zeke's Official Top-20 Center Rankings

[Ridley Simon]

pro-tip: PP only makes the leafs look better

Then include it?

Any list that has Kadri is the top 20 (and not Kuznetsov) is challenged. Other than the most homer of leaf fan...what knowledgeable hockey mind would take Kadri over Kuznetsov?

I mean, seriously?

 

[Ridley Simon]

You should have kept reading the thread. There was some good discussion to read including addressing the PP, which actually only improves the Leaf players.

Zeke did an excellent job compiling this list, explaining his method, and responding to critique.

You may not agree with the list, but maybe you could provide your own? This thread has a heck of a lot more substance than the usual list threads where there isn’t a lot of depth other than an order of names.

Again...almost all of the people that are "excited" about this list are Leaf fans. I'd say 90% (save a few Jets fans who are happy with their players being ranked highly too).

I'm not going to call it garbage. Thats unfair to the poster who took a lot of time to create it.

But fancy stats are not the best way to judge a player. We should all know that. The last 2 teams that won the Cup (which is the goal, right?) were weak in the fancy stat category. But there they are.

 

[6 Karlsson 5]

Not providing good arguments for what? Kopitar just won the Selke and scored over 90 points as well. I don't need to have some mathematical formula tell me that he should be ranked ahead of someone who has never come close to matching those offensive totals, while not being better defensively, either.

As for coming up with a different methodology, like I said earlier in the thread, I don't know enough about these various metrics and calculations in order to do that. All I said was that *something* must be weighted wrong in these calculations to come up with J. Staal being better than Kopitar.

Blindly adhering to these numbers just because there's no inherent bias in them is just as bad as blindly ignoring all numbers available to you. Both can result in bad takes. I mean, logically, do you truly believe Jordan Staal is a better player than Kopitar and would easily take him on your team over the latter?

It's like seeing a doctor doing plastic surgery on a patient and instead mangling her face. I'm not a doctor, so I can't "do better" nor can I offer suggestions about what, technically speaking, he did wrong. But that doesn't mean I can't say "this doesn't look right..." when I see the end result. And that's what I'm saying about that metric that results in Staal being ranked ahead of Kopitar. I don't know what metric is weighted too highly, or how to fix it, but "it doesn't look right".

Using the Selke argument is akin to everyone thinks he is better; therefore, he is better. That line of argumentation hinges on a logical fallacy; therefore, it is a weak argument.

Yes, your one singular variable is better than all the things statisticians work on in the sports world. How stupid of them not to realize we should just worship points and the eye test.

I don't blindly believe numbers; however, statistics are our best approximation, so I like to use them to build a framework of my understanding. What that means is I would group these players, maybe by 10's. After grouping the players, I would then scout those players. Once I scout the players, I would say Kopi is better, but Staal is a super under rated player, and as a team, I can use that information to try and acquire players for under market value. For what it is worth, I recently found another GAR metric, which, combined with other two, would move Kopi above Staal. Also, the micro-data, which I have only seen a few people have access too, would say Kopi is better. Stats may make mistakes, but so do GM's using the eye test, and it happens ALL THE TIME, but using the "eye-test" is never blamed. I mean, Tom Wilson just got over 5mil. That type of horrendous error is essentially wiped out if you just use the models as a framework, like I said.

Your analogy is bad, but I agree with your argument that being an expert in a field is not a necessary condition to critique said field; however, I find it strange that you critique the list, but your only somewhat decent argument is that kopi gets more points, which would be an analytical argument, and that is exactly what i did; however, you use one single variable. I used two different models. You must really, really believe in your one variable.

 

[Nizdizzle]

You cannot register an assist without a goal.

You can register both a win and a goal without an assist.

 

[Rants Mulliniks]

Again...almost all of the people that are "excited" about this list are Leaf fans. I'd say 90% (save a few Jets fans who are happy with their players being ranked highly too).

I'm not going to call it garbage. Thats unfair to the poster who took a lot of time to create it.

But fancy stats are not the best way to judge a player. We should all know that. The last 2 teams that won the Cup (which is the goal, right?) were weak in the fancy stat category. But there they are.

Kind of a key word in your rebuttal, no?

I don't believe his list was the top 20 teams?

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Using the Selke argument is akin to everyone thinks he is better; therefore, he is better. That line of argumentation hinges on a logical fallacy; therefore, it is a weak argument.

Yes, your one singular variable is better than all the things statisticians work on in the sports world. How stupid of them not to realize we should just worship points and the eye test.

I don't blindly believe numbers; however, statistics are our best approximation, so I like to use them to build a framework of my understanding. What that means is I would group these players, maybe by 10's. After grouping the players, I would then scout those players. Once I scout the players, I would say Kopi is better, but Staal is a super under rated player, and as a team, I can use that information to try and acquire players for under market value. For what it is worth, I recently found another GAR metric, which, combined with other two, would move Kopi above Staal. Also, the micro-data, which I have only seen a few people have access too, would say Kopi is better. Stats may make mistakes, but so do GM's using the eye test, and it happens ALL THE TIME, but using the "eye-test" is never blamed. I mean, Tom Wilson just got over 5mil. That type of horrendous error is essentially wiped out if you just use the models as a framework, like I said.

Your analogy is bad, but I agree with your argument that being an expert in a field is not a necessary condition to critique said field; however, I find it strange that you critique the list, but your only somewhat decent argument is that kopi gets more points, which would be an analytical argument, and that is exactly what i did; however, you use one single variable. I used two different models. You must really, really believe in your one variable.

I think you're taking my comment way too personally. I've said how many times now that I don't have a better method. Literally said a couple of times in posts that I can't offer a better alternative, because I don't know enough about the various metrics to tweak the weighting of the various categories.

All I'm saying is that *something* is off with the weighting if the result is Jordan Staal ranks higher than Kopitar. Because again, can you honestly argue you think Staal is a better player? If you were starting a team, would you honestly choose Staal over Kopitar if you had your pick?

 

[Frank Drebin]

Then include it?

Any list that has Kadri is the top 20 (and not Kuznetsov) is challenged. Other than the most homer of leaf fan...what knowledgeable hockey mind would take Kadri over Kuznetsov?

I mean, seriously?

Or seguin, or eichel

 

[Frank Drebin]

You can register both a win and a goal without an assist.

Sure, but when they are recorded, they are directly tied to a goal being scored.

They are certainly more influential in winning than creating or preventing corsi events.

You could attempt shots all day, if you have a muffin shot or zero hockey sense the puck is not gong in the net.

Primary stats (goals and assists) >>>>secondary (advanced) stats

 

[Canadian Canuck]

Horvat>Kadri/Staal

 

[Rants Mulliniks]

Sure, but when they are recorded, they are directly tied to a goal being scored.

They are certainly more influential in winning than creating or preventing corsi events.

You could attempt shots all day, if you have a muffin shot or zero hockey sense the puck is not gong in the net.

Primary stats (goals and assists) >>>>secondary (advanced) stats

...except assists are often awarded that have little bearing on a goal being scored. In fact they have frequently been awarded when by the very rules they don't qualify.

 

[zeke]

You cannot register an assist without a goal.

you can register a goal without an assist.

you can't register a goal without a shot.

 

[zeke]

Then include it?

Any list that has Kadri is the top 20 (and not Kuznetsov) is challenged. Other than the most homer of leaf fan...what knowledgeable hockey mind would take Kadri over Kuznetsov?

I mean, seriously?

say it in all caps and it'll be harder to argue against.

 

[Breakers]

Kadri in the Top 20

 

[zeke]

oh wait.

I found something fun that I didn't realize corsica has.

I can combine regular season and playoff stats together now, so I don't have to ignore Kuz's great claim to fame.

Let's see if I can finally push Kuz up the rankings by including playoffs, because i've tried a whole crapload of different formulas and Kuz just won't budge so far.

 

[Martin Skoula]

oh wait.

I found something fun that I didn't realize corsica has.

I can combine regular season and playoff stats together now, so I don't have to ignore Kuz's great claim to fame.

Let's see if I can finally push Kuz up the rankings by including playoffs, because i've tried a whole crapload of different formulas and Kuz just won't budge so far.

Have you tried adjusting for the amount of letters in the player's last name? That might drop Kadri and raise Kuznetsov enough to make people happy.

 

[Raymoondo]

Then include it?

Any list that has Kadri is the top 20 (and not Kuznetsov) is challenged. Other than the most homer of leaf fan...what knowledgeable hockey mind would take Kadri over Kuznetsov?

I mean, seriously?

Didn't he already do that on the second page or am I reading it wrong?

 

[Nizdizzle]

Have you tried adjusting for the amount of letters in the player's last name? That might drop Kadri and raise Kuznetsov enough to make people happy.

Hall, Kane, and Benn are very much against your proposed amendment.

 

[kp61c]

kadri over seguin? gee, now i've seen it all. thx.

 

[Breakers]

As a Canuck fan I wouldn't put Horvat in the conversation of a top 20 center.

But I'd take him over Kadri.
Identical Points Per Game last season
horvat drives play 5v5 better than Kadri
Horvat has way better primary point percentages than Kadri
Horvat has a better GAR
Better at faceoffs
kills penalties
etc

 

[MoreMogilny]

Again...almost all of the people that are "excited" about this list are Leaf fans. I'd say 90% (save a few Jets fans who are happy with their players being ranked highly too).

I'm not going to call it garbage. Thats unfair to the poster who took a lot of time to create it.

But fancy stats are not the best way to judge a player. We should all know that. The last 2 teams that won the Cup (which is the goal, right?) were weak in the fancy stat category. But there they are.

Your last post was very dismissive and you admitted you did not read the thread, so I was just pointing out that it’s a good thread to read.

I wouldn’t say I’m “excited” by this list. I do find it interesting, but I would have found it interesting whether the Leafs had players on it or not.

You can never get the whole story with a particular statistic, or set of statistics. There are many variables at play, especially in the sport of hockey. Do I actually believe Kadri should be ranked as high as he is? Hell no, but I do think that the method Zeke used does help shine a light on some guys who are maybe a bit more effective than general opinion indicates.

 

[Volica]

I appreciate you phrasing it in the most favorable way possible - but make no mistake, pretty much all the objections in this thread have come down to me ranking a player out of whack with one single stat - his point totals.

This isn't about complaining about me not considering a player's all-around game - in fact it's precisely the opposite - people are complaining I'm putting too much weight on factors other than point totals.

But I do like how you give your old timer the credit for watching games, but not the nerd. That's convenient.

It's not so much credit in terms of watching the game. It seems like the people who tend to argue about players, are the people who rarely watch them, versus those that do.
I've seen countless times on this forum alone, where a fan of another team, will simply tell another teams' fan how it is. Hey, your player has below team relative CF, that player sucks amirite?! When it's like... No... the guy's pretty great at what he does actually. NOT WHAT THE NUMBERS SAY BRO!?!? LOLOLS

The issue is you're putting weight into another stat. Advanced stats, are still stats, less important that goals or assists, but still stats. They tell a story.

On the Flames board this debate has been beaten to death, and essentially, what it really is, is you can normally make advanced stats tell the story you want them to tell about a player. Watching how a player plays, then correlating that to their numbers is really the only way you can do it.

 

[BoredBrandonPridham]

You cannot register an assist without a goal.

You cannot register a goal without generating a corsi event.

 

[Bedards Dad]

Sure, but when they are recorded, they are directly tied to a goal being scored.

They are certainly more influential in winning than creating or preventing corsi events.

You could attempt shots all day, if you have a muffin shot or zero hockey sense the puck is not gong in the net.

Primary stats (goals and assists) >>>>secondary (advanced) stats

At least you've proven you dont understand what advanced stats are for. Your opinion can be ignored going forward when discussing anything beyond goals and assists.

 

[Frank Drebin]

You cannot register a goal without generating a corsi event.

But you can register a corsi event without scoring a goal.

See where I'm going here?

One is directly related to scoring goals and winning games. One is not.

 

[Frank Drebin]

At least you've proven you dont understand what advanced stats are for. Your opinion can be ignored going forward when discussing anything beyond goals and assists.

You can dismiss opinions that don't align with yours all day. Fine with me.



Advanced stats are not that important in evaluating a player