Post-Game Talk: 11/19/13 Boston @ Rangers

[SnowblindNYR]

If we could finish, that game might have been 4 or 5 to 2. Then everyone would be talking about how amazing Hank played. A goal tender can't be blamed for a loss, he played well, but this team needs to finish and capitalize on their chances.

Why would anyone say that Hank played amazing? At best no one would be talking about the goals he gave up, but what did he do that was so amazing last night? Even if you want to say that neither goal was soft.

 

[SA16]

I just did some math with real numbers. Granted I took extremes, but these were still real numbers and realistic in the case of Ottawa and Toronto. I took the #1 team when it came to shots on goal and multiplied it by the worst shooting percentage of a team and the last team in shots on goal and multiplied it by the best shooting percentage of a team. So I used 4 numbers of real teams last season. The team that shot the puck the most times if they shot it with the lowest percentage scored 2.33 GAA, the team that shot the puck the least and shot it with the highest percentage scored 2.97 times. That's a HUGE difference. Looks like there IS a drastic difference. Unless you're saying a team shooting the most in the league has a higher probability of having a high shooting percentage. That was not the case last season. Ottawa shot the puck the most and had the lowest shooting percentage. Toronto the 3rd least and had the highest shooting percentage. Shots and percentage don't have anything to do with each other. So it's possible to not score a lot with lots of shots and vice versa.

You're taking outliers and using them as the normal.

 

[egelband]

Ok it wasn't a clean breakaway, but Callahan was completely ineffective on it. He barely could get a stick on his legs. He didn't impede the attacker's progress whatsoever - he needed to be making body contact or close enough to light/interfere with his stick. I would have felt just as comfortable on that breakaway. It was a good goal.

Just read Hank in the last 9 games has a 1.68 gaa, .938 sv% along with a shutout. I could see if he was letting soft goals in late in the third but he's not, a very small number of the goals I consider were soft. But those happen to every goalie. Goalies get scored on.

It seems like for some, if anything goes in on Hank, it's a soft goal and he let them down. Even if it's the only goal he let in with still 30 mins left to play.

People need to seriously get off Hank.

Yep. I agree with you, sir. There's a lot of parity and sometimes **** happens. This team is pretty good and playing well. Let's enjoy and hope the opportunities start going in!

 

[McRanger]

In the games this season, how many times have the Rangers had the better goalie?

In other words, regardless of outcome, how often have Lundqvist/Talbot/Biron outplayed their counterpart?

More than previous seasons? Less? About the same?

 

[Unpredictable1]

It was a soft backhanded shot five hole. That's not the kind of shot most players get on a breakaway if someone's not impeding you. Sometimes, players go backhand forehand and slide a backhand between the legs, but he didn't even do that.

The problem is, while Hank is not allowing a lot of goals his team isn't allowing a lot of opportunities. He also gave up a soft goal in at least 3 one goal losses (Ana, NJ, Bos). Two of those he really didn't face much, he did have some tougher chances against NJ. It's not one game.

So to confirm on your part, because our offense isn't generating anything, Hank letting anything by him is costing us the game?

You're reaching with that breakaway goal analysis.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

In the games this season, how many times have the Rangers had the better goalie?

In other words, regardless of outcome, how often have Lundqvist/Talbot/Biron outplayed their counterpart?

More than previous seasons? Less? About the same?

Thats both impossible to quantify and answer.

Bottom line is, Lundqvist's #'s have been stellar the last 10 games or so. He should have more W's than he does, and its because the guys in front of him can't score. Same old song and dance.

Where is the outrage that we are involved in games that have 3 cumulative goals total like in years past? Chances don't count for **** on the scoreboard.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Yep. I agree with you, sir. There's a lot of parity and sometimes **** happens. This team is pretty good and playing well. Let's enjoy and hope the opportunities start going in!

So you are happy that the team continues to lose games but "play well" by your standards? What a ****ed up world.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

You're taking outliers and using them as the normal.

Well there are two teams like that and that's a HUGE gap. That's a 0.6 GAA cushion where you can take a combination that's much closer in rank and end up with the similar results. The best you can say is that teams tend to score more usually if shoot more. However, that may be the usual, but it's not some sort of ridiculous anomaly. Considering amount of shots is not related to shooting percentage (or at least significantly) it seems random on whether a team with a high shots against average will have the lowest or highest shot percentage. I'd say that team is just as likely to have the highest shot percentage as the lowest, in a vacuum without knowing what their skill level is. I guess, "just as likely" may be a bit of a stretch, maybe teams that shoot a lot tend to do that because they have a better offense and thus would tend to have a higher shooting percentage. That said unless proven that there's a strong correlation of that I would think it's insignificant.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

So to confirm on your part, because our offense isn't generating anything, Hank letting anything by him is costing us the game?

You're reaching with that breakaway goal analysis.

Well, since he has a disproportionate responsibility as a goalie and as a top player at his position, and the team did half their job (not allowing many good chances against), he's disproportionately more responsible. Plus, the offense isn't one player. Hank is more responsible than any one player, add to that that we played great decent for the vast majority of the game and he was a huge reason for the loss.

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

What a ****ed up world.

It's the way the word is now. Participation trophies. Kids sports where they don't keep score.

 

[Unpredictable1]

Well, since he has a disproportionate responsibility as a goalie and as a top player at his position, and the team did half their job (not allowing many good chances against), he's disproportionately more responsible. Plus, the offense isn't one player. Hank is more responsible than any one player, add to that that we played great decent for the vast majority of the game and he was a huge reason for the loss.

You can, and will, take your opinion to the grave (which is all it is) and no one will convince you otherwise - I respect that to some extent. Cheers.

 

[Thirty One]

So you are happy that the team continues to lose games but "play well" by your standards? What a ****ed up world.

I can't speak for him, but I'm happy the Rangers are playing well (by my standards, at least), not because it's some moral victory, but because I think it will lead to wins in the future.

 

[McRanger]

Thats both impossible to quantify and answer.

Bottom line is, Lundqvist's #'s have been stellar the last 10 games or so. He should have more W's than he does, and its because the guys in front of him can't score. Same old song and dance.

Where is the outrage that we are involved in games that have 3 cumulative goals total like in years past? Chances don't count for **** on the scoreboard.

I wasn't looking for a quantified answer. I was looking for people's opinions.

People seem intent on discussing Hank so some perspective is obviously needed. Lundqvist has been the best goalie in the world for a while, I am sure his being can survive a small amount of discussion on an internet message board without exploding.

Scoring has nothing to do with goaltending so I have no idea why you brought it up. Not every topic is intrinsically linked at its core.

"Callahan needs to stop making blind passes."
"Callahan? Callahan! Forget Callahan! Michael Del Zotto has been a failure on the Power Play and the Rangers don't win enough Wednesday night games!"

See how annoying and idiotic that is? If you don't want to discuss Hank then simply remove yourself from the conversation.

 

[McRanger]

I can't speak for him, but I'm happy the Rangers are playing well (by my standards, at least), not because it's some moral victory, but because I think it will lead to wins in the future.

Could you edit out the logical parts of your post and replace them with cursing, emoticons and bizarre and misplaced social commentary?

You post seems... off.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

So you are happy that the team continues to lose games but "play well" by your standards? What a ****ed up world.

I think people assume that a team that plays well will likely have the law of averages go their way and start winning. Not sure I agree, but it's not as sinister as you make it out to be.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

You can, and will, take your opinion to the grave (which is all it is) and no one will convince you otherwise - I respect that to some extent. Cheers.

I never said my opinion was the objective truth. I just don't get how people always defend him no matter what. When you are his status you should be getting disproportional praise and criticism.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

I wasn't looking for a quantified answer. I was looking for people's opinions.

People seem intent on discussing Hank so some perspective is obviously needed. Lundqvist has been the best goalie in the world for a while, I am sure his being can survive a small amount of discussion on an internet message board without exploding.

Scoring has nothing to do with goaltending so I have no idea why you brought it up. Not every topic is intrinsically linked at its core.

"Callahan needs to stop making blind passes."
"Callahan? Callahan! Forget Callahan! Michael Del Zotto has been a failure on the Power Play and the Rangers don't win enough Wednesday night games!"

See how annoying and idiotic that is? If you don't want to discuss Hank then simply remove yourself from the conversation.

The idiotic part is that you make some sort of plea that we should be discussing core issues with this team, and then turn around and say we should be discussing Lundqvist.

Last year it was Tortorella, this year - for some stupid reason - its Lundqvist.

This team is 27th in the league in scoring goals. Want your core issue? There is it. Same spot its always been - right at the top.

 

[RangersHank*]

I never said my opinion was the objective truth. I just don't get how people always defend him no matter what. When you are his status you should be getting disproportional praise and criticism.

Maybe you wouldnt cry about him if the team scored some goals. Amazing how you complain about Hank giving up 2 goals when we scored 1. Why couldnt we score another goal?

 

[Thirty One]

This team is 27th in the league in scoring goals.

Just can't shake the Tortorella effect.

 

[RangersHank*]

The idiotic part is that you make some sort of plea that we should be discussing core issues with this team, and then turn around and say we should be discussing Lundqvist.

Last year it was Tortorella, this year - for some stupid reason - its Lundqvist.

This team is 27th in the league in scoring goals. Want your core issue? There is it. Same spot its always been - right at the top.

this. 100%

 

[Thirty One]

Maybe you wouldnt cry about him if the team scored some goals. Amazing how you complain about Hank giving up 2 goals when we scored 1. Why couldnt we score another goal?

Renney.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

I never said my opinion was the objective truth. I just don't get how people always defend him no matter what. When you are his status you should be getting disproportional praise and criticism.

Theres times he deserves some blame, but overall, Lundqvist has been beyond outstanding for 8 friggin years.

Bringing him up after last night's game, where he would've needed to pitch a shutout to win the game, is whats stupid.

 

[RangersHank*]

Theres times he deserves some blame, but overall, Lundqvist has been beyond outstanding for 8 friggin years.

Bringing him up after last night's game, where he would've needed to pitch a shutout to win the game, is whats stupid.

Agreed. good post as always. i've lurked for a few years and youre a pretty good poster

 

[Killem Dafoe]

Why would anyone say that Hank played amazing? At best no one would be talking about the goals he gave up, but what did he do that was so amazing last night? Even if you want to say that neither goal was soft.

He might not have had an amazing game but if we won 5-2 no one would be complaining about him, I guarantee you that.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Agreed. good post as always. i've lurked for a few years and youre a pretty good poster

No no, just a whiner and a complainer here.