2013-14 New York Rangers Breakup Day

[Clown Fiesta]

Well, clinging to leads would imply they actually held most of them, so...

Ofc they weren't actually 6 second shifts, but they weren't much longer; AV was over-managing the TOI in the 3rd period of Game 5, we couldn't [I should say 'wouldn't] get any sustained pressure in the O-zone. They'd get the puck deep, then go off for a change. We were playing not to lose, and what happens? The Kings tie the game and it goes to OT. They were literally just giving the puck to LA, then getting off the ice immediately. Shots were 12-3 that period, everyone saw it coming.

AV's TOI management was one of my favorite parts about his coaching these playoffs, until the SCF. Supposed to manage the ice time to save energy for the SCF, not keep doing it once you're there.

It's the same criticisms Vancouver fans had towards him.

They were at least 5x longer.

You can blame the coach or players all you want but to be honest LA put us in those situations far more often than we put ourselves there.

 

[aufheben]

Let's shake it up a bit:

IMO: The odds are that the Rangers will lose to the following teams in a Playoff series next year (with everything else being equal and little personnel added)

1)Tampa- With a starting goalie

2)Montreal with starting goalie

3)Boston

4)Pitt 50/50.

Let's not.

 

[aufheben]

They were at least 5x longer.

You can blame the coach or players all you want but to be honest LA put us in those situations far more often than we put ourselves there.

Exactly, that's 30 second shifts. I'm not "blaming" AV, just my opinion that I think Sutter out-coached him.

Yeah, give credit to the Kings, but when you play to not lose...you often end up losing. Playing to win and playing not to lose are very different. I mean, how were they supposed to get any O-zone pressure when they're being call off the ice immediately after getting the puck deep?

 

[Clown Fiesta]

Exactly, that's 30 second shifts. I'm not "blaming" AV, just my opinion that I think Sutter out-coached him.

Yes and what is a typical shift for an NHLer?

Exactly, that's 30 second shifts. I'm not "blaming" AV, just my opinion that I think Sutter out-coached him.

Yeah, give credit to the Kings, but when you play to not lose...you often end up losing. Playing to win and playing not to lose are very different. I mean, how were they supposed to get any O-zone pressure when they're being call off the ice immediately after getting the puck deep?

Playing in the D-zone is tiring, and they also didn't play 30 second shifts regardless. But when a team is outplaying you that bad it's hard to sustain any pressure. They weren't playing to lose as much as LA was playing to win. It's that simple.

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

I disagree. I think Thornton with Nash or Thornton with MSL would be ridiculous.

If we had another goal-scoring LWer and you could run x-Thornton-MSL as the second line, that'd be nuts.

But again, it's not happening. And **** Joe.

I don't think so. We need more goal scoring. He's not a big goal scorer. The only one holding Nash back is Nash himself... Stepan fed him quite well.

Maybe he could feed MSL but MSL is more of a passer himself. We need a guy who parks in front of the net, isn't afraid to sacrifice his body for tap ins, and thinks shot first.

Oreilly, 28 goals 36 assists. 23 years old. 6'0 200 pds.
Zibanejad, 16 goals 17 assists. 21 years old. 6'1 200 pds.

Size, shot first, youth, grittiness.

 

[aufheben]

Yes and what is a typical shift for an NHLer?

The rule of thumb is 45 seconds. Those extra 15 seconds could have been used to chase the puck after dumping it, rather than just getting off the ice early to save energy when you're down 3-0 in the SCFinal.

http://www.sportingcharts.com/nhl/stats/average-ice-time-per-shift/2013/

Even the lowest average shift for a player is above 30 seconds (~0:31). 800 players on that chart, and unsurprisingly if you go around the 400's, the average shift lengths are 45 seconds.

 

[Thirty One]

I don't think so. We need more goal scoring. He's not a big goal scorer. The only one holding Nash back is Nash himself... Stepan fed him quite well.

Maybe he could feed MSL but MSL is more of a passer himself. We need a guy who parks in front of the net, isn't afraid to sacrifice his body for tap ins, and thinks shot first.

Oreilly, 28 goals 36 assists. 23 years old. 6'0 200 pds.
Zibanejad, 16 goals 17 assists. 21 years old. 6'1 200 pds.

Size, shot first, youth, grittiness.

You think Ottawa is going to trade Spezza and Zibanejad? Who will play center for them?

 

[Clown Fiesta]

The rule of thumb is 45 seconds. Those extra 15 seconds could have been used to chase the puck after dumping it, rather than just getting off the ice early to save energy when you're down 3-0 in the SCFinal.

http://www.sportingcharts.com/nhl/stats/average-ice-time-per-shift/2013/

Even the lowest average shift for a player is above 30 seconds (~0:31). 800 players on that chart, and unsurprisingly if you go around the 400's, the average shift lengths are 45 seconds.

This is fine and dandy, my point was we always here about 30-45 second shifts 30 is short but my whole point was that your over exaggeration of short shifts was invalid. Now go look at the Rangers shifts.

Here is Game 5 for you http://www.nhl.com/scores/htmlreports/20132014/TV030415.HTM

Plenty of players with averages about 40+ seconds. This wasn't the issue, it was execution and being beat by a better team. The difference between a 45-50 second shift in a game where you can't sustain pressure because the other team is bearing down on you is literally the time it takes you to skate to your bench. Why did we ice it as often as we did? Wasn't because of short shifts, it was because of an inability by the Rangers players to counter that attack.

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

You think Ottawa is going to trade Spezza and Zibanejad? Who will play center for them?

That is a good point. I forgot Spezza is forcing their hand.

My point was to try and target young players with a particular body build, skill set, and mentality.

Bigger guys, unafraid to go to the net, who aren't afraid to shoot rather than pass, who will become part of the core rather than be quick fixes.

 

[Tawnos]

This is fine and dandy, my point was we always here about 30-45 second shifts 30 is short but my whole point was that your over exaggeration of short shifts was invalid. Now go look at the Rangers shifts.

Here is Game 5 for you http://www.nhl.com/scores/htmlreports/20132014/TV030415.HTM

Plenty of players with averages about 40+ seconds. This wasn't the issue, it was execution and being beat by a better team.

Yeah. I think the short shifts thing is somewhat of a myth against the Kings. Of course, they were keeping the puck in the Rangers zone for so much time, the Rangers never had much of a chance to get off after 25-30 seconds.

 

[Clown Fiesta]

Yeah. I think the short shifts thing is somewhat of a myth against the Kings. Of course, they were keeping the puck in the Rangers zone for so much time, the Rangers never had much of a chance to get off after 25-30 seconds.

I think we can all agree that a coach trying to keep his team fresh is a good idea, my point of contention is that no coach would say "give me short shifts, in our zone!". The Kings played really good hockey for stretches, most often in the 3rd. The frustrating thing is you could see the Rangers as the games moved on to OT and beyond start to benefit from those short shifts, the issue then was our lack of finish.

 

[aufheben]

This is fine and dandy, my point was we always here about 30-45 second shifts 30 is short but my whole point was that your over exaggeration of short shifts was invalid. Now go look at the Rangers shifts.

Here is Game 5 for you http://www.nhl.com/scores/htmlreports/20132014/TV030415.HTM

Plenty of players with averages about 40+ seconds. This wasn't the issue, it was execution and being beat by a better team. The difference between a 45-50 second shift in a game where you can't sustain pressure because the other team is bearing down on you is literally the time it takes you to skate to your bench. Why did we ice it as often as we did? Wasn't because of short shifts, it was because of an inability by the Rangers players to counter that attack.

Game 5:

NYR - Avg. Shift Length: 00:38
LAK - Avg. Shift Length: 00:43

Rangers who averaged at least 00:45+ shift lengths: Girardi, Richards, and McDonagh.

Kings who averaged at least 00:45+ shift lengths: Doughty, Kopitar, Gaborik, Brown, Martinez, Toffoli, and Carter.

Notice how their top forwards are getting above average shift lengths, and our only forward getting them is Brad ****ing Richards, who started the game on the 4th line.

The problem wasn't necessarily the length of the shifts, but in that 3rd period, our players were doing nothing more than 1) giving the Kings the puck, and 2) immediately getting off the ice after. It's no surprise that the shots were 12-3 that period, and the Kings scored the game-tying goal.

It was classic 'playing not to lose', and we all know how that strategy usually turns out. It was the same 3rd period as Game 4, where we squeaked one out cause Hank was in God-mode. This Kings team mounts comebacks like I've never seen a hockey team do in my life; Playing not to lose is literally the worst strategy to use against them.

What do we all say here when we have a lead? KEEP THE PRESSURE ON.

 

[haveandare]

Game 5:

NYR - Avg. Shift Length: 00:38
LAK - Avg. Shift Length: 00:43

Rangers who averaged at least 00:45+ shift lengths: Girardi, Richards, and McDonagh.

Kings who averaged at least 00:45+ shift lengths: Doughty, Kopitar, Gaborik, Brown, Martinez, Toffoli, and Carter.

Notice how their top forwards are getting above average shift lengths, and our only forward getting them is Brad ****ing Richards, who started the game on the 4th line.

The problem wasn't necessarily the length of the shifts, but in that 3rd period, our players were doing nothing more than 1) giving the Kings the puck, and 2) immediately getting off the ice after. It's no surprise that the shots were 12-3 that period, and the Kings scored the game-tying goal.

It was classic 'playing not to lose', and we all know how that strategy usually turns out. It was the same 3rd period as Game 4, where we squeaked one out cause Hank was in God-mode. This Kings team mounts comebacks like I've never seen a hockey team do in my life; Playing not to lose is literally the worst strategy to use against them.

What do we all say here when we have a lead? KEEP THE PRESSURE ON.

Exactly this.

Putting aside all the hair splitting about shift length - we all saw the players do that many, many times. Dump the puck then change. Once in a while is fine. Doing it constantly leads to exactly what we saw. You give the other team the puck and just wait for them to make you pay.

 

[aufheben]

Exactly this.

Putting aside all the hair splitting about shift length - we all saw the players do that many, many times. Dump the puck then change. Once in a while is fine. Doing it constantly leads to exactly what we saw. You give the other team the puck and just wait for them to make you pay.

And to add to that, LA is moving the puck through the neutral zone while you're in the middle of a line change. You can't expect to win the Cup by saying a Hail Mary and trying to squeak out wins while getting no shots in 3rd periods in consecutive games.

lol we were outshot 27-4 in the last two 3rd periods...

Again, not trying to pin the blame solely on AV, we had a few crucial players play like absolute fecal matter that series. TOI management, however, is the coach's responsible, and I feel that AV over-did it.

 

[Raspewtin]

Frankly I think the size issue was much more prevalent when it came to transitioning to offense than it was in any other capacity. The Rangers had a very hard time generating speed out of their end and through the neutral zone because the Kings simply clogged it up with their size and reach. It led to a lot of turnovers and bad stretch passes that wound up as icing. The Kings' size took away the bread and butter of the Rangers of transitioning with speed.

Sometimes you think "size" and think board play, but having a guy who can simply clear space on the rush is also very important. You simply can't skate around everyone in this league.

You're overrating their "size" here.

The Kings are incredible with their stick positioning. Part of the reason no one on this team could get a rebound is because they have to fight through an army of sticks to get to it. They're just brilliantly coached defensively.

 

[Pizza]

Agreed--and the one lesson I take from the finals is we have room for improvement in every single one of those areas.

Pretty sure the brain trust feels the same as you do. Which is good.

 

[Raspewtin]

Agreed--and the one lesson I take from the finals is we have room for improvement in every single one of those areas.

Every team has room for improvement everywhere.

 

[aufheben]

You're overrating their "size" here.

The Kings are incredible with their stick positioning. Part of the reason no one on this team could get a rebound is because they have to fight through an army of sticks to get to it. They're just brilliantly coached defensively.

Coaching also plays a role in slot/net-front presence; Players would defend the slot at all costs (also an over-used strategy, as the opposition would simply adjust to taking the point shot opportunities they were granted by that strategy), under Torts. That said, I think the presence of someone like McIlrath would have helped a lot in that regard, (not saying they should have played McIlrath in the playoffs, just that he's that kind of player).

 

[Clown Fiesta]

Game 5:

NYR - Avg. Shift Length: 00:38
LAK - Avg. Shift Length: 00:43

Rangers who averaged at least 00:45+ shift lengths: Girardi, Richards, and McDonagh.

Kings who averaged at least 00:45+ shift lengths: Doughty, Kopitar, Gaborik, Brown, Martinez, Toffoli, and Carter.

Notice how their top forwards are getting above average shift lengths, and our only forward getting them is Brad ****ing Richards, who started the game on the 4th line.

The problem wasn't necessarily the length of the shifts, but in that 3rd period, our players were doing nothing more than 1) giving the Kings the puck, and 2) immediately getting off the ice after. It's no surprise that the shots were 12-3 that period, and the Kings scored the game-tying goal.

It was classic 'playing not to lose', and we all know how that strategy usually turns out. It was the same 3rd period as Game 4, where we squeaked one out cause Hank was in God-mode. This Kings team mounts comebacks like I've never seen a hockey team do in my life; Playing not to lose is literally the worst strategy to use against them.

What do we all say here when we have a lead? KEEP THE PRESSURE ON.

I couldn't disagree with another individual more on anything ever.

Secondly, and this is probably the biggest thing. You may want to get your calculator re-calibrated the Rangers averaged 41 second shifts against the Kings 38 second shifts.

The Kings had exactly zero players average more than 44 second shifts in game 5.

I took it a step further, just for ***** and gigs.

Rangers 3rd period: 38.61 seconds on avg.
Kings 3rd period: 34 seconds on avg.

 

[Raspewtin]

If our god damn star players had played like our god damn star players, this would've gone to 7 games. Richards and Girardi, trash. Pure trash that final. Despicable performances from both of them. Nash had 3 ****ing goals. Bad luck or not, 3 god damn goals. Kreider gets beaten on TWO OT breakaways. Hagelin had a SH breakaway to end game 1. We hit like 4 posts in game 5. It's obviously completely unfair to expect this team to convert on every chance, but if they had finished an AVERAGE amount of their chances, we'd probably still be playing.

I really can't get behind this whole "more size and we win" crap. We need a fast center, and another d-man that can make a tape to tape pass, and not fumble it into an immediate give away.

I think that's a very overlooked part of why we lost, we have two defenseman that you can trust with a cross ice pass. McDonagh and Stralman. Two of our most important defensemen in Staal and Girardi are absolutely ****ing braindead with the puck. I know Girardi had a broken finger, but he was awful offensively to begin with. Moore and Klein are just fine for their 3rd pair roles, maybe even better. But when half our top 4 d can't move the puck for anything, your offense will choke out a little.

This has also been touched on, but dear god, replace Richards with a quick and talented center and this team scores an extra 20-25 goals over the course of next season. Even when he played well, he's so ****ing slow and behind the play. It forces MSL and Hagelin to play to his strengths. How many times is Hagelin offside because Richards takes too long to get to LA's blueline? Too many. Why have fast wingers when they're being dragged down by a center slower than ****?

This might fall directly in line with "we need size" to a degree, but wow, we need players that can score in different ways. Too many perimeter players, very few that can fight for their own space. And one of them just won't do it. One player big enough to muscle for a rebound could make a huge difference. I'll absolutely take a player like, I don't know, Bryan Bickell who can score 15 garbage goals a year that the rest of this team just can't score. This is an area where we .........ugh..........miss Callahan for sure. Getting those garbage goals in front of the net. They don't even have to necessarily be big, just be able to fight for their own space.

This is a great team that's very close to another final. Just improve on a few areas.

 

[BlaqICE]

Yes and what is a typical shift for an NHLer?



Playing in the D-zone is tiring, and they also didn't play 30 second shifts regardless. But when a team is outplaying you that bad it's hard to sustain any pressure. They weren't playing to lose as much as LA was playing to win. It's that simple.

I think the Rangers were "playing not to lose" in the 3rd periods. I say this because in all of the overtimes they seemed to play better than they did in the 3rd periods. If they were gassed in the 3rd they sure didn't show it in the overtimes.

 

[aufheben]

Originally Posted by Barbara Underhill
I couldn't disagree with another individual more on anything ever.

Secondly, and this is probably the biggest thing. You may want to get your calculator re-calibrated the Rangers averaged 41 second shifts against the Kings 38 second shifts.

The Kings had exactly zero players average more than 44 second shifts in game 5.

I took it a step further, just for ***** and gigs.

Rangers 3rd period: 38.61 seconds on avg.
Kings 3rd period: 34 seconds on avg.

You're right, I ****ed up the math, sorry. They were still playing not to lose that period though, and the 3rd in Game 4.

 

[Clown Fiesta]

You're right, I ****ed up the math, sorry.

Doesn't change how the Rangers were playing that 3rd period though. It was pretty obvious.

That's right, it changes nothing.

THE RANGERS GOT OUTPLAYED.

Some times you go into a shell and you lose because you should have kept your foot on the gas, other times you go into a shell because it's all you can do based on the other teams play. This was definitely one of those situations where the Rangers were clinging on because they had to not because they wanted to.

 

[Raspewtin]

Coaching also plays a role in slot/net-front presence; Players would defend the slot at all costs (also an over-used strategy, as the opposition would simply adjust to taking the point shot opportunities they were granted by that strategy), under Torts. That said, I think the presence of someone like McIlrath would have helped a lot in that regard, (not saying they should have played McIlrath in the playoffs, just that he's that kind of player).

But I mean, what good is a net front presence if they can't keep their space? Nash at the net front accomplishes nothing, because his balance is crap and can't keep the space he fought for. Same with Pouliot. Don't get me wrong, the dude fights real hard for his space and is a very hard worker, but his deer legs are just....laughable. He falls so often, it doesn't accomplish much if one crosscheck puts him on his ass.

Personally, if AV had a roster as multi-dimensional as the Kings, he could've adjusted a little better. But he deserves a lot of blame for some things he did this series.

I really REALLY hope McIlrath and Skjei develop. They're both huge, strong boys. Matt Greene and Willie Mitchell had a stellar series against the Rangers, they're strong as hell veterans who keep that crease clear. Our defense can't do that for ****. For all the love Stralman gets, he let King hangout in the crease for Mitchell's goal in game 2 and didn't even try to move him.

 

[aufheben]

How are they not going to get outplayed when their strategy is literally to give the Kings the puck, then get off the ice? People have been talking about how AV tries to sit on leads since before he even came to NYC.