NHL Power Rankings | Analytics-Based Ratings
Our NHL power rankings use model-derived strength ratings. Each team is rated by their predicted win probability against a league-average opponent on neutral iceβthe same models that power our game predictions and playoff simulations.
Strength rating = average of P(win at home vs average) and P(win away vs average). Percentiles compare each category against the league.
Trend compares ranks to one week ago. Narratives are generated based on performance profile across offense, defense, goaltending, and recent form.
Top Movers (7 days)
Risers
- EDMβ² 1
- WPGβ² 1
Fallers
- VANβΌ 1
- DALβΌ 1
Power Rankings (Model-Derived Strength)
| # | Trend | Team | Strength | Narrative | Off% | Def% | Goal% | Form% | Last 10 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | β | OTT | 53.8% | Skaters doing their job, goalies not so much | 75 | 62 | 12 | 75 | 6-4 |
| 2 | β | CAR | 53.3% | Dangerous offensive team with solid defensive structure | 94 | 84 | 75 | 94 | 8-2 |
| 3 | β | PIT | 53.3% | High ceiling, low floor, everything in between | 91 | 97 | 22 | 81 | 7-3 |
| 4 | β | TBL | 52.0% | One night world-beaters, next night pushovers | 97 | 100 | 94 | 98 | 9-1 |
| 5 | β | COL | 51.9% | The definition of a playoff-caliber team | 88 | 80 | 91 | 53 | 5-5 |
| 6 | β | MIN | 51.8% | Chemistry trumping raw talent lately | 66 | 66 | 100 | 91 | 8-2 |
| 7 | β | CBJ | 51.7% | Inconsistency is the only consistent thing | 84 | 89 | 84 | 98 | 9-1 |
| 8 | β | BUF | 51.7% | Strong defensive structure compensating for average offense | 69 | 94 | 53 | 78 | 7-3 |
| 9 | β | PHI | 51.6% | Defensive structure in shambles | 59 | 16 | 3 | 22 | 3-7 |
| 10 | β | MTL | 51.6% | Offensive upside keeps them competitive | 78 | 73 | 41 | 69 | 6-4 |
| 11 | β | UTA | 51.4% | Consistent performers game after game | 72 | 89 | 28 | 72 | 6-4 |
| 12 | β² 1 | EDM | 51.2% | Need better play between the pipes | 100 | 58 | 31 | 41 | 4-6 |
| 13 | βΌ 1 | VAN | 51.2% | In a rut and can't get out | 34 | 3 | 56 | 6 | 2-8 |
| 14 | β | FLA | 51.0% | Defense giving up too many chances | 41 | 19 | 47 | 36 | 4-6 |
| 15 | β | ANA | 50.9% | Defensive structure needs work | 44 | 31 | 34 | 84 | 8-2 |
| 16 | β | WSH | 50.3% | Punching above their weight thanks to the netminder | 62 | 47 | 97 | 59 | 6-4 |
| 17 | β | BOS | 50.1% | Grinding out results the hard way | 47 | 73 | 19 | 62 | 6-4 |
| 18 | β | VGK | 50.1% | The crease is the Achilles heel | 38 | 80 | 9 | 47 | 4-6 |
| 19 | β | NSH | 50.1% | Rock bottom may not be far off | 50 | 34 | 6 | 19 | 3-7 |
| 20 | β | DET | 49.5% | Hard to win when you can't score | 28 | 52 | 50 | 50 | 5-5 |
| 21 | β | SJS | 49.4% | Too easy to score against | 56 | 38 | 16 | 44 | 4-6 |
| 22 | β | SEA | 49.3% | Hard to win when you can't score | 25 | 69 | 69 | 66 | 6-4 |
| 23 | β | LAK | 49.3% | Hard to find positives right now | 31 | 23 | 59 | 31 | 4-6 |
| 24 | β | TOR | 49.3% | Hot-and-cold with no middle ground | 53 | 44 | 88 | 16 | 3-7 |
| 25 | β | NJD | 48.9% | Offensive struggles defining the season | 22 | 12 | 44 | 28 | 4-6 |
| 26 | β | CGY | 48.8% | Defensive breakdowns costing them games | 12 | 28 | 62 | 36 | 4-6 |
| 27 | β | NYI | 48.1% | Stellar netminding deserves better support | 9 | 58 | 81 | 56 | 6-4 |
| 28 | β | CHI | 47.9% | Rock bottom may not be far off | 16 | 23 | 38 | 12 | 3-7 |
| 29 | β² 1 | WPG | 47.3% | Maddening inconsistency defines this team | 19 | 41 | 78 | 25 | 4-6 |
| 30 | βΌ 1 | DAL | 47.2% | Jekyll and Hyde vibes all season | 81 | 52 | 72 | 88 | 8-2 |
| 31 | β | STL | 47.1% | Lottery odds looking increasingly important | 3 | 9 | 25 | 6 | 2-8 |
| 32 | β | NYR | 45.7% | Playing for draft position at this point | 6 | 6 | 66 | 6 | 2-8 |
Percentiles show where each team ranks league-wide (100 = best). Off% = offensive quality, Def% = defensive quality, Goal% = goaltending, Form% = recent performance.