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 ice—the 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
- VAN▲ 4
- OTT▲ 1
Fallers
- CAR▼ 1
- ANA▼ 1
- EDM▼ 1
- VGK▼ 1
- BOS▼ 1
Power Rankings (Model-Derived Strength)
| # | Trend | Team | Strength | Narrative | Off% | Def% | Goal% | Form% | Last 10 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ▲ 1 | OTT | 54.0% | Working uphill every night in net | 75 | 62 | 12 | 73 | 6-4 |
| 2 | ▼ 1 | CAR | 53.6% | Can beat you in multiple ways | 97 | 84 | 75 | 97 | 8-2 |
| 3 | — | PIT | 53.4% | The definition of variance | 91 | 97 | 22 | 84 | 7-3 |
| 4 | — | COL | 52.6% | The ultimate enigma this season | 88 | 78 | 91 | 44 | 4-6 |
| 5 | — | PHI | 52.5% | Opponents scoring at will | 62 | 14 | 3 | 22 | 3-7 |
| 6 | — | MTL | 52.4% | Solid offensive foundation | 78 | 78 | 38 | 69 | 6-4 |
| 7 | — | CBJ | 52.4% | Unpredictable to a fault | 84 | 88 | 84 | 100 | 9-1 |
| 8 | — | UTA | 52.3% | Winning tight games through discipline | 66 | 94 | 44 | 81 | 7-3 |
| 9 | — | TBL | 52.1% | No weaknesses to exploit—the total package | 94 | 100 | 94 | 94 | 8-2 |
| 10 | — | MIN | 52.0% | Finding ways to win despite limitations | 69 | 66 | 100 | 91 | 8-2 |
| 11 | — | BUF | 51.7% | Dangerous when all cylinders are firing | 72 | 91 | 53 | 73 | 6-4 |
| 12 | — | FLA | 51.2% | Need more production up front | 38 | 19 | 41 | 38 | 4-6 |
| 13 | ▲ 4 | VAN | 51.2% | Due for positive regression eventually | 41 | 3 | 56 | 3 | 2-8 |
| 14 | ▼ 1 | ANA | 51.1% | Wildly inconsistent—capable of anything | 50 | 28 | 47 | 88 | 8-2 |
| 15 | ▼ 1 | EDM | 51.1% | Goaltending below league standard | 100 | 58 | 31 | 56 | 5-5 |
| 16 | ▼ 1 | VGK | 50.5% | Searching for scoring touch | 34 | 69 | 9 | 25 | 3-7 |
| 17 | ▼ 1 | BOS | 50.4% | Grinding out results the hard way | 47 | 78 | 19 | 62 | 6-4 |
| 18 | — | NSH | 50.3% | Better days ahead, hopefully | 53 | 34 | 6 | 19 | 3-7 |
| 19 | — | WSH | 50.0% | Would be .500 without elite goaltending | 59 | 50 | 97 | 52 | 5-5 |
| 20 | — | LAK | 49.8% | Hard to find positives right now | 31 | 34 | 59 | 38 | 4-6 |
| 21 | — | DET | 49.8% | Hard to win when you can't score | 25 | 53 | 50 | 52 | 5-5 |
| 22 | — | TOR | 49.6% | Wildly inconsistent—capable of anything | 44 | 47 | 88 | 31 | 4-6 |
| 23 | — | SJS | 49.6% | Middling results across the board | 56 | 41 | 16 | 47 | 4-6 |
| 24 | — | DAL | 49.5% | A different team every night | 81 | 44 | 72 | 78 | 7-3 |
| 25 | — | SEA | 49.1% | Hard to play against | 28 | 72 | 69 | 66 | 6-4 |
| 26 | — | CGY | 49.1% | Defensive breakdowns costing them games | 12 | 25 | 62 | 38 | 4-6 |
| 27 | — | NJD | 48.7% | Need better play between the pipes | 16 | 14 | 28 | 28 | 4-6 |
| 28 | — | NYI | 48.5% | Goalie can only do so much with this group | 9 | 58 | 81 | 59 | 6-4 |
| 29 | — | WPG | 48.2% | In a rut and can't get out | 22 | 34 | 78 | 16 | 3-7 |
| 30 | — | CHI | 48.1% | Slumping badly despite talent | 19 | 22 | 34 | 12 | 3-7 |
| 31 | — | STL | 47.3% | Tank season in full effect | 3 | 9 | 25 | 8 | 2-8 |
| 32 | — | NYR | 46.0% | Counting down to the offseason | 6 | 6 | 66 | 8 | 2-8 |
Percentiles show where each team ranks league-wide (100 = best). Off% = offensive quality, Def% = defensive quality, Goal% = goaltending, Form% = recent performance.