GDT: #14 - 11/02/17 | RANGERS @ lightning | 7:30 - MSG

[Claxton]

Sensing a 4-2 Rangers win and AV's job secured till the new year.

This franchise is pure torture right now.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

Because people still don't understand that just because he doesn't look like he's **** defensively, doesn't mean he isn't **** defensively. He bleeds shots against like crazy. Just because he's not bumbling around the ice and falling over himself doesn't mean he's not a mediocre player.

And some don't understand that hockey is a game of roles. Judging a defensive defenseman on their corsi is beyond flawed. This is how you get dumb decisions like giving Brendan Smith 4 years at 4.35M.

Some people have really distorted the changes in the game. I think the teams that so radically buy into those changes are the teams that are struggling, and I think it shows up in the standings. The teams that are good have players with a variety of playing styles. Our GM went the opposite, brought in the puck moving crew that gets abused in their own zone, Staal would be gone as well if it wasn't for his buyout. People here were sure our defense was fixed, yet as early in this season shows, you need guys who are tough to play against, who can physically match up against top forwards. Simply getting guys who skate well and move the puck quickly out of the zone, and up the ice does nothing if the team can't actually defend when the other team has the puck. This idea that improving our corsi a few shots per game makes us a better team is flawed. NHL hockey is competitive, these games are close, adding a few corsi masters or subtracting a few with bad corsi on its own does little, the margins are so thin at this level. The difference are the players who make plays that help you win, its not having players with +/- CF for a game. The former is hard to quantify, the latter is easier, so I understand why some like the latter, but lets not get things confused here, a player "bleeding shots against" means literally nothing on its surface. Whether a player is good defensively does, something that specifically using corsi to judge makes little sense.

 

[WeRa]

Tavares would be a nice addition

Nice, but unreal... 8years, > $10M...

 

[Vinny DeAngelo]

And some don't understand that hockey is a game of roles. Judging a defensive defenseman on their corsi is beyond flawed. This is how you get dumb decisions like giving Brendan Smith 4 years at 4.35M.

Some people have really distorted the changes in the game. I think the teams that so radically buy into those changes are the teams that are struggling, and I think it shows up in the standings. The teams that are good have players with a variety of playing styles. Our GM went the opposite, brought in the puck moving crew that gets abused in their own zone, Staal would be gone as well if it wasn't for his buyout. People here were sure our defense was fixed, yet as early in this season shows, you need guys who are tough to play against, who can physically match up against top forwards. Simply getting guys who skate well and move the puck quickly out of the zone, and up the ice does nothing if the team can't actually defend when the other team has the puck. This idea that improving our corsi a few shots per game makes us a better team is flawed. NHL hockey is competitive, these games are close, adding a few corsi masters or subtracting a few with bad corsi on its own does little, the margins are so thin at this level. The difference are the players who make plays that help you win, its not having players with +/- CF for a game. The former is hard to quantify, the latter is easier, so I understand why some like the latter, but lets not get things confused here, a player "bleeding shots against" means literally nothing on its surface. Whether a player is good defensively does, something that specifically using corsi to judge makes little sense.

I don't think Corsi is meant to be a judge of defensive ability.. It skews more offensive if you ask me. But thats not the point I think we all kind of bought into the Shattenkirk is good at defense because his advance stats say so.. Advanced stats right now are flawed in understanding the game. I get that theoretically they should account for a lot of stuff(hitting, puck movement etc), but i don't think they do well enough.

With Shattenkirk is pretty obvious to see he's good in 1 zone. The offensive zone. He doesnt skate the puck particularly better than average. His breakout passes aren't better than average. His defensive zone ability to below average. He is elite in the offensive zone running the point. Thats why he translates so well as a PPQB. Asking him to play top 4 defense without a good shutdown partner is begging for mistakes to happen. He needs to be utilized properly and in the offensive zone.

 

[Richard Banger]

I don't think Corsi is meant to be a judge of defensive ability.. It skews more offensive if you ask me. But thats not the point I think we all kind of bought into the Shattenkirk is good at defense because his advance stats say so.. Advanced stats right now are flawed in understanding the game. I get that theoretically they should account for a lot of stuff(hitting, puck movement etc), but i don't think they do well enough.

With Shattenkirk is pretty obvious to see he's good in 1 zone. The offensive zone. He doesnt skate the puck particularly better than average. His breakout passes aren't better than average. His defensive zone ability to below average. He is elite in the offensive zone running the point. Thats why he translates so well as a PPQB. Asking him to play top 4 defense without a good shutdown partner is begging for mistakes to happen. He needs to be utilized properly and in the offensive zone.

He doesn't skate up the puck because this coach is mentally challenged and makes him stretch pass everything.

This is a good defense the problem is they play in the worst possible system ever created.

 

[Vinny DeAngelo]

He doesn't skate up the puck because this coach is mentally challenged and makes him stretch pass everything.

This is a good defense the problem is they play in the worst possible system ever created.

I'm not claiming our 6 is a bad group or that the system isn't holding them back.. I'm just saying shattenkirk has clear defined strengths and weaknesses. His skating has never been a strength for him. Its a mistake to assume he is an offensive defenseman in the same vein of karlsson or yandle(who have great wheels and rely on that to create advantages). Shattenkirk instead relies on in zone play and smart passes/shots to generate offense. 2 different types of offensive defensemen IMO

 

[Levitate]

My point about Girardi is that his advanced stats bear out the conclusion that a reasonable person should draw if they watch him closely. It became glaring on the Rangers and yes he does look better when he's not asked to play that kind of system, but he still is a guy who is bad at moving the puck and gives up a lot of shots against because he spends a lot of time "defending" which is NOT A GOOD THING FOR A DEFENSEMAN THIS CONCEPT IS NOT HARD.

He doesn't even have the "oh but he plays against the hardest competition" excuse anymore.

re: Shattenkirk, I think most people knew that his advanced stats were reflective not of his pure defensive ability (positioning, 1 on 1 defense, etc) but of that fact that throughout his career he's been able to spend more time playing in the offensive zone than the defensive zone. That's what you want out of him, it's up to the coaches to figure out how to best use these players and I don't think they have figured that out yet.

 

[Alluckks]

We’re going against the top line in the league so naturally AV is gonna trot out Holden-Kampfer

Or Holden with McDonagh and Kampfer with Skjei or Staal

The best way to control that line would be to have responsible forwards and then Defensemen that control possession when we do get any opportunity for handle on the puck. Nash DD Grabner as a line with McDonagh Shattenkirk could shut that down.

 

[haveandare]

Our fourth line should be able to blow by their third pairing. I really liked that line last game, insane speed at all positions

 

[EdJovanovski]

5-2 NYR
Statement game

 

[SnowFort]

Fun fact of the day: half of our wins this season has been against AHL goalies. And we were not exactly dominating those games either.

 

[Ori]

Smith`s thoughts recently.

 

[FJB]

Nice, but unreal... 8years, > $10M...

Nash cost $7.8m for several years now and he only had two solid years (while disappearing in the playoffs). Tavares is vastly superior. If you get the chance to sign him, give him the bank.

 

[Zucc36]

Girardi with a great game and a goal...

 

[aufheben]

I'm sacred.

 

[Krams]

Nash cost $7.8m for several years now and he only had two solid years (while disappearing in the playoffs). Tavares is vastly superior. If you get the chance to sign him, give him the bank.

At the time of his acquisition Nash had 6 years left at $7.8. The difference between 6/7.8 and 8/10 (I think JT will get more) is significant and the idea of Tavares at 35 years old costing us $10m+ in cap space makes me cringe.

 

[aufheben]

My point about Girardi is that his advanced stats bear out the conclusion that a reasonable person should draw if they watch him closely. It became glaring on the Rangers and yes he does look better when he's not asked to play that kind of system, but he still is a guy who is bad at moving the puck and gives up a lot of shots against because he spends a lot of time "defending" which is NOT A GOOD THING FOR A DEFENSEMAN THIS CONCEPT IS NOT HARD.

He doesn't even have the "oh but he plays against the hardest competition" excuse anymore.

re: Shattenkirk, I think most people knew that his advanced stats were reflective not of his pure defensive ability (positioning, 1 on 1 defense, etc) but of that fact that throughout his career he's been able to spend more time playing in the offensive zone than the defensive zone. That's what you want out of him, it's up to the coaches to figure out how to best use these players and I don't think they have figured that out yet.

This is true. An interesting way of evaluating defensemen these days may not be separating them into offensive and/or defensive categories, but looking at their overall impact on their team, and whether that impact is positive or negative.

 

[Mandar]

I'm sacred.

Kinda like a spirit stick or the Dead Sea Scrolls or something?

 

[aufheben]

Kinda like a spirit stick or the Dead Sea Scrolls or something?

I think this is over my head.

Edit: OH LOL

 

[Fitzy]

And some don't understand that hockey is a game of roles. Judging a defensive defenseman on their corsi is beyond flawed. This is how you get dumb decisions like giving Brendan Smith 4 years at 4.35M.

Some people have really distorted the changes in the game. I think the teams that so radically buy into those changes are the teams that are struggling, and I think it shows up in the standings. The teams that are good have players with a variety of playing styles. Our GM went the opposite, brought in the puck moving crew that gets abused in their own zone, Staal would be gone as well if it wasn't for his buyout. People here were sure our defense was fixed, yet as early in this season shows, you need guys who are tough to play against, who can physically match up against top forwards. Simply getting guys who skate well and move the puck quickly out of the zone, and up the ice does nothing if the team can't actually defend when the other team has the puck. This idea that improving our corsi a few shots per game makes us a better team is flawed. NHL hockey is competitive, these games are close, adding a few corsi masters or subtracting a few with bad corsi on its own does little, the margins are so thin at this level. The difference are the players who make plays that help you win, its not having players with +/- CF for a game. The former is hard to quantify, the latter is easier, so I understand why some like the latter, but lets not get things confused here, a player "bleeding shots against" means literally nothing on its surface. Whether a player is good defensively does, something that specifically using corsi to judge makes little sense.

It's amusing, because when this whole deal was getting started all of the Corsi people were claiming it was a new tool to be used in conjunction with other forms of analysis rather than a be all end all.

And yet, I see the same posters using 99% Corsi to determine the value of a player. It's like they've decided its their niche, and are going to ride it for analysis in pretty much every situation.

 

[Richard Banger]

I'm not claiming our 6 is a bad group or that the system isn't holding them back.. I'm just saying shattenkirk has clear defined strengths and weaknesses. His skating has never been a strength for him. Its a mistake to assume he is an offensive defenseman in the same vein of karlsson or yandle(who have great wheels and rely on that to create advantages). Shattenkirk instead relies on in zone play and smart passes/shots to generate offense. 2 different types of offensive defensemen IMO

No one said his skating was great or anything. He's an average NHL skater. Everything offensively he's above average. He doesn't rely on his skating which is why he can easily play until his late 30s. Unlike Yandle when he slows down he's done for.

 

[Mac n Gs]

Quick someone start the Boyle over Stralman debate so we can go full circle on hfRongos.

 

[Siddi]

I'm sacred.

Somebody put himself on a piedestal today

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

Quick someone start the Boyle over Stralman debate so we can go full circle on hfRongos.

That was awful. Somehow Stralman who had 38 points in 3 season was our answer the moment he put up 39 in 1 season paired with Hedman haha

 

[Ori]

I remember.. ..Callahan was moved 24 hours after AV talked positive about him as cpt. lol
So many x players in Tampa.. And tat sweet jebuz blind turnover pass by Girardi among other things in last year playoffs - it`s like it happened yesterday!