TSN: Power Rankings...Leafs 19th. December 17, 2014

[hoglund]

the power rankings don't really mean a lot because the NHL has a lot of parity and no team is waaay better than anyone. Buffalo, Edmonton and Calgary are the only bad teams Pittsburgh, Anaheim, Chicago are the only elite teams and the rest are pretty much the same, that's why many teams this season are going to miss the playoffs by only a few points, let's hope the Leafs aren't one of them.

 

[Mess]

I And then you've got the big log jam from 8-15, especially with things like NYR, who get a blurb that paints them as similar to the Leafs (on a tear the last fifteen, hot goaltending, batting .500 at home and better on the road [the opposite of the Leafs]) and yet sit above comparable teams like the Leafs or Philadelphia by 6-12 rankings... or situations Montreal, whose blurb reads an awful lot like Toronto at the start of Toronto's hot streak (except with declining possession), yet saw them (arguably inexplicably) leapfrog Columbus and also sees them sit well above TML/Philly.

Do you believe in the saying "Defense wins Championships"

Montreal is 5th best in GA overall with 142 goals against and their goalie is bound for Sochi for Team Canada.

Toronto is the 5th worst in GA overall with 182 goals against. (only Florida, Ottawa, Edmonton and NYI have given up more).

Cullen comments in his description

The individual player ratings are generated using a weighted formula that includes the following statistics:

Goaltenders are measured using goals against average, save percentage, won-loss differential and shutouts.

The rankings will tend to favour teams with strong goaltending. I have no problem with this since, at the very least, solid goaltending seems to be needed to win a series of any significance.

Price leads Bernier in almost every individual statistic goalie category.

Also Price was TSN 1st star of the week this past one.

Price, heading to the 2014 Olympics for Canada, was named the First Star after posting wins in three starts with a 1.00 goals-against average and a .971 save percentage. He began the week with a 27-save shutout of Calgary, then stopped 42 shots in a 5-2 win over Vancouver and finished with 31 saves in a 4-1 triumph against Carolina.

 

[Espher]

So goals against is now the critical metric, perhaps supplemented by recent goaltending performance or keeper stats in general?

I guess that would explain why Tampa, with a better season-long record/point%, a comparable record over the last ten, a significantly better GF and goal differential (but 3 more GA), and featuring Ben Bishop (a goaltender outperforming Price in GAA, SV% [ranking Top 3 in both], and record, but not going to Sochi for Team Canada) dipped two slots while Montreal climbed two.

#maggierankings #roulettemetrics

I'd recommend selling your Cullen stock, Mess -- it's way too volatile and unpredictable.

 

[Mess]

So goals against is now the critical metric, perhaps supplemented by recent goaltending performance or keeper stats in general?

I guess that would explain why Tampa, with a better season-long record/point%, a comparable record over the last ten, a significantly better GF and goal differential (but 3 more GA), and featuring Ben Bishop (a goaltender outperforming Price in GAA, SV% [ranking Top 3 in both], and record, but not going to Sochi for Team Canada) dipped two slots while Montreal climbed two.

How could goaltending not be a major factor in team power rankings of Cup competitive teams?.

TB has lost 4 of their last 6 games while Montreal posted 4-1-1 record and Price out performed Bishop to earn TSN 1st star of the week rankings last week. These rankings change each week based on what transpired in the statistical categories being tracked.

Could two teams separated by a single NHL point switch power ranking positions as a result considering Montreal has +2 ROW over TB as well?

Toronto also moved up +2 positions in the rankings based on their performance. TB fell -2 positions but are still relatively high because of Ben Bishop's numbers and missing Stamkos (as injures to key players is factored in also).

 

[Espher]

How could goaltending not be a major factor in team power rankings of Cup competitive teams?.

TB has lost 4 of their last 6 games while Montreal posted 4-1-1 record and Price out performed Bishop to earn TSN 1st star of the week rankings last week. These rankings change each week based on what transpired in the statistical categories being tracked.

Could two teams separated by a single NHL point switch power ranking positions as a result considering Montreal has +2 ROW over TB as well?

Sure, if we narrow the scope of 'statistical categories being tracked' to 'record over the past week' and ignore YTD, overall stats, head-to-head records, QoC (Montreal's only 'challenge' in their little run was Boston, while Tampa had to face a red-hot Leaf team twice and eked out a win over Montreal, to cite some examples), and goaltender stats. You know, all those things that apparently were being looked at when we compared them to other teams to explain why Montreal improved relative to them (and tangibly more).

You can explain any movement away if you're comparing only two teams. It's when you take it outside of that vacuum and try to identify the common rationale week-to-week and across several teams that it all falls apart, and you end up bouncing around trying to explain everything. For the record, this isn't a "Leafs don't get fair rankings" thing, it's a "what the hell is he using for weighting in his magical formula" thing (and he's not the only one -- ESPN and the NHL are both headscratchers, too).

It's like the Power Rankings are some kind of Schrödinger's Stats experiment where a team should simultaneously be rising and falling (edit: and you only know what will happen when you open up the Power Rankings list), and it's only until you try to compare them to another team in a vacuum that you can find an explanation for their movement (by picking different weights).

 

[Mess]

Sure, if we narrow the scope of 'statistical categories being tracked' to 'record over the past week' and ignore YTD, overall stats, head-to-head records, QoC (Montreal's only 'challenge' in their little run was Boston, while Tampa had to face a red-hot Leaf team twice and eked out a win over Montreal, to cite some examples), and goaltender stats. You know, all those things that apparently were being looked at when we compared them to other teams to explain why Montreal improved relative to them (and tangibly more).

You can explain any movement away if you're comparing only two teams. It's when you take it outside of that vacuum and try to identify the common rationale week-to-week and across several teams that it all falls apart, and you end up bouncing around trying to explain everything. For the record, this isn't just a "Leafs don't get fair rankings" thing, it's a "what the hell is he using for weighting in his magical formula" thing.

It's like the Power Rankings are some kind of Schrödinger's Stats experiment where a team should simultaneously be rising and falling and it's only until you try to compare them to another team that you can find an explanation for their movement (by picking different weights).

You should read the full analysis behind the rankings. All teams are being tracked in many categories simultaneously and the scope is not being narrowed for any teams.

We're just discussing varying factors that might have effected teams ranking changes week to week of dropping or rising, of which strong goaltending performance being one such thing (of many variables in play).

Additionally, by using statistics alone to generate the rankings, there should be no illusions of bias or favouritism affecting the rankings.

That means the team that is going on the ice that night, not the one that was playing weeks or months ago or will be playing when an injured star returns because, when the injured star returns to action, that will also be reflected in the rankings.

While the end result of the weighted individual grades provides an approximate value for each team, over the years I've incorporated small weightings for factors like divisional strength, power play and penalty killing results to help smooth statistics that are compiled against different levels of competition. These aren't huge factors in the overall rating but certainly if teams are of similar value otherwise, the team in the stronger division will most often prevail in the rankings.

 

[Espher]

You should read the full analysis behind the rankings. All teams are being tracked in many categories simultaneously and the scope is not being narrowed for any teams.

We're just discussing varying factors that might have effected teams ranking changes week to week of dropping or rising, of which strong goaltending performance being one such thing (of many variables in play).

Yes, I've read his analysis a billion times. The preambles, the blurbs in the rankings, the blog post from 2009.

It hasn't helped me make heads or tales of his weighting of the billion different variables (based on what I hope is correlative analysis of some kind), or why the weights/important stats seem to change week to week, nor does it provide any insight into what he's assigning as arbitrary values/weights for things like divisional strength, nor does it explain cases where Team A takes a dive because their star is out ("team that is going on the ice that night") but Team B does not (despite otherwise similar stats).

It seems any time someone expresses confusion for a certain ranking of Team X, compared to another Team Y, there is one set of criteria explained as the difference-maker -- but when that same set of criteria fails to adequately explain a difference between Team Y and Team Z, we move on to a different set (which then fails to explain Team X and Team Y). Obviously he's got a formula (linear or otherwise) that gives him an output value, especially since he's using "just the stats" and therefore must have a way of mathematically determining divisional strength. Perhaps he's got something in place to determine an ELO-esque rating system for each team, assessing match outcomes night-by-night, building cumulatively throughout the season, allowing him to account for quality of competition and gauge divisional strengths -- perhaps he just looks at total points and adds some kind of multiplier to the end result. Either way, I don't know.

There are a lot of variables that need to be accounted for, so I'm just not sure how he's accounting for them and determining those weights -- obviously I can't do it at a glance by comparing two or three teams and comparing 'key' basic/advanced stats, because that's why things fall apart and lead to headscratching in the first place.

I just want more detail on how he's coming to them, if he feels they're valid. That's all. Until I see that, no amount of hand-waving will validate the output of whatever formula he's got in place. I might as well just roll dice week-to-week and slide people up/down 1-3 slots if all I'm getting is "my super sekrit method takes every stat, recent trend, and head-to-head performance factor into account".

Edit: Actually, that might be fun to do and compare...

 

[Mess]

Yes, I've read his analysis a billion times. The preambles, the blurbs in the rankings, the blog post from 2009.

It hasn't helped me make heads or tales of his weighting of the billion different variables (based on what I hope is correlative analysis of some kind), or why the weights/important stats seem to change week to week, nor does it provide any insight into what he's assigning as arbitrary values/weights for things like divisional strength, nor does it explain cases where Team A takes a dive because their star is out ("team that is going on the ice that night") but Team B does not (despite otherwise similar stats).

It seems any time someone expresses confusion for a certain ranking of Team X, compared to another Team Y, there is one set of criteria explained as the difference-maker -- but when that same set of criteria fails to adequately explain a difference between Team Y and Team Z, we move on to a different set (which then fails to explain Team X and Team Y). Obviously he's got a formula (linear or otherwise) that gives him an output value, especially since he's using "just the stats" and therefore must have a way of mathematically determining divisional strength. Perhaps he's got something in place to determine an ELO-esque rating system for each team, assessing match outcomes night-by-night, building cumulatively throughout the season, allowing him to account for quality of competition and gauge divisional strengths -- perhaps he just looks at total points and adds some kind of multiplier to the end result. Either way, I don't know.

There are a lot of variables that need to be accounted for, so I'm just not sure how he's accounting for them and determining those weights -- obviously I can't do it at a glance by comparing two or three teams and comparing 'key' basic/advanced stats, because that's why things fall apart and lead to headscratching in the first place.

I just want more detail on how he's coming to them, if he feels they're valid. That's all. Until I see that, no amount of hand-waving will validate the output of whatever formula he's got in place. I might as well just roll dice week-to-week and slide people up/down 1-3 slots if all I'm getting is "my super sekrit method takes every stat, recent trend, and head-to-head performance factor into account".

Edit: Actually, that might be fun to do and compare...

Hopefully, this helps address some of the questions you may have regarding the TSN.ca NHL Power Rankings but you are welcome to e-mail me at [email protected] if you would like additional clarification.

 

[The Apologist]

Hopefully, this helps address some of the questions you may have regarding the TSN.ca NHL Power Rankings but you are welcome to e-mail me at [email protected] if you would like additional clarification.

Is that you Mr. Cullen?

 

[Mess]

Is that you Mr. Cullen?

Nope its from the article being discussed.

http://www.tsn.ca/blogs/scott_cullen/?id=294742

He left his email (at end of explanation) if anyone has any more questions about TSN power rankings he is willing to answer them.

 

[HEAVY DUTY]

this power ranking is nothing more than a pissing match that was brought upon by tsn on the weak minded so they can get more page views.


nothing to get upset about. these rankings don't mean anything.

 

[ULF_55]

this power ranking is nothing more than a pissing match that was brought upon by tsn on the weak minded so they can get more page views.


nothing to get upset about. these rankings don't mean anything.

Well yes the goal should be get better, win Cup.

 

[hoglund]

Well yes the goal should be get better, win Cup.

many teams with low rankings HAVE won the Stanley Cup eg. the Kings 2 years ago, which DOES prove these rankings mean nothing.

 

[ULF_55]

many teams with low rankings HAVE won the Stanley Cup eg. the Kings 2 years ago, which DOES prove these rankings mean nothing.

We'll see how the power rankings work out this time.

http://www.tsn.ca/fantasy_news/rankings/nhl/

This Week 17 Last Week 12
Tampa Bay Lightning46-27-9

The Lightning won their last four games, all of which came after the injury suffered by G Ben Bishop, yet the Bishop injury is the biggest concern for the Lightning, since the drop in play from Bishop (.924 SV%) to Anders Lindback (.888 SV%) is enough to affect the Lightning's hopes.
Key Injuries: G Ben Bishop (arm).

Based on Bishop injury?

 

[Cor]

Guess them saying the Habs and Rangers were better wasn't wrong after all eh?

 

[HoweHullOrr]

How the heck is Columbus 5 spots ahead of us? We're 7 points ahead, even though they have 2 games in hand, and no team in the league has been as hot as us the past little while (though there are some comparable).

Montreal I can at least understand since they're technically ahead, even though 6 spots seems a bit much given how close we are.

Surprise.

 

[ULF_55]

What happened to the rule about bumping old threads unnecessarily?

February 2014 is old?

The discussion is part of this season and talking about power rankings for this year's playoffs.

 

[Liminality]

February 2014 is old?

The discussion is part of this season and talking about power rankings for this year's playoffs.

The Leafs are not in this years playoffs though . Shouldn't that mean this should be in around the League?

 

[Avec Fromage*]

Who cares about bumping old threads? There is no meaningful discussion to be had on this board until the draft/Carlyle firing/something. Might as well have fun with it.

 

[MajorLeaf]

This thread is like Don Cherry going back in time to show his comments or predictions from months prior to say "See I was right!"

It's interesting to read in hindsight.

 

[johnny_rudeboy]

This thread is like Don Cherry going back in time to show his comments or predictions from months prior to say "See I was right!"

It's interesting to read in hindsight.

Well he isn't really actually going back in time, is he?

 

[DPyro]

Who cares about bumping old threads? There is no meaningful discussion to be had on this board until the draft/Carlyle firing/something. Might as well have fun with it.

Who said Carlyle was getting fired?

 

[ULF_55]

And guess where they are now 9 months later?

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl-power-rankings-december-1-2014-1.148881

Power Rank|Team |Fenwick Close
1|Tampa Bay Lightning|54.1
2|Nashville Predators|54.0
3|St. Louis Blues|52.6
4|Chicago Blackhawks|55.3
5|Pittsburgh Penguins|52.1
6|New York Islanders|55.0
7|Detroit Red Wings|51.5
8|Anaheim Ducks|50.7
9|Montreal Canadiens|50.4
10|Vancouver Canucks|51.4
11|Minnesota Wild|55.7
12|Calgary Flames|45.5
13|Los Angeles Kings|50.2
14|Boston Bruins|52.1
15|Toronto Maple Leafs|47.4
16|San Jose Sharks|50.8
17|New York Rangers|49.4
18|Winnipeg Jets|50.3
19|Florida Panthers|50.3
20|Dallas Stars|50.0
21|Colorado Avalanche|45.3
22|Washington Capitals|52.3
23|Philadelphia Flyers|47.0
24|New Jersey Devils|48.5
25|Ottawa Senators|44.8
26|Arizona Coyotes|47.6
27|Carolina Hurricanes|51.9
28|Buffalo Sabres|37.0
29|Columbus Blue Jackets|47.5
30|Edmonton Oilers|49.5

Power Rank|Team |Fenwick Close
11|Minnesota Wild|55.7
4|Chicago Blackhawks|55.3
6|New York Islanders|55.0
1|Tampa Bay Lightning|54.1
2|Nashville Predators|54.0
3|St. Louis Blues|52.6
22|Washington Capitals|52.3
5|Pittsburgh Penguins|52.1
14|Boston Bruins|52.1
27|Carolina Hurricanes|51.9
7|Detroit Red Wings|51.5
10|Vancouver Canucks|51.4
16|San Jose Sharks|50.8
8|Anaheim Ducks|50.7
9|Montreal Canadiens|50.4
18|Winnipeg Jets|50.3
19|Florida Panthers|50.3
13|Los Angeles Kings|50.2
20|Dallas Stars|50.0
30|Edmonton Oilers|49.5
17|New York Rangers|49.4
24|New Jersey Devils|48.5
26|Arizona Coyotes|47.6
29|Columbus Blue Jackets|47.5
15|Toronto Maple Leafs|47.4
23|Philadelphia Flyers|47.0
12|Calgary Flames|45.5
21|Colorado Avalanche|45.3
25|Ottawa Senators|44.8
28|Buffalo Sabres|37.0

 

[The Winter Soldier]

The real test for me is GA, a team cannot be successful if they are not proficient defensively.

Leafs are 23rd out of 30 teams in GA this year, a slight improvement from last year at 26th.

To me this is the telling stat whether this team makes the playoffs or not. A collapse is more likely than not if this team stays at their present GA pace where they will not be able to outscore their weaknesses.

 

[TheCLAM]

Power rankings literally mean nothing.

I'm not a big believer of the Habs either. Price single handedly wins them games on a nightly basis. I don't understand Bergevins ability to move key players after a trip to the ECF. IMO You don't mess with team chemistry moving their leadership (Gorges,Gionta) and Moen, Bourque will bite them going forward.

You have to value and respect the ability of a good room