kingraph

NHL'94 Team Rankings

Recommended Posts

Updated May 10, 2012:

Updates:

  • Updated results through Spring'12 Classic
  • New charts showing team ranks by each classic season
  • New Overall Team Ratings
  • Individual Player Ratings (top 200) Appendix
  • Reformatted using forum code (no MS Word)


NHL'94 Rankings - A Statistical Look

A little while back I was reading this thread about an ongoing ladder league and I was intrigued by the idea of including the team rank in determining how much a win was “worth”. Meaning, a win using Edmonton vs. Detroit would mean more than a win using Chicago vs. Ottawa.

I wanted to come up with some empirical evidence to support the "what is the best team" discussions that come up from time to time. Chicago and Detroit are always mentioned as the best teams, but could I measure that, or support that notion quantitatively?

Below I go through my methods and findings in four sections:

  • Initial Team Rankings
  • Individual Player Rankings
  • Tying Players to Teams
  • Conclusions

(Spoiler shows the ranking of teams)


TIER I (the strongest)

CHI
DET
BUF
MTL
CGY (Classic Results in Tier II)

TIER II (strong)

VAN (Classic Results in Tier I)
BOS
DAL
WPG
TOR (Classic Results in Tier III)

TIER III (good teams, competitive)

QUE
LA (Classic Results in Tier II)
EDM
NYR

TIER IV (flawed, weak teams)

PHI
HFD
PIT
STL
WSH

TIER V (poor teams)

NJ
NYI
SJ
TB

TIER VI (The worst)
FLA
OTW
ANH

Below is the calculated team rankings (they differ from team strength)

overalls.png



SECTION I – Initial Team Ranks

The first thing I did was take the ratings from the Building Lines with AJ series to come up with an initial ranking of teams. The ratings come from a respected A-level player (Angryjay93) and it is very thorough/detailed. I highly recommend reading it for all skill levels.

I weighted the forwards, defense, and goalies, 3-2-1 respectively, because that represents the number of players on the ice. I thought it was a good starting point in generating a team ranking. The results were as follows:

hf0Sj4C.png

Well, that looked right, but was there anything I can do to support this ranking?

I decided to take the results from the classic league regular seasons (Spring'08 - Spring'12), for all divisions, and ranked the teams based on winning percentage. I figured individual skill would be factored out due to the volume of games and the general grouping of players (A,B,C, etc). I decided that the minimum was 100 games played (over 2 seasons). This eliminated anomalies such as IceStorm's season with the NYI (29-11, .745 win percentage, making them the #1 ranked team). The results:

ZdEg1k8.png

The results were pretty amazing when compared to the weighted AJ rankings. Grouping the teams into 6 different tiers, the results matched closely with a few exceptions:

FamcpN6.png

The colored tiers make comparisons easier. I decided that TIER I would be the top 5 teams, TIER II would be teams with an AJ rank above 7, TIER III above 6, TIER IV above 5, etc.

There were only 2 major discrepancies, and the rest of the teams fell nicely into place. The first discrepancy is CAL, who finished 10th in classic results, as compared to 5th in AJ's ranking and the other is LA, who finished 6th in classic compared to AJ's 12th. What is interesting here is that both teams are defined by very strong forwards, and poor goalies. CAL has a better ranked defense, giving them the higher AJ rank. Theoretically, CAL should do better than LA, however we can't completely eliminate things like user skill and team chemistry.

This also does not appear to be an anomoly. The chart below shows the ranks of the team win% for each of the 7 classic seasons included in this analysis. You'll notice that CAL doesn't finish better than 8th in ANY season, while LA finishes in the top 5 in 4 out of 7 seasons!

IRJYEag.png

You may notice two other teams that didn't quite fall into place. VAN ranks 4th in classic, while AJ has them 6th. This is obviously very close and only shows up as a discrepancy because of the TIER system. The other is TOR finishing 13th, into TIER III vs AJ 10th (bottom of TIER II).

Despite those discrepancies, I felt comfortable with the general team rankings, both from a qualitative (AJ) and quantitative (Classic results) standpoint.

SECTION II – Individual Players

My next goal was to take this down to the individual player level – what players made these teams so good? More specifically, what player attributes made them so good? I knew the player ratings in the original ROM didn't mean much as one major attribute – weight (the sole determinant of checking ability) -- was not even factored in, so I wanted to create a new player ranking based on attributes that mattered. I used two different methods to figure out player rankings as described below:

METHOD 1 - New Player Rankings

Using Smozoma's Blitz Player Spreadsheet as a starting point, I modified the formulas to value lower weight (essentially keep the weight bug) and asked YOU, the community, how we should value the different player attributes.

The results of the survey can be seen here - GENS Player Attribute Survey

Based on those attributes, I created a new player ranking.

A quick glance at the top 5 forwards and defense made me feel I was on the right track:

5vaSuLW.png
METHOD 2 - GDL Average Draft Positions

I took the draft results from seasons 5 through 8 of the GDL GENS Draft League and came up with an average draft position (ADP) for all the players. GDL allows owners to draft '94 players using a snake style draft and doesn't alter the original gameplay aside from team rosters. The ADP basically ranks all the players in '94 based indirectly on attributes that we ("we"= GDL team owners) value. Again, a quick glance at the top 5 forwards and defense showed I was on the right track:

hMPhxOb.png

The next step was to see if the new calculated rankings for the players I came up with correlated to the ADP. The results? Let's start with Defensemen.

DEFENSEMEN

Weight reigns supreme with D! Out of the top 50 defensemen ranked by the GDL ADP compared to the calculated ratings, there were only 3 notable exceptions that stood out. I classified an exception as a difference of 15 or more spots between ADP and the calculated rank.

Cc92VwW.png

Patrice Brisebois (ADP 17, Calc 43) and Gord Hynes (ADP 19, Calc 60) were drafted considerably higher on average than their calculated indicated. The reason? Their weights are 5,4 respectively, and the rest of their attributes are pretty weak. Obviously weight is SUPER valued here. Of the top 16, the biggest difference was Petr Svoboda, whose ADP is 4, calc 10. Again, probably a weight bonus as Svoboda is a 5 weight.

The only other large variance was James Patrick, who was UNDERvalued at ADP 40, Calc 20. He is a 9 weight, but has other very respectable attributes such as 4 speed, 4 agility, 4 def awareness, 4 shot power, 4 stick handling, and 4 passing.

Other than those 3 mentioned, the top 50 defensemen were valued correctly from the survey attribute weights and GDL ADP.

FORWARDS

After the initial survey results, the following players were drafted higher than their rating indicated:

Petr Klima, Russ Courtnall, Cliff Ronning, Tomas Sandstrom, Geoff Sanderson, and Brett Hull

Even though Speed and Shot Power were valued the highest in my attribute survey, they were apparently not valued high enough!

Meanwhile, other players such as Adam Oates, Gary Roberts, and Steve Larmer were undervalued. The comment element there is they all have strong awareness ratings, but were heavier.

Based on that initial result, I tinkered with the attributes values, increasing speed and shot power, and decreasing awareness, etc. and settled on this result:

za4oDId.png

These attribute ratings yielded just 1 variance in the top 50 forwards! That player? Tomas Sandstrom (ADP 25, Calc 41). Obviously Thomas' incredible shot (5/5) was valued over his 9 weight for GDL. (Side note: Increasing the shot power and accuracy attributes also yielded just one outlier, Cliff Ronning, as his speed and pass accuracy were valued over his weaker shot.)

LWSVaVX.png

My feeling is that we inherently value attributes in a more dynamic way than a static number. Certain combinations of attributes are valued greater (i.e. a player that has 5 shot and 5 accuracy is valued more than the calculation would indicate) and extreme ratings (6 speed, 6 shot power, 3 weight) also command greater value. I'll leave that for a future analysis. Anyway, I was happy that this weighting criterion for forwards provided a good estimate of player ratings as 49 of the top 50 calculated players correlated well with their ADP in GDL.

GOALIES

Goalies? The GDL and the normal goalie rankings were nearly identical, suggesting that the goalie ratings in the original ROM are accurate, or we just don't know. Either way, this was straightforward.

SECTION III – Players to Teams

Now that I had a good ranking of teams (SECTION I) and a good ranking of players (SECTION II). The question now was how do I marry the two? This becomes a little tricky as each team has a unique identity that defines how you can use them to win games. This is part of what makes '94 so great!

But of course I'll try. =) The goal was to see if there was a way to come up with team rankings based on the player ratings that matched the classic results/AJ rankings.

At first I ranked the teams based on the best 5 players (3F, 2D) and goalie, however this didn't make sense as the value of a team is more than the best 5 guys on the ice. I decided that it's important to weigh the #1 forward more than #2 and #3, and the #1 D more than #2. Chicago is the best example -- the reason the team is great on offense is because of Roenick, the #1F, helped by a decent support cast. Take Roenick out and the offense is vastly different. So, after some tinkering, I weighed the positions as follows: 1F (9), 2F (5), 3F (3), 1D (5), 2D (3), G (6) to come up with a total team score.

I ended up with these weights because it generated a team rank that came close to the classic/AJ rankings, with the exceptions below. The exceptions make sense when analyzed:

Winnipeg - The biggest exception is that Winnipeg vaults into Tier 1, instead of the expected Tier 3. Housley actually ranks as the #1 Defenseman and Selanne the #6 Forward, and weighing those guys 6 and 3 times more is what drives up WPG's ranking. However, they don't have depth, and they are also known to have chemistry issues. From AJ’s analysis, "Although front loaded with superstars such as Phil Housley and Teemu Selanne, the Jets are not a premier team in the league. Their lack of depth and chemistry, chiefly at the forward position, allow opponents to key in on the speedy duo in an attempt to limit their damage. In the hands of a one on one specialist though, Housley and Selanne are as potent as any duo in the league."

Dallas also drops, mainly due to their abysmal Defense and Goalie ratings. My opinion here is that people do well with Dallas using the "best defense is offense" strategy, mainly utilizing Modano and Courtnall's great speed together. Manual goalie in human play can also help alleviate some of that rating noise.

Lastly, Edmonton falls to Tier 4, given the lack of skill outside of Klima. "The main issue with the Oilers forward unit is that every player aside from Klima has a weakness that keeps them from being an upper echelon player". But the dynamic of Klima with Todd (low weight bruiser) and Simpson (big shot wing) do much better than the raw calculations suggest.

NYR & PHI also hover around the fringes of their tiers, each calculating to move up one tier -- the NYR being calculated as TIER II and PHI Tier III. Again, these are close enough and will probably continue to shift around as more classic results are added into this analysis.

2zmJ0Q2.png

SECTION IV– Results

Based on all this data, this is how I break down the NHL'94 teams. The tiers are arbitrary, and open for debate (particularly Tiers II & III), but overall I think this is a solid representation of team ranks:

TIER I (the strongest)

CHI
DET
BUF
MTL
CGY (Classic Results in Tier II)

TIER II (strong)

VAN (Classic Results in Tier I)
BOS
DAL
WPG
TOR (Classic Results in Tier III)

TIER III (good teams, competitive)

QUE
LA (Classic Results in Tier II)
EDM
NYR

TIER IV (flawed, weak teams)

PHI
HFD
PIT
STL
WSH

TIER V (poor teams)

NJ
NYI
SJ
TB

TIER VI (The worst)

FLA
OTW
ANH

Below is the calculated team rankings (they differ from team strength)
2zmJ0Q2.png


Appendix - Individual Player Ratings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there was a way to truly approve this thread, I'd do it right now. Nice work.

Although I think we could add something more concerning the goalies. They can make a huge difference for good or for ill and so it can be worth talking about IMO. Maybe if we also add Smoz' analysis, things shape up differently for the other teams. It's quite possible that some teams will become bolstered and players become stronger with the bug fix: Chicago stays on as No. 1 on the added benefit that Steve Smith and Chirstian Ruutu become factors and Roenick is still a very relevant player despite being brought down to earth physically (Seriously, just look at his stats in Blitz! o.O). Both LA and Edmonton can get large benefits because both starting pairs of d-men become a lot stronger and a few of their forwards will be able to play with their stars a lot better now (Isn't it great, Klima?! :D ). 3 of the 4 teams on the state of New York (Rangers, Islanders and Devils) also get a lot of improvements thanks to their big players playing as adverstised and Buffalo can still match up, though you need some more skill in order to get the big trio (Mogilny, LaFontaine and Hawerchuk) working. Same thing with Detroit, though Coffey will get to wreck havoc a lot more often now.

Other teams that benefit from the bug fix: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, St. Louis, Washington, Montreal, Toronto, Boston, Quebec, Vancouver and Calgary.

There are some teams that don't change much due to depth and other factors. Hartford doesn't make the cut because while Zalapski and Weinrich are as good a pair as you can get (And they're pretty good, mind you), the depth on forwards beyond Cassells, Sanderson and Verbeek is rather lacking when it comes to skill and it's a bit tough to be able to make some of the role players accountable. Winnipeg is good enough, but there aren't that many changes with their players besides Selanne being a bit tougher to bring down due to being the 'heaviest' of the speedsters and Thomas Steen gaining a bit of relevance. Dallas barely makes the cut because of their overall talent, though at the very least Tinordi does get an improvement to warrant being a starter and their depth is just okay.

Vancouver, curiously enough, loses out some of the stout resistance with their lighter guys (Bure, Ronning and a few others), but their defensemen and some of their other forwards (Geoff Courtnall and Trevor Linden) become stronger thus it's a good tradeoff, though Bure is still quite relevant just like Roenick, so he stays where he is as a starter.

Some people like xot82, Halifax and me have a bit of working knowledge with the SNES version and Smoz' analysis may well apply with it as well. Just ask if you need some stuff cleared up.

Edited by RedWingDevil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This looks better than any University projects Ive ever did.

Bravo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

awesome work. really, great job. I love it. I just hope this doesn't convince anybody to try to take my Oilers from me ;-)

Edited by PRoBob38

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice.

But the teams' ranking don't take for account strenght of coaches.

It makes the math virtually useless.

WPG gets the shaft again.

TOR

BOS

DAL

Better than

WPG

QUE

Whaaattttt.

Edited by The Russian Rocket

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is amazing.

Nice.

But the teams' ranking don't take for account strenght of coaches.

It makes the math virtually useless.

WPG gets the shaft again.

TOR

BOS

DAL

Better than

WPG

QUE

Whaaattttt.

He only took teams with >100 games, which means they likely had 3+ different coaches, in order to minimize this issue.

Not sure why WPG sucks so bad in classic, though! Could be that some inexperienced coaches don't know to put guys like Davydov and Luciano on, so Steen drags them down (and Zhamnov to a lesser extent). Same with Quebec, using Nolan instead of Kovalenko or Kamensky..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a fantastic post. you used science, thats impressive. This is something that needs to be saved and is easily accessible to anyone and everyone.

I think another thing that should be taken into consideration not only in my ratings, but also in the scientific ones is team AI. teams like calgary, quebec, and winnipeg are feast or famine teams with their AI. Teams like chicago, toronto, montreal, and boston seem to have a more consistent AI and can put the screws to other teams more often despite a lack of elite talent or depth.

Perhaps a home and away split? It'd be interesteing to see if any diifferences arise there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is amazing.

He only took teams with >100 games, which means they likely had 3+ different coaches, in order to minimize this issue.

Not sure why WPG sucks so bad in classic, though! Could be that some inexperienced coaches don't know to put guys like Davydov and Luciano on, so Steen drags them down (and Zhamnov to a lesser extent). Same with Quebec, using Nolan instead of Kovalenko or Kamensky..

Still. Some coaches have preferences, and guys end up using the same teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great work KingRaph! Really awesome job.

I may well end up with BUF this classic...................so expect their rating to drop dramatically! lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for the positive feedback, I had a lot of fun putting this together, and I'm glad to see you're enjoying it! It's even a sticky!

This looks better than any University projects Ive ever did.

Ditto.

But the teams' ranking don't take for account strenght of coaches.

Of course. But the idea is if two coaches of equal skill level played each other, there would be an advantage if one used a higher tier than the other.

Not sure why WPG sucks so bad in classic, though! Could be that some inexperienced coaches don't know to put guys like Davydov and Luciano on, so Steen drags them down (and Zhamnov to a lesser extent). Same with Quebec, using Nolan instead of Kovalenko or Kamensky..

That's true -- I also think controlling and fully utilizing a 6 speed guy like Selanne(the main weapon) is not easy for inexperienced guys. Or using Housley as an offensive weapon.

I think another thing that should be taken into consideration not only in my ratings, but also in the scientific ones is team AI. teams like calgary, quebec, and winnipeg are feast or famine teams with their AI. Teams like chicago, toronto, montreal, and boston seem to have a more consistent AI and can put the screws to other teams more often despite a lack of elite talent or depth.

Perhaps a home and away split? It'd be interesteing to see if any diifferences arise there.

Fantastic idea regarding team AI -- such an overlooked topic. I guess AI attributes like awareness, checking, etc. would be a place to start. But I'm not sure how you would measure AI success?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is very impressive, the most in depth statistical analysis of the game, ever made. Very well thought out and organized in an easy to read layout.

My hats off to you, king.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Outstanding analysis king. The only real surprise is edm ranked higher then la.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Outstanding analysis king. The only real surprise is edm ranked higher then la.

Yeah, i'd take LA all day long over EDM!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Outstanding analysis king. The only real surprise is edm ranked higher then la.

My guess would be that good coaches pick EDM because they know they aren't too bad, but bad coaches pick LA thinking they are good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My guess would be that good coaches pick EDM because they know they aren't too bad, but bad coaches pick LA thinking they are good.

That confirms me as a bad coach then! lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LA>EDM for sure

gretz is super beast and so many options upfront, granato sand robit donao

zhit steady on d

shitty goaltending but if ur good at gc ull survive

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LA vs EDM -- The AJ rankings score those two teams nearly the same (applying the 3,2,1 weights on F,D,G), with LA benefiting from offense, EDM on defense/goalie. However, the classic results and the calculated ratings both have LA rated much higher than EDM. I'd agree too that LA is better than EDM, especially when you start factoring in manual goalie play.

I also like to think of it in tiers, instead of slicing each of the teams individually. Meaning, two opponents of similar skill can beat each other equally, on average, using ANY of the tier III teams (WPG, QUE, EDM, LA & NYR), but you would see a clear advantage if one chose a TIER II team (CGY, VAN, TOR, BOS, & DAL). Not too say that the teams or the tiers are set in stone, but that's the idea.

Update 2.0 coming after the Fall'11 Classic results are in -- this whole thing may fall apart! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phenomenal work king

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i just read this. this is amazing. this is the reason this forum is awesome. the work that people actually put in to keep this game alive just blows my mind sometimes lol. awesome job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I updated my original post with the following:

  • Updated results through Spring'12 Classic
  • New charts showing team ranks by each classic season
  • New Calculated Overall Team Ratings
  • Individual Player Ratings (top 200) Appendix
  • Reformatted using forum code (no MS Word)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bumping awesome thread because it deserves to be read more

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still amazing

The accuracy is incredible as far as team ratings. The last five classic winners have all been In the top tier of teams other then one season with Vancouver which is right on the brink.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What an amazing work!!! I'm really impressed! Thank you man!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it would be time to update this a notch. Something just screams for a minor change in the listings. In my mind a few things need to be changed in the attribute weighing. Now that CB has come out it warrants to drop down the emphasis on weight (even though I'm still bad with that too). Also stickhandling has been very low on standards and definately needs to move up a notch. It's the main resistance on B-checks and adds up to a couple of other important things too. While in relatively I did not change my weight value it's decreased in the overall emphasis on skills. And I'm actually possibly being a bit conservative here to what I really think, I might emphasize sth and pass a bit more +1 to each as with agility and there is the hanging question with RGH does it really make you cherrypick more.


Offence:


Weight: 5

Agility: 6

Speed: 10

Shot Power: 8

Shot Accuracy: 4

Pass Accuracy 4

Stick Handling: 6

OA: 1

DA: 1

Chk: 1

Rgh: 1

Agr: 1


Below is my unofficial tier list for teams, this is just out of the hat without deeper analyzing and teams in specific tier are in no set order. Might come back to this later with some more thought. For example I would have a real hard time choosing the Oilers before STL as of this moment. Klima 5 speed might be the difference maker between top coaches, but overall performance of the team is so much better with STL than with EDM for me. I also think that STL can be more effective than TOR on scoring goals. Better supporting cast for that Howizter on Hull, but Toronto better defensively. Real tough choise that would be not like in the current rankings. Even if we would discredit STL due to earlier horrible win percentages a team like Toronto is due for a drop. I'd take Quebec or even Philly over Toronto.


Tier 1:

Chi,Det,Buf,Van,Mtl


Tier2:

Cgy,Bos,Dal,Wpg


Tier3:

Que,Phi,La,Nyr,Stl,Tor,Edm,Hfd


Tier4:

Pit,Nj,Nyi,Wsh


Tier5:

Sj,Tb,Fla,Ott,Ana


It would be a good time open up some talks on this and the emphasis as GDL XII is also closing up. Make players more aware. A player like Hogue is easier to control than Bondra and comparing their skills speed 5 is enough difference to 4 already, Bondra with 4 agility really makes his speed 6 not that good, even though you get some breakaways with it, that's all there can be. It doesn't mean one should pick Hogue over Bondra, but maybe test them how you prefer it and feel playing with it. And better to not leave 5+ speed players to top tier A players but building the team takes more in to account that that obviously. =)

Edited by Depch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it would be time to update this a notch. Something just screams for a minor change in the listings. In my mind a few things need to be changed in the attribute weighing. Now that CB has come out it warrants to drop down the emphasis on weight (even though I'm still bad with that too). Also stickhandling has been very low on standards and definately needs to move up a notch. It's the main resistance on B-checks and adds up to a couple of other important things too. While in relatively I did not change my weight value it's decreased in the overall emphasis on skills. And I'm actually possibly being a bit conservative here to what I really think, I might emphasize sth and pass a bit more +1 to each as with agility and there is the hanging question with RGH does it really make you cherrypick more.
Offence:
Weight: 5
Agility: 6
Speed: 10
Shot Power: 8
Shot Accuracy: 4
Pass Accuracy 4
Stick Handling: 6
OA: 1
DA: 1
Chk: 1
Rgh: 1
Agr: 1
Below is my unofficial tier list for teams, this is just out of the hat without deeper analyzing and teams in specific tier are in no set order. Might come back to this later with some more thought. For example I would have a real hard time choosing the Oilers before STL as of this moment. Klima 5 speed might be the difference maker between top coaches, but overall performance of the team is so much better with STL than with EDM for me. I also think that STL can be more effective than TOR on scoring goals. Better supporting cast for that Howizter on Hull, but Toronto better defensively. Real tough choise that would be not like in the current rankings. Even if we would discredit STL due to earlier horrible win percentages a team like Toronto is due for a drop. I'd take Quebec or even Philly over Toronto.
Tier 1:
Chi,Det,Buf,Van,Mtl
Tier2:
Cgy,Bos,Dal,Wpg,Que,Phi
Tier3:
La,Nyr,Stl,Tor,Edm,Hfd
Tier4:
Pit,Nj,Nyi,Wsh
Tier5:
Sj,Tb,Fla,Ott,Ana
It would be a good time open up some talks on this and the emphasis as GDL XII is also closing up. Make players more aware. A player like Hogue is easier to control than Bondra and comparing their skills speed 5 is enough difference to 4 already, Bondra with 4 agility really makes his speed 6 not that good, even though you get some breakaways with it, that's all there can be. It doesn't mean one should pick Hogue over Bondra, but maybe test them how you prefer it and feel playing with it. And better to not leave 5+ speed players to top tier A players but building the team takes more in to account that that obviously. =)

I've been thinking about updating this as well. There's a few things going on here though. The team rankings on this post will still hold true for the general population of players. It's why the Classic results correlate with the calculations and why this is a "statistical look".

Understanding (and using effectively) C/B check, understanding individual player stick handling, etc. requires a skill level of player much more advanced than your average player and that applies to a small percentage of players -- likely those who have been playing consistently online for over a year, in draft leagues, who have taken some time to digest everything.

In my opinion, there should be a general team ranking, and then perhaps an "elite" team ranking. Main differences between the two would be a much lower value on goalies (Roy/Belfour still great, but they are not as valuable in high-level play) and lower value on weight. With C/B, as mentioned, there should be an updated or alternative team analysis to AJ's write-ups. I can also come up with an individual preference generator that would rank teams based on how you input attribute values. It'd all be formulaic, but at least something.

Again, if you pluck two average players, who casually play the game vs. their friends, etc. I believe these rankings still hold true. If you step this up to elite players, there would be some differences. Even in your example, most "tiers" of teams are the same. While I don't personally understand Philly in tier 2, individual preferences are just that.

Finally, there is also a completely different discussion that I would love to see -- GDL draft strategy.

Strategy based on position (high picks vs mid vs low)

What player to take in each round based on your position and availability?

What position is more valuable GIVEN your draft spot -- 1F, 2F, 1D, G, 2D/3F?

Understanding drafting player trade-offs based on ADP

Should you trade pure draft spots and what are they worth?

Building a team concept, addressing strengths and weaknesses

Understanding the competition (trading, drafting of certain top coaches)

Mock 24 lineups based on no-trades. Would be a good reference for your team given your starting draft position.

Is there any value in rounds 7-8?

Do I have to show up for rounds 10-12? :lol:

Anyway, I'd be happy to contribute to an article like that. As you can see, I love this stuff!

Having said that, the next GDL will be different with the knowledge of C/B. Fatty skilled d-men should go higher than previous ADP, and lower-skilled weight bugger should go lower.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been thinking about updating this as well. There's a few things going on here though. The team rankings on this post will still hold true for the general population of players. It's why the Classic results correlate with the calculations and why this is a "statistical look".

Understanding (and using effectively) C/B check, understanding individual player stick handling, etc. requires a skill level of player much more advanced than your average player and that applies to a small percentage of players -- likely those who have been playing consistently online for over a year, in draft leagues, who have taken some time to digest everything.

In my opinion, there should be a general team ranking, and then perhaps an "elite" team ranking. Main differences between the two would be a much lower value on goalies (Roy/Belfour still great, but they are not as valuable in high-level play) and lower value on weight. With C/B, as mentioned, there should be an updated or alternative team analysis to AJ's write-ups. I can also come up with an individual preference generator that would rank teams based on how you input attribute values. It'd all be formulaic, but at least something.

Again, if you pluck two average players, who casually play the game vs. their friends, etc. I believe these rankings still hold true. If you step this up to elite players, there would be some differences. Even in your example, most "tiers" of teams are the same. While I don't personally understand Philly in tier 2, individual preferences are just that.

Finally, there is also a completely different discussion that I would love to see -- GDL draft strategy.

Strategy based on position (high picks vs mid vs low)

What player to take in each round based on your position and availability?

What position is more valuable GIVEN your draft spot -- 1F, 2F, 1D, G, 2D/3F?

Understanding drafting player trade-offs based on ADP

Should you trade pure draft spots and what are they worth?

Building a team concept, addressing strengths and weaknesses

Understanding the competition (trading, drafting of certain top coaches)

Mock 24 lineups based on no-trades. Would be a good reference for your team given your starting draft position.

Is there any value in rounds 7-8?

Do I have to show up for rounds 10-12? :lol:

Anyway, I'd be happy to contribute to an article like that. As you can see, I love this stuff!

Having said that, the next GDL will be different with the knowledge of C/B. Fatty skilled d-men should go higher than previous ADP, and lower-skilled weight bugger should go lower.

I agree, Phi should be in tier 3 and also Que too, making the tier 2 only 4 teams of Cgy,Bos,Dal,Wpg and then a larger tier 3 of Que,Phi,La,Nyr,Stl,Edm,Tor,Hfd (edited). This happened because of trying to balance the teams out to having even number of teams in tiers, or relatively close.

I'm a bit torn on should we have a list for common player and elite players separatedly. Ultimately you would want to play to the highest potential unless being a completely casual player. But even then I think the teams should be ranked to their utmost highest potential rather than a casual look.

Yea, we must open a GDL thread for discussions. Like I don't want any top tier A player getting 2 first round picks this year or in the future, just makes it bad. My experiment in Blitz9 with going goalie first is a strong statement that goalies should not be taken at first round, for no one unless you go like me and want to experiment it, but it won't help much in the top tier game and that's where everyone wants to aim.

Edited by Depch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I will trash all my previous speculation on teams and how to modify them with the already written thesis. This is not the list that tells how it is, just how I view things. This list is based more on the playing lineup and very little on the goalies. I'm not including roster depth as that has only little of value with linechanges off. I'm not using results to combine this, as seasons have different strenghts and team results can be linked to the player playing with the team.
Tier 1 (Best)
Detroit
Tier 2 (Competitive)

Vancouver

Boston

Chicago

Dallas

Buffalo

Los Angeles

Ny Rangers

Montreal

Calgary
Tier 3 (Average)
Toronto
Quebec
Winnipeg

Philadelphia

Edmonton
Tier 4 (Challenging)
Hartford
St Louis
Pittsburgh

New Jersey

Ny Islanders
Washington
Tier 5 (Weak)
San Jose
Tampa Bay
Tier 6 (Crap)
Anaheim
Ottawa
Florida
15.9.2015 Dropped down Chicago a notch after my exis a few weeks ago with Seth and seeing some of the results in the tournament as well.
4.10.2015 Moved NY Rangers to tier 2 and dropped philly to 3
21.12.2015 Created a new tier for the teams between challenging and clear crap teams. Made multiple changes to team orders.
3.11.2016 Multiple changes after a long experience of CB. Leaving only one team in top category, the only team with no true handicaps, but I think there are teams with better chemistry in competitive tier, but Detroit has loads to work around with to match each coach. Chicago is no match for Detroit as Roenick has no 1st round material support on offence. Vancouver & Dallas with poor defence in player attributes. Buffalo & Calgary with chemistry problems for _me_ at least. Boston with lack of 5 speed, other than that it's superb and fun to play with. Rangers with it's fatty lineup when using their skilled players, but it can be a strenght as well to a degree. Los Angeles with it's poor goalie will kill players with poor manual. Montreal with it's great chemistry but no true star players and lack of shooting and speed 5+. Some of the average tier and challenging tier are interchangeable to me. I'm struggling with Winnipeg and just can't get the chemistry going on, it's very challenging for me, but I cannot drop them there. Hartford has great chemistry to go for average tier. I enjoy playing with New Jersey a lot and it has a great team chemistry to go with to challenge even better teams, also NYI offence brings me sometimes very good results. If it wasn't for Stl 9 weight defence for both of the serviceable guys I'd have them in average tier and Pittsburgh while I love playing with Mario and it's team defence the lack of offensive support in terms of agility is menacing at times.
Edited by Depch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still can't see Philly in the same tier as LA, BOS, DAL. Surprised you put Pittsburgh so low. Yeah, they are heavy, but loaded with skill (compared to SJ or TB).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now