zeke's Official Top-20 Center Rankings

[The Assclown]

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

They’re simply a tool for player evaluation and you must take other factors into consideration, but numbers don’t lie.

 

[Frank Drebin]

They’re simply a tool for player evaluation and you must take other factors into consideration, but numbers don’t lie.

The numbers don't lie, but what they actually mean, or how important they are is up for debate.

 

[The Assclown]

The numbers don't lie, but what they actually mean, or how important they are is up for debate.

So what you’re saying is good advanced stats should be thrown out the window? Especially when they make the Maple Leafs look like the good team they are.

 

[Frank Drebin]

So what you’re saying is good advanced stats should be thrown out the window? Especially when they make the Maple Leafs look like the good team they are.

The leafs have good stats because they are a good team, not the other way around.

 

[The Assclown]

The leafs have good stats because they are a good team, not the other way around.

You’re putting the chicken before the egg my friend.

 

[Empoleon8771]

If your methodology of ranking centers results in the 3rd best center in hockey being ranked the 15th best center in hockey, I think it says that your methodology is pretty terrible.

I also find it nauseating how this site is so against powerplay scoring, as if powerplay points don't count. It's almost as nauseating as how much this site overuses advanced stats like corsi.

 

[Turin]

If you’re punishing top 5 centres (Malkin) because of how the coach uses them and their teammates because it’s beneficial to the overall team usage, your list is pretty useless despite all your homework.

 

[zeke]

there's no punishment - a player in softer usage should be able to dominate that usage more.

 

[heretik27]

If your methodology of ranking centers results in the 3rd best center in hockey being ranked the 15th best center in hockey, I think it says that your methodology is pretty terrible.

I also find it nauseating how this site is so against powerplay scoring, as if powerplay points don't count. It's almost as nauseating as how much this site overuses advanced stats like corsi.

To be fair, is there such a thing as a "system" of rankings that wouldn't have outliers? It seemed to do a pretty fair job of the rest of the listings, Malkin is a clear case where the eye test doesn't match.

 

[zeke]

still need to do some work on it but I've fixed some of the more glaring errors in my system, and it seems to be spitting out some rankings you guys will like better I think.

well, you'll like them better except for what it does to the leafs centers, at least.

 

[member 298589]

Kadri is a good 2c. Just because he is a 1C on teams like Montreal does not mean he is a low-end 1C, just that Montreal has no good Cs. He is also not just a 3C by any stretch. I challenge anyone to make an unbiased list with different stat weights and drop Kadri in the realm of >40th. Honestly, he was a 2C this past season and I don't think either side could argue he was out of his element either way.

 

[ijuka]

PP points count the same... Year by year, the PP leaders tend to be some absolute super stars in the league.

 

[Frank Drebin]

You’re putting the chicken before the egg my friend.

There are poor teams with good advanced stats.

 

[zeke]

Kadri is a good 2c. Just because he is a 1C on teams like Montreal does not mean he is a low-end 1C, just that Montreal has no good Cs. He is also not just a 3C by any stretch. I challenge anyone to make an unbiased list with different stat weights and drop Kadri in the realm of >40th. Honestly, he was a 2C this past season and I don't think either side could argue he was out of his element either way.

the funny thing is that there isn't a stat of any kind, anywhere, that says Kadri is anything less than a #1C.

not one.

 

[Rants Mulliniks]

The leafs have good stats because they are a good team, not the other way around.

Why are they a good team?

 

[Frank Drebin]

the funny thing is that there isn't a stat of any kind, anywhere, that says Kadri is anything less than a #1C.

not one.

He'd be the best center on about a half dozen teams, maybe 8.

 

[Frank Drebin]

Why are they a good team?

Because Kadri is better than Eichel, Kuznetsov and Seguin?

 

[BlackFrancis]

They’re simply a tool for player evaluation and you must take other factors into consideration, but numbers don’t lie.

If I have a series of ten numbers (.22, .58, .61, .75, .77, .79, .91, .92, .95, .99) and rank them 1-10/decile, then give those rankings a weight relative to four other series of 10 numbers that I have also ranked, would you be confident in the value of my results which, yet again, combine those weighted rankings?

Numbers don't need to lie when they tell you nothing of value.

If x is not predicative of wins, player points, where the player will rank next season, prior season's stats/wins/whatever, what do you actually have? You have x, which along with $2 will buy you a lottery ticket.

Hockey advanced statistics are in their infancy, much like basketball. New approaches hint at interesting potential methods going forward, but with the puck and the player unchipped and many of the numbers collated by interns up to 300 ft. away from the ice surface without being cross checked, there's very little predictive value to be had.

 

[VoluntaryDom]

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

Disagree, my friend

 

[VoluntaryDom]

In my opinion Kadri is right in the lower end of 1cs. 28-31 range with Toews Backlund and Horvat

 

[Bedards Dad]

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

Only if you dont understand them.

 

[Frank Drebin]

Only if you dont understand them.

Could it be possible for someone (not me, I'm not smart enough - say someone as smart as you) to both understand advanced statistics and dismiss their importance in evaluating players?

 

[Rants Mulliniks]

If I have a series of ten numbers (.22, .58, .61, .75, .77, .79, .91, .92, .95, .99) and rank them 1-10/decile, then give those rankings a weight relative to four other series of 10 numbers that I have also ranked, would you be confident in the value of my results which, yet again, combine those weighted rankings?

Numbers don't need to lie when they tell you nothing of value.

If x is not predicative of wins, player points, where the player will rank next season, prior season's stats/wins/whatever, what do you actually have? You have x, which along with $2 will buy you a lottery ticket.

Hockey advanced statistics are in their infancy, much like basketball. New approaches hint at interesting potential methods going forward, but with the puck and the player unchipped and many of the numbers collated by interns up to 300 ft. away from the ice surface without being cross checked, there's very little predictive value to be had.

What numbers tell you anything of value? Most people will jump towards POINTS because it links to goals scored, which is of course great until you factor in things like goals against you were involved in or accounting for things like whether your "assist" was actually an assist or played a direct role in the goal being scored versus something someone else did at the time but did not receive any statistical reward for.

 

[Rants Mulliniks]

Because Kadri is better than Eichel, Kuznetsov and Seguin?

This answer speaks volumes.

 

[Bedards Dad]

Could it be possible for someone (not me, I'm not smart enough - say someone as smart as you) to both understand advanced statistics and dismiss their importance in evaluating players?

The issues is you are looking at this with a very black and white eye. Primary and advanced stats are both very useful in context.

Advanced stats are predictors, while primary stats tell us what you have done. Together they paint a better picture of what you are likely to do going forward.

I HATE the corsi > all group, but am a big proponent of p1/60 as an indicator of what a player brings to the game. But I do understand both are useful when used in context.