals than all but a few skaters in the league. That would obviously entail a more complicated model.

 

[major major]

A valid point imo that I didn't mention. You can win without a high end goalie (e.g, 2009 Pens, 2010 Hawks.) but you need to be strong in the other two if you want a shot at a cup.

Pens won last year with the top goalie and top offense and worst defense in the playoffs. That's one of the areas where Larry's evaluation is off, imo. Consider that the Pens spent the majority of the playoffs unable to get out of their own end of the ice.

 

[Maplebeasts]

If you look at the "goals saved above average", or heck, just save percentage, there isn't much difference between the 10th through 40th goalies in the league. That's why an average starter is so cheap. But a goalie like Bobrovsky or Price or Matt Murray is another story. Bobrovsky last year made a bigger difference on goals than all but a few skaters in the league. That would obviously entail a more complicated model.

Which brings us to the fact that such a model as of now doesn't exist. We can't measure how the performance in one area of the roster impacts another with numbers. We can only assume how much based on what we're watching.

 

[Maplebeasts]

Pens won last year with the top goalie and top offense and worst defense in the playoffs. That's one of the areas where Larry's evaluation is off, imo. Consider that the Pens spent the majority of the playoffs unable to get out of their own end of the ice.

I suppose that the Pens had such a big advantage over the competition in those two other areas that their sub-par defence didn't matter. The Pens have just proven that weakness in Defense, goaltending or Forwards can be overcome to produce a winning team if the other(s) are strong enough. Good catch.

 

[Episkey]

Just took a glance, but I don't think San Jose has a top-10 forward group. They were #19 in GF last year and lost Marleau without making any significant additions. Also with Jones as a starter they should be higher than #17 for goaltenders. But overall, they are not the #6 team in the league. Will likely be fighting for a playoff spot come April.

 

[jetsforever]

This actually seems like a decent list.

 

[Human]

The author claims that Price is worth his "value in gold, quite literally, backstopping Canada for back to back Olympic gold medals in 2010 and 2014."

 

[QJL]

Stopped reading when I saw the Hurricanes defense ranked 18th. They're top 5. And I'm not a Canes fan.

 

[PatrikBerglund]

I think that both Carolina and Philadelphia will sneak into the playoffs this upcoming season.

 

[Larry Fisher]

The author claims that Price is worth his "value in gold, quite literally, backstopping Canada for back to back Olympic gold medals in 2010 and 2014."

That has already been caught and changed, not sure why it would still be showing up inaccurately on your end. I'm seeing the updated version on my end.

 

[Larry Fisher]

Appreciate all the feedback, obviously agree to disagree on some fronts, but some really good points too. Especially the one about not weighing the three positions equally when it comes to power rankings. I definitely gave that some thought because I agree that goaltending isn't necessarily as crucial as defence or forward (depending on the team) and therefore maybe shouldn't be weighted evenly. When I do my actual/official power rankings, I will come up with a system that accounts for that thinking.

 

[VoluntaryDom]

caps are to high