Speculation: 2014 - 2015 New York Rangers :: Roster building / proposal thread

[Zuccarello Awesome*]

I hope it's not us but it's such a Slats move.

Me too, although I wouldn't totally hate it.

I still think we end up acquiring Joe Thornton though.

Brassard + a few NHL-ready prospects (take your pick: 2 or 3 of Miller, Allen, McIlrath, Kristo, Haggerty, Lindberg) gets it done IMO.

San Jose has the center depth to make a trade like that (Thornton, Pavelski, Couture, Hertl, Burrish, Marleau, Desjardins are all natural centers, and I'm pretty sure Kennedy and Wingels were drafted as centers as well). It's an embarrassment of riches as far as centers go over there.

If they want to hand the reigns over to Pavelski + Couture, and move away from the failed Thornton + Marleau era, they may be interested in a deal like this that gives them a 45-50 point center in Brassard who's still young and still a RFA, as well as 2-3 NHL-ready prospects who can step in and help the team right away.

 

[Zuccarello Awesome*]

That is a solid lineup I like that a lot. I think Paajarvi and Ribeiro can replace Pouliot and Rich and could potentially be even better (a player like Paajarvi is a player that AV makes big).

Like I said, I wouldn't totally hate it if we signed Ribeiro, but as far as Paajarvi goes, he's a guy with the raw skill and the natural size to be an impact player, and he was drafted as such (10th overall), but to this point it appears that he lacks the hockey IQ, or even the regular IQ to use those skills to be effective. He often seems to be skating aimlessly around the ice with no purpose or plan. He's totally lost in his own zone, and he's not overly physical. Basically, if he doesn't find his offensive game or a way to be a factor soon (this year or next), he's going to be a KHL player who never returns to the NHL IMO. He's just a dumb player. I really don't have any interest in him at this point. All potential, no brains.

 

[Fitzy]

Paajarvi is Sjostrom's long lost son.

 

[Tawnos]

Ok, then what were you talking about? It's not like Pouliot's conventional numbers were way up this year.

2010–11 79 13 17 30 0.38 ppg
2011–12 74 16 16 32 0.43 ppg
2012–13 34 8 12 20 0.59 ppg
2013–14 80 15 21 36 0.45 ppg

I wasn't talking about numbers at all.

I really don't think Pouliot was a different player than he has been in the past. The only real difference this season was what the expectations were. Those expectations were finally in line with his ability and things looked good as a result.

It isn't always about numbers with this stuff. First of all, there's an undeniable chemistry factor. McDonagh has it with Girardi. Stepan and Kreider seem to have some. The Brassard line had it with each other. If Brassard wasn't as good away from those players as the other players were away from him, it doesn't indicate a direct cause and effect on what made the line tick. They made each other better. That's what makes a good line. Second of all, the example we were talking about was Crosby-Dupuis. Crosby is so talented that, no matter who he's playing with, he's going to find a way to put up about the same numbers. However, when Dupuis is out there with him, he's much more comfortable. With Crosby, it's not going to result in a tangible result, necessarily. With Brassard, Pouliot and Zuccarello's effect on him was the same, but since he isn't as talented, it results in better numbers for Brassard too. Back to Crosby... with Dupuis out there, you can see it in his game. When he's more comfortable, the team is more comfortable. Is it possible to quantify that in terms of GF/GA or W/L or even CF%? Probably not. It's something that's missing from all of these numbers and it's hugely, HUGELY important to team success. Probably in hockey more than any of the other sports we're talking about here.

 

[Thirty One]

Back to Crosby... with Dupuis out there, you can see it in his game. When he's more comfortable, the team is more comfortable. Is it possible to quantify that in terms of GF/GA or W/L or even CF%? Probably not. It's something that's missing from all of these numbers and it's hugely, HUGELY important to team success. Probably in hockey more than any of the other sports we're talking about here.

If they don't result in an increase in GF/GA or Corsi%, stats that measure positive impact on the ice, then what good is all that comfort that he gives them?

My point is you can see it in his game, but you can also see it in his results.

 

[Thirty One]

Re: chemistry, there was a time when suggesting Staal and Girardi split up on this board would result in a beheading. McDonagh and Girardi turned out to be better. Players tend to play better with good players. In many cases, certainly not all (Crosby/Dupuis is a good example), chemistry is just that.

 

[Zil]

I wasn't talking about numbers at all.

I really don't think Pouliot was a different player than he has been in the past. The only real difference this season was what the expectations were. Those expectations were finally in line with his ability and things looked good as a result.

Agreed.

It isn't always about numbers with this stuff. First of all, there's an undeniable chemistry factor. McDonagh has it with Girardi. Stepan and Kreider seem to have some. The Brassard line had it with each other. If Brassard wasn't as good away from those players as the other players were away from him, it doesn't indicate a direct cause and effect on what made the line tick. They made each other better. That's what makes a good line.

If Zucc and Pouliot perform just as well away from Brassard as they do with him, then I think it's pretty clear who's driving the play on the line. Good players create chemistry with their teammates through their play. If you gave McDonagh a better partner than Girardi, they'd undoubtedly find the same level of connection as you see between our current top pairing.

Second of all, the example we were talking about was Crosby-Dupuis. Crosby is so talented that, no matter who he's playing with, he's going to find a way to put up about the same numbers. However, when Dupuis is out there with him, he's much more comfortable. With Crosby, it's not going to result in a tangible result, necessarily. With Brassard, Pouliot and Zuccarello's effect on him was the same, but since he isn't as talented, it results in better numbers for Brassard too. Back to Crosby... with Dupuis out there, you can see it in his game. When he's more comfortable, the team is more comfortable. Is it possible to quantify that in terms of GF/GA or W/L or even CF%? Probably not. It's something that's missing from all of these numbers and it's hugely, HUGELY important to team success. Probably in hockey more than any of the other sports we're talking about here.

Crosby may have a level of comfort with Dupuis because they've been playing together for a while, but that doesn't make Dupuis the best guy to put on his wing. If your idea of an ineffable, unmeasurable, but entirely necessary chemistry between certain players was correct, then we wouldn't see roster turnover. General managers wouldn't continuously try and add better players if continuity chemistry was an important, overriding factor.

Sometimes the simplest explanation is the correct one. Just about anyone you put out there with Crosby is going to look like he has chemistry with him. That's what makes him a great player. There's nothing particularly special about Dupuis that a better player couldn't replicate or improve upon while on Crosby's wing.

 

[Tawnos]

If they don't result in an increase in GF/GA or Corsi%, stats that measure positive impact on the ice, then what good is all that comfort that he gives them?

My point is you can see it in his game, but you can also see it in his results.

With Crosby, it extends to when he's not on the ice too. That was what you can't quantify. Maybe that's part of the team's problem in the playoffs... I don't know.

You could see it in Brassard's game too and it showed up in his numbers. My problem is that the interpretation you give based on Corsi numbers... that Pouliot was not a passenger on that line... obfuscates what I see as the reality of the situation. Pouliot was a passenger on that line, in that he relied on the more talented and effective offensive players, with whom he had good chemistry, to make him a better offensive player himself. You gave Pouliot's Corsi numbers when he wasn't playing with Brassard and they were about the same as with. A lot of those numbers were early in the year, when Pouliot was downright bad. I don't blame him. Not only was a lot of the team downright bad, but he was being asked to perform in a role that's above his head (2LW) while Hagelin was out. The fact that his Corsi was good wasn't producing any meaningful result on the scoresheet or on whether or not his lines was having positive shifts, because he wasn't playing on a line with chemistry and he was being asked to do too much.

 

[Tawnos]

If Zucc and Pouliot perform just as well away from Brassard as they do with him, then I think it's pretty clear who's driving the play on the line. Good players create chemistry with their teammates through their play. If you gave McDonagh a better partner than Girardi, they'd undoubtedly find the same level of connection as you see between our current top pairing.

I think the bolded is a huge, huge fallacy. Really, it's mis-analyzing the data. You can't compare what Zuccarello and Pouliot do away from Brassard with what they do with him. The conditions are not the same. Without him, they might approach the way they play differently than they do with him. Numbers aren't going to tell you that. One of the hallmarks of chemistry is the effortlessness with which the players perform to their ability. It's more noticeable with Zuccarello, but he had an extra little push in his game when he was playing with other players. With Brassard, things are easier.

I'm not sure there is a better partner for McDonagh than Girardi. Their games compliment each other so well. McDonagh is turning into a special case though, much like Crosby. I'm not saying he's on the same level at his position as Crosby is respectively. Just that there are players who transcend these issues.

Crosby may have a level of comfort with Dupuis because they've been playing together for a while, but that doesn't make Dupuis the best guy to put on his wing. If your idea of an ineffable, unmeasurable, but entirely necessary chemistry between certain players was correct, then we wouldn't see roster turnover. General managers wouldn't continuously try and add better players if continuity chemistry was an important, overriding factor.

Sometimes the simplest explanation is the correct one. Just about anyone you put out there with Crosby is going to look like he has chemistry with him. That's what makes him a great player. There's nothing particularly special about Dupuis that a better player couldn't replicate or improve upon while on Crosby's wing.

It's not about what Dupuis looks like. It's about what Crosby looks like. Besides, the bolded just isn't true. How do I know? I didn't see the Penguins making much of an effort to resign Stempniak (who I want here). Also, Crosby and Dupuis had that chemistry immediately.

And GMs try to protect chemistry as much as possible. Don't know where you came from with that. If they see a place to upgrade, they might sacrifice it, but it's a huge risk. We all should have learned that pretty well in the 2012-13 season.

 

[Thirty One]

With Crosby, it extends to when he's not on the ice too. That was what you can't quantify.

Could you elaborate?

You could see it in Brassard's game too and it showed up in his numbers. My problem is that the interpretation you give based on Corsi numbers... that Pouliot was not a passenger on that line... obfuscates what I see as the reality of the situation. Pouliot was a passenger on that line, in that he relied on the more talented and effective offensive players, with whom he had good chemistry, to make him a better offensive player himself. You gave Pouliot's Corsi numbers when he wasn't playing with Brassard and they were about the same as with. A lot of those numbers were early in the year, when Pouliot was downright bad. I don't blame him. Not only was a lot of the team downright bad, but he was being asked to perform in a role that's above his head (2LW) while Hagelin was out. The fact that his Corsi was good wasn't producing any meaningful result on the scoresheet or on whether or not his lines was having positive shifts, because he wasn't playing on a line with chemistry and he was being asked to do too much.

A lot of the beginning of the season stretch won't count in his 5-on-5 close numbers because the Rangers weren't close.

You say he was bad, but if the Rangers are consistently producing more shot attempts than the other team, how bad could he have been? And that's the rule, not the exception. He's been well-traveled, but his linemates consistently generate more shot attempts when he's on the ice. Either he's the luckiest player in the league, or he's doing something to drive possession.

 

[Zil]

With Crosby, it extends to when he's not on the ice too. That was what you can't quantify. Maybe that's part of the team's problem in the playoffs... I don't know.

What? Seriously I have no idea what you're trying to get at. The Penguins' problems in the playoffs stem from a lack of depth, poor defense, poor goaltending, and running into good teams. Plus, a fair amount of any individual playoff series comes down to luck.

You could see it in Brassard's game too and it showed up in his numbers. My problem is that the interpretation you give based on Corsi numbers... that Pouliot was not a passenger on that line... obfuscates what I see as the reality of the situation. Pouliot was a passenger on that line, in that he relied on the more talented and effective offensive players, with whom he had good chemistry, to make him a better offensive player himself.

If Pouliot's teammates were making him "a better offensive player" then why did he put up basically the same amount of points he's put up since 2010-11? And before you say you aren't talking about the numbers, I'm going to point out that if your definition of being a better offensive player doesn't actually lead to more offense then I'm not sure it's correct.

You gave Pouliot's Corsi numbers when he wasn't playing with Brassard and they were about the same as with. A lot of those numbers were early in the year, when Pouliot was downright bad. I don't blame him. Not only was a lot of the team downright bad, but he was being asked to perform in a role that's above his head (2LW) while Hagelin was out. The fact that his Corsi was good wasn't producing any meaningful result on the scoresheet or on whether or not his lines was having positive shifts, because he wasn't playing on a line with chemistry and he was being asked to do too much.

You're attributing meaning to randomness. A lot of this comes down to shooting percentages, which bounce around a lot, especially in a small sample.

Brassard's talent only really shines through on the powerplay. Last year, Pouliot's even strength points per 60 ranked 103 in the league at 1.75, whereas Brassard's ranked 178 at 1.43. If you stretch the sample out to seven years (2007-14), Pouliot still ranks 104 at 1.93, whereas Brassard drops to 231 at 1.66. Pouliot's the superior player 5 on 5.

 

[Tawnos]

Could you elaborate?

The Penguins play looser when Crosby is playing loose. I'm not sure if it's about the way he's acting on the bench or just inspiration by example.... or more likely both. It's just the way it is.

A lot of the beginning of the season stretch won't count in his 5-on-5 close numbers because the Rangers weren't close.

You say he was bad, but if the Rangers are consistently producing more shot attempts than the other team, how bad could he have been? And that's the rule, not the exception. He's been well-traveled, but his linemates consistently generate more shot attempts when he's on the ice. Either he's the luckiest player in the league, or he's doing something to drive possession.

I'm not just talking about the Western swing of the road trip. They played 4 games out of 10 prior to Hagelin coming back where the game wasn't close for large portions, if not the majority of them.

Someone remind me, when exactly did Pou-Brass-Zucc get put together? I seem to remember the first good stretch of the season the Rangers had was about Kreider-Stepan-Zuccarello having some good things going.

Also, I don't believe Corsi is a reasonable measure of possession, so I'm not going to agree on that last part.

 

[Zil]

I think the bolded is a huge, huge fallacy. Really, it's mis-analyzing the data. You can't compare what Zuccarello and Pouliot do away from Brassard with what they do with him. The conditions are not the same. Without him, they might approach the way they play differently than they do with him. Numbers aren't going to tell you that. One of the hallmarks of chemistry is the effortlessness with which the players perform to their ability. It's more noticeable with Zuccarello, but he had an extra little push in his game when he was playing with other players. With Brassard, things are easier.

If they put up points at the same rate and generate shots at the same rate, then nothing else really matters. You're delving into mysticism to justify yourself at this point. Zuccarello and Pouliot do the same things playing at even strength away from Brassard as they do with him.

I'm not sure there is a better partner for McDonagh than Girardi. Their games compliment each other so well. McDonagh is turning into a special case though, much like Crosby. I'm not saying he's on the same level at his position as Crosby is respectively. Just that there are players who transcend these issues.

McDonagh is a great player. He complements literally any NHL caliber defender.

It's not about what Dupuis looks like. It's about what Crosby looks like. Besides, the bolded just isn't true. How do I know? I didn't see the Penguins making much of an effort to resign Stempniak (who I want here). Also, Crosby and Dupuis had that chemistry immediately.

You can't have it both ways. Either there are players who "transcend these issues" or there aren't. And I did address how chemistry affects Crosby:

Crosby may have a level of comfort with Dupuis because they've been playing together for a while, but that doesn't make Dupuis the best guy to put on his wing.

Crosby would have the same comfort level with any player as good as or better than Dupuis, given any amount of time. It probably wouldn't take very long.

And GMs try to protect chemistry as much as possible. Don't know where you came from with that. If they see a place to upgrade, they might sacrifice it, but it's a huge risk. We all should have learned that pretty well in the 2012-13 season.

We didn't sink in 2012-13 because we lost chemistry. We sank because we lost depth. It's particularly concerning because we just did the same exact thing.

 

[Tawnos]

What? Seriously I have no idea what you're trying to get at. The Penguins' problems in the playoffs stem from a lack of depth, poor defense, poor goaltending, and running into good teams. Plus, a fair amount of any individual playoff series comes down to luck.

Read in context, please.

If Pouliot's teammates were making him "a better offensive player" then why did he put up basically the same amount of points he's put up since 2010-11? And before you say you aren't talking about the numbers, I'm going to point out that if your definition of being a better offensive player doesn't actually lead to more offense then I'm not sure it's correct.

Pouliot contributed to a line that produced 96 even strength points (obviously not all together, but enough for the point to stand). When has he ever done that before? You have to understand, me saying that Pouliot was the passenger on the line is not denigrating Pouliot or his game. It isn't saying that he was just hanging out while the other guys did all the work and he potted some points here and there. He was an important contributor to the line. My point is that the line only works because of the talent of the other two players. Of the three, he was the expendable one. Whether or not they find someone else to fulfill that role is another issue.

You're attributing meaning to randomness. A lot of this comes down to shooting percentages, which bounce around a lot, especially in a small sample.

Brassard's talent only really shines through on the powerplay. Last year, Pouliot's even strength points per 60 ranked 103 in the league at 1.75, whereas Brassard's ranked 178 at 1.43. If you stretch the sample out to seven years (2007-14), Pouliot still ranks 104 at 1.93, whereas Brassard drops to 231 at 1.66. Pouliot's the superior player 5 on 5.

I'm attributing meaning to the conditions under which he produced those numbers, which is really what the numbers are meant to lend context to, not the other way around.

Brassard has played way more minutes against better competition than Pouliot has in their respective careers (not just during Rangers time). Brassard is better able to maintain his level of play against tougher opponents than Pouliot is, which is why I'm more comfortable having Brassard as my 2C next year than I would have been with Pouliot as my 2LW. You might not agree with me, but management certainly does.

 

[eco's bones]

Pouliot benefited from two playmakers being on his line. Brassard and Zucc are both pass before shoot players. I wish Zucc was a little more selfish. Pouliot's size and skill level + physical play helped his linemates but he takes too many unnecessary penalties and he's not as well rounded as the two others--especially Zucc. The Oilers can play Benoit with other playmakers but this guy is never going to carry a line. A comparable would be what Moulson or Parenteau were to Tavares. He wasn't worth 5 years and $20 million. Stralman and Boyle were bigger losses.

Rangers are about capped out. They're going to have to do some replacing from within.

 

[Tawnos]

If they put up points at the same rate and generate shots at the same rate, then nothing else really matters. You're delving into mysticism to justify yourself at this point. Zuccarello and Pouliot do the same things playing at even strength away from Brassard as they do with him.

Group dynamics is not mysticism and that's really what we're talking about here. I don't know what you do for a living or what your background is, but if you've been successful as part of a team or running a team without a strong handle on group dynamics, I'm impressed. You must be so much of a natural at it that you don't even have to think about it at all.

We didn't sink in 2012-13 because we lost chemistry. We sank because we lost depth. It's particularly concerning because we just did the same exact thing.

Our depth stunk in 2011-12. I don't know what team you were watching. Dubinsky was the only player in the bottom-6 not playing above his head. The reason we sank in 12-13 is that our GM failed to recognize what made his team successful the year before. Namely, the team was greater than the sum of its parts. Which is a fancy way of saying chemistry. He gave Tortorella a collection of parts that didn't have that chemistry and it didn't work as well.

 

[Zuccarello Awesome*]

Group dynamics is not mysticism and that's really what we're talking about here. I don't know what you do for a living or what your background is, but if you've been successful as part of a team or running a team without a strong handle on group dynamics, I'm impressed. You must be so much of a natural at it that you don't even have to think about it at all.



Our depth stunk in 2011-12. I don't know what team you were watching. Dubinsky was the only player in the bottom-6 not playing above his head. The reason we sank in 12-13 is that our GM failed to recognize what made his team successful the year before. Namely, the team was greater than the sum of its parts. Which is a fancy way of saying chemistry. He gave Tortorella a collection of parts that didn't have that chemistry and it didn't work as well.

Bingo.

Outstanding post! Right on.

 

[Zil]

Pouliot contributed to a line that produced 96 even strength points (obviously not all together, but enough for the point to stand). When has he ever done that before?

You are entitled to your opinions, but you are not entitled to your own set of facts. Look at each member of that line's point totals since 2010-11: Pouliot (30, 32, 20, 36) and Brassard (47, 41, 29, 45) did what they always do. Their output has been basically unchanged regardless of their situation. The big difference is that Zuccarello had a huge breakout year, which I attribute more to his increased playing time and maturation than any other factor.

Brassard has played way more minutes against better competition than Pouliot has in their respective careers (not just during Rangers time). Brassard is better able to maintain his level of play against tougher opponents than Pouliot is, which is why I'm more comfortable having Brassard as my 2C next year than I would have been with Pouliot as my 2LW. You might not agree with me, but management certainly does.

Based on what? Brassard and Pouliot are both best suited as third liners. Quality of competition is a stat based on the amount of ice time coaches give their players, not corsi or fenwick. By that measure, Brassard and Pouliot faced respective QoC percentages of 28.4 and 28.2 last year. The year before that, when they were not even on the same team, they faced QoC percentages of 28.2 and 28.4 respectively. They're both third liners. You can spin it any way you want, but that's what they are.

Group dynamics is not mysticism and that's really what we're talking about here. I don't know what you do for a living or what your background is, but if you've been successful as part of a team or running a team without a strong handle on group dynamics, I'm impressed. You must be so much of a natural at it that you don't even have to think about it at all.

I believe in group dynamics when they deliver actual tangible benefits. If Brassard is actually making his teammates better then it should show up in his play somewhere or in his teammates' play. It's not because he doesn't. His teammates don't score more when playing with him. His teammates don't control the puck more when playing with him. He's essentially a neutral factor at even strength.

With Crosby and Dupuis, you can see how Dupuis benefits. The whole team's shooting percentage goes up whenever Crosby or Malkin is on the ice. It's not difficult to see the effect in the numbers because it's everywhere: Scoring, possession, shooting percentage, etc. With Brassard there's absolutely none of that. The one place he truly excels is on the powerplay where he ranked 57th in the league in scoring rate last year.

Our depth stunk in 2011-12. I don't know what team you were watching. Dubinsky was the only player in the bottom-6 not playing above his head. The reason we sank in 12-13 is that our GM failed to recognize what made his team successful the year before. Namely, the team was greater than the sum of its parts. Which is a fancy way of saying chemistry. He gave Tortorella a collection of parts that didn't have that chemistry and it didn't work as well.

From 11-12 to 12-13 we lost Dubinsky, Anisimov, Fedotenko, Prust, and Mitchell. Plus the addition of Nash's production got canceled out by declines from Richards and Gaborik, leaving us with an incredibly thin roster. You can try and pin the dropoff on chemistry, but it's pretty obvious what happened.

Pouliot benefited from two playmakers being on his line. Brassard and Zucc are both pass before shoot players. I wish Zucc was a little more selfish. Pouliot's size and skill level + physical play helped his linemates but he takes too many unnecessary penalties and he's not as well rounded as the two others--especially Zucc. The Oilers can play Benoit with other playmakers but this guy is never going to carry a line. A comparable would be what Moulson or Parenteau were to Tavares.

You're giving Brassard way too much credit. Like I said above, if Pouliot was actually benefiting from Brassard, then it would've shown up somewhere. His scoring and possession numbers basically remained exactly the same as his career rates.

He wasn't worth 5 years and $20 million. Stralman and Boyle were bigger losses.

Stralman was definitely the biggest loss, but Pouliot was way more important than Boyle. The fact that he got a crazy contract that we couldn't match doesn't change that.

Rangers are about capped out. They're going to have to do some replacing from within.

Agreed.

 

[BobMarleyNYR]

Me too, although I wouldn't totally hate it.

I still think we end up acquiring Joe Thornton though.

Brassard + a few NHL-ready prospects (take your pick: 2 or 3 of Miller, Allen, McIlrath, Kristo, Haggerty, Lindberg) gets it done IMO.

San Jose has the center depth to make a trade like that (Thornton, Pavelski, Couture, Hertl, Burrish, Marleau, Desjardins are all natural centers, and I'm pretty sure Kennedy and Wingels were drafted as centers as well). It's an embarrassment of riches as far as centers go over there.

If they want to hand the reigns over to Pavelski + Couture, and move away from the failed Thornton + Marleau era, they may be interested in a deal like this that gives them a 45-50 point center in Brassard who's still young and still a RFA, as well as 2-3 NHL-ready prospects who can step in and help the team right away.

I don't think that trade would ever happen … brassard never had 50 PTS, and none of our prospects have much value, whether people believe it or not

 

[Zuccarello Awesome*]

I don't think that trade would ever happen … brassard never had 50 PTS, and none of our prospects have much value, whether people believe it or not

People say that, but it's not true.

Jason Spezza just got traded for a bunch of unproven prospects.

If prospects didn't have value, they wouldn't be traded as often as they are.

 

[Doctyl]

People say that, but it's not true.

Jason Spezza just got traded for a bunch of unproven prospects.

If prospects didn't have value, they wouldn't be traded as often as they are.

That and Spezza just isn't that good

 

[RangerBoy]

Qualifying offers expire today at 5pm. The Rangers have Ryan Bourque who hasn't signed yet. Maybe he has but it was reported. Danny Kristo signed his qualifying offer last week. Its $826,750. NHLPA.com added to their site last week. Neil Sheehy tweeted his client had signed the QO.

http://www.nhlpa.com/the-players/team-compensation/new-york-rangers

The Rangers first salary arbitration case is next Wednesday. The days are coming off the calendar. Kreider on the 23rd,Zuccarello on the 25th and Brassard on the 28th. Creates pressure points to get a deal done.

 

[Tawnos]

Zil, plenty of stuff to say in response, but my internet is limited to my phone for the next week, so I'll just have to drop it. Great conversation though!

 

[SupersonicMonkey*]

Could you elaborate?


A lot of the beginning of the season stretch won't count in his 5-on-5 close numbers because the Rangers weren't close.

You say he was bad, but if the Rangers are consistently producing more shot attempts than the other team, how bad could he have been? And that's the rule, not the exception. He's been well-traveled, but his linemates consistently generate more shot attempts when he's on the ice. Either he's the luckiest player in the league, or he's doing something to drive possession.

This is why stat watching is flawed.

You can look at the stats and graphs and see Pouliot was making his limemates better but you can't figure out why.

The reason why is because he is a solid forechecker and board player, and he is good around the net. The fact he can out skate a lot of his opponents helps on the rush. Winning battles on the boards and around the net means you have the puck more. Having the speed to beat defenders means your team gets the puck on dump ins or it means getting to the net with the puck on a rush. All of that will result in more shots. But that doesn't mean he has a quality shot that. That doesn't mean he has the vision to find the open hole and the accuracy in his shot to hit his mark.

But all of that doesn't mean that HE was the possession driver on the line. The fact is Zuccarello is just as good on the boards and the rush despite his size. Zuccarello is able to hold onto the puck because of his vision to see where defenders are and his shifty skating where he can avoid hits and stick checks and still mantain control of the puck.

Brassard is also a strong forechecker and is a high-end passer.

So for all the good Pouliot does, his limemates were doing just as much in their own way. They fed off eachother's strengths and helped mask eachother's weaknesses. They became close off the ice. That's chemistry, and that is what doesn't show up on a graph.

I like the corsi and all that jazz, but you need to watch games, take note of interviews and what goes on off the ice for any of the advanced stats to make sense.

Why was the Staal-Stralman pair so good? Why was the reality of the situation that Stralman made Staal a better player and not as much the other way around? I know the graphs tell you so, but why? It's because Stralman has a very high hockey IQ, he has solid fundamentals, positioning, and stick work. He has the speed to close gaps quickly. Staal has the fundamentals and stick work and positioning, but he severely lacks the mobility by comparison, and he has one eye. He is good around the net and good when he doesn't have to skate as much. Opponents know to put it in his corner because he can't pivot and get to the puck as quickly as Stralman does. Stralman had to cover a lot of the ice surface because Staal could not. Stralman is also good with quickly gaining control of those lose pucks and skating the puck up and getting it deep. He is very good in the neutral zone because he has the confidence in his skating to take that risk of stepping up because he can get back faster and close that gap.

Naturally, Stralman's efforts and abilities will increase the puck possession numbers.

This is why i am very worried about Staal-Boyle. Staal is going to struggle. Boyle won't be able to cover things the way Stralman did.

The advanced stats are good for getting a general idea about a player you don't often see. But the fact remains you need to watch that player and his team to understand what the stats and graphs are telling you. They can be very misleading. They don't explain a player's confidence, or situation off the ice that can drastically effect his performance on the ice. Stats may say, such and such players will play well together ON PAPER, but in reality while their on ice strengths may mesh in theory, they could not like eachother. One said something or believes in a different set of life values and just like that, it is a failed experiment. Corsi wont tell you that.

Fitzy played high level hockey. He would have a good understanding of how team dynamics work.

If a guy FEELS confident that Glass is around, he may perform better. Despite that not being quantified by a stat or graph.

 

[silverfish]

That and Spezza just isn't that good

Had more points and assists, as well as PPGs, PPA's, and PPP's (duh) than anyone on the Rangers last year.

But you're right. Not that good.