Sportsnet - Top 20 Centers. The List you Will Love to Hate

[nik-]

they can rate him the 100th center in the league as long as we win games.

[Keselke]

Toews : Defence: 11.29/25

Anze Kopitar : Defence: 13.67/25

Henrik Sedin : Defence: 14.16/25

Okay.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

Rankings are poor?

Okay, since only you watching allows only you to have a valid opinion.

There were 1230 games played last year. Plus Playoffs.
There were 3690 games played last three years. Plus Playoffs.
There were 6150 games played last five years. Plus Playoffs.

How many did you watch?

And it's a real shame people think Hero Charts can fill in the gaps.

[Five-hole]

Dang, I sure wish Treliving had had this research before paying Monahan more than Barkov, Scheifele, and MacKinnon. What are our stats guys even up to anyway? Jeez. No wonder Johnny isn't signed.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Five-hole

Dang, I sure wish Treliving had had this research before paying Monahan more than Barkov, Scheifele, and MacKinnon. What are our stats guys even up to anyway? Jeez. No wonder Johnny isn't signed.

Barkov got less, Barkov is a ufa a year earlier. Add another 7.75 to that contract.

[Five-hole]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Barkov got less, Barkov is a ufa a year earlier. Add another 7.75 to that contract.

Isn't that what I said? It's been a long day already, sorry.

[Oil Stain]

Guys like Johansen, Carter, Stamkos, Duchene, and Stastny have good arguments for being on the list as well.


Stamkos in particular is a little wonky being left off.


I guess there isn't really much separation to choose from between 10-35 when it comes to the best centers.

[JerryUnderscore]

I generally like advanced stats and put some stock in them. But one thing I've found is that there's simply so many stats out there that you can build whatever narrative you want and find that stats to back it up. Then, if someone else uses different stats and metrics than you to tell a different narrative, you can generally hit them up with "sample size!" or some other buzz word.

In this article, each player is using different "stats" (Sedin's chart looks at "Overall Passes", "Passes to the Slot" and "OZ Passes" whereas MacKinnon uses "Possession Driving Plays", Carry Ins per Dump In" and "Line Carries") to determine their usefulness.

Nothing but subjective opinions (which is fine) about who the best centres in the game are.

[codynw]

For the better part of two months I’ve been crunching numbers for this project, and Bergeron is flat out the best defensive player in hockey, not just at his position, but any position

This is not surprising at all.

[codynw]

Originally Posted by JerryUnderscore

I generally like advanced stats and put some stock in them. But one thing I've found is that there's simply so many stats out there that you can build whatever narrative you want and find that stats to back it up. Then, if someone else uses different stats and metrics than you to tell a different narrative, you can generally hit them up with "sample size!" or some other buzz word.

In this article, each player is using different "stats" (Sedin's chart looks at "Overall Passes", "Passes to the Slot" and "OZ Passes" whereas MacKinnon uses "Possession Driving Plays", Carry Ins per Dump In" and "Line Carries") to determine their usefulness.

Nothing but subjective opinions (which is fine) about who the best centres in the game are.

Those charts are just the players strengths. This ranking uses the same stats for every player.

[JerryUnderscore]

Originally Posted by codynw

Those charts are just the players strengths. This ranking uses the same stats for every player.

Sure, I guess I just don't know how much stock I'd put in those specific stats.

I'd be really interested to see how he determined the various scores for each player.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

Ah yes. Because advanced stats inherently mean you don't watch much hockey.

Lets be totally honest here. Anyone and I mean anyone can look at the hero charts and derive conclusions without even seeing a single player ever play and lay down an order from best to worst and back it up with an argument supported by one of these fancy stats to which we aren't even clear on just how accurate they are on a whole.

Being able to watch the players play, look at the standard stats like SOG, ice time, goals, assists, +/-, and the general performance of the teams they play on is how it's been done forever and it's withstood the test of time. I have yet to see any evidence that advanced stats have made teams draft better players or make better free agent signings. I don't agree with the general order or some very good centers that were left off the list and these guys that make their lists based off those stats are just noise to me. That's just based on my opinion of watching as much as I can and not reading some random numbers that may or may not mean anything in the big picture of who's a better player.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

That they're cherry-picked statements that while technically true are functionally useless.

Oh...like using advanced stats to determine how good a player is!!

Got it.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Lets be totally honest here. Anyone and I mean anyone can look at the hero charts and derive conclusions without even seeing a single player ever play and lay down an order from best to worst and back it up with an argument supported by one of these fancy stats to which we aren't even clear on just how accurate they are on a whole.

Being able to watch the players play, look at the standard stats like SOG, ice time, goals, assists, +/-, and the general performance of the teams they play on is how it's been done forever and it's withstood the test of time. I have yet to see any evidence that advanced stats have made teams draft better players or make better free agent signings. I don't agree with the general order or some very good centers that were left off the list and these guys that make their lists based off those stats are just noise to me. That's just based on my opinion of watching as much as I can and not reading some random numbers that may or may not mean anything in the big picture of who's a better player.

It's the very reason why there is a bunch of established veterans who are looking for work right now through a PTO, where as in previous years they would have been given a contract based on reputation and previous accomplishments. It's also why some players are locked up forever at a young age. If you don't think this is happening in every GM office these days, then you're simply not paying attention.

Drafting is much more of a projection and speculation thing. No player at 18 is complete, and they play in leagues where the advanced stats are relatively meaningless. So no, it's not used nearly as much in drafting.

But for NHL player evaluations, advanced stats are playing a bigger and bigger role in the analysis of what a player's strengths and weaknesses are. You still scout the player and watch for what they do in game situations, but the advanced stats are another tool to help you evaluate.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Oh...like using advanced stats to determine how good a player is!!

Got it.

Right why use stats at all? Well I think Ferland is better thab Crosby because he hits like a truck against Kevin Bieksa!!!! And since Crosby plays out east I only saw him that one time Bennett was making a fool out of him last year so it's not like I am lying.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

It's the very reason why there is a bunch of established veterans who are looking for work right now through a PTO, where as in previous years they would have been given a contract based on reputation and previous accomplishments. It's also why some players are locked up forever at a young age. If you don't think this is happening in every GM office these days, then you're simply not paying attention.
.

You chalk this up to advanced stats, do you?

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

Right why use stats at all? Well I think Ferland is better thab Crosby because he hits like a truck against Kevin Bieksa!!!! And since Crosby plays out east I only saw him that one time Bennett was making a fool out of him last year so it's not like I am lying.

Yikes.

[Erick Estrada]

Good run there MMF. One away from the hat trick.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

You chalk this up to advanced stats, do you?

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Yikes.

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Good run there MMF. One away from the hat trick.

Jesus. Seriously?

A quick contrary statement backed up by nothing, and a one word response that says nothing.

You're right, he's a genius. :roll eyes:

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

Jesus. Seriously?

A quick contrary statement backed up by nothing, and a one word response that says nothing.

You're right, he's a genius. :roll eyes:

Don't roll your eyes at me young man.

Was asking why you chalk that up to advanced stats. It's literally the first time I've seen that correlation. The league was shifting younger almost immediately after the lockout in 2004-2005, before the Corsi Craze. I'd say it's a product of that more than anything.

GrandtedEV's post was so childish that's all the reply it deserved. The whole you must be a caveman or simplton because you don't subscribe to all the new statistics is so overplayed. Granted is just the latest of many running with that torch in and endless way.