Toggle sidebar

Around the NHL XIII: Off Season Edition

  • Thread starter Thread starter *Bob Richards*
  • Start date Start date
  • Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
Status
Not open for further replies.
Inferno said:
yes, and its foolish. sitting back, dumping the puck, not playing the way that got you there. it cost the rangers teh cup.
Click to expand...

I think part of it was Vigneault's strategy and part of it was that the Kings forced the issue. Even in the first game, which was tied after two periods, the Kings put on an absolute onslaught in third. It's dumb to sit on leads and Vigneault does have a tendency to do it, but we lost the Cup by a combination of being outplayed, two awful calls, and horrific puck luck.
 
i liked renney. its not saying much but hes my 2nd fav coach behind AV in my memory of being a ranger fan going back to around 94.
 
Inferno said:
yes, and its foolish. sitting back, dumping the puck, not playing the way that got you there. it cost the rangers teh cup.
Click to expand...

I just think the Rangers tried to do it for too long against LA. You can't do it for the entire third period, but doing it for say the final 10 minutes I have no problem with.
 
Fire Sather said:
I just think the Rangers tried to do it for too long against LA. You can't do it for the entire third period, but doing it for say the final 10 minutes I have no problem with.
Click to expand...

I don't think abandoning your game to go into a shell is a smart move at any point of the game. It is my one major problem with Vigneault. You're making it easier for the opposition to attack.
 
Inferno said:
yes, and its foolish. sitting back, dumping the puck, not playing the way that got you there. it cost the rangers teh cup.
Click to expand...
Guess which Ranger coach sat on leads the least? ;)

byiXMZU.png
 
Brian Boyle said:
Guess which Ranger coach sat on leads the least? ;)

byiXMZU.png
Click to expand...

Why is Renney's tenure in the graph only one year? I'm not up on these stats...is this saying that Renney's teams took more shots when tied, up one and up two? Honestly, not really sure how to measure "sitting on leads", but all three were pretty evenly passive and didn't go in for the kill (perhaps because they did not have the horse to do so), although AV perhaps was the one to most rely on his goalie and defense up one or two goals, and unfortunately we saw what that can do to a team during the Stanley Cup Finals.
 
Tawnos said:
I'm somewhat alone in this, but I really liked Colin Campbell.
Click to expand...

You may not be alone, but I sure am not with you. Messier seemed to be the coach during those years anyways. Seemed to be his teams went as Mess went, and when Mess left...
 
someone stole hank said:
Which is why I think mess will be a great coach one day
Click to expand...

I think Mess would be like Tort, and I don't mean that in a bad way, or a good way. Without really knowing Mess, he just seems like a guy who will play his best guys until they die and expect everything out of them. He will be hard on guys and there will be a lot of tough love. Some players don't take well to that. Some do. So for the right situation, I see him in that role, but don't see him behind the bench like a Scotty Bowman for ten years coaching within the same organization.
 
Zil said:
I don't think abandoning your game to go into a shell is a smart move at any point of the game. It is my one major problem with Vigneault. You're making it easier for the opposition to attack.
Click to expand...

Sometimes the opposition is just better, as was the case with LA.

Were you complaining late in the Pittsburgh series or in the Montreal series when the Rangers dissected those teams late in the game with a lead? Game 6 vs. Montreal was a clinic in the 3rd period.
 
Fletch said:
Why is Renney's tenure in the graph only one year? I'm not up on these stats...is this saying that Renney's teams took more shots when tied, up one and up two? Honestly, not really sure how to measure "sitting on leads", but all three were pretty evenly passive and didn't go in for the kill (perhaps because they did not have the horse to do so), although AV perhaps was the one to most rely on his goalie and defense up one or two goals, and unfortunately we saw what that can do to a team during the Stanley Cup Finals.
Click to expand...
These stats aren't available before 2007-08. I didn't include 2008-09 because that was a Torts-Renney collaboration.

The stat measures the percentage of unblocked shot attempts the Rangers get compared to their opponents. It moves down uniformly as as teams get a lead and expand on it.

corsifenwick.png

corsifenwickpercent.png
 
Bleed Ranger Blue said:
Sometimes the opposition is just better, as was the case with LA.

Were you complaining late in the Pittsburgh series or in the Montreal series when the Rangers dissected those teams late in the game with a lead? Game 6 vs. Montreal was a clinic in the 3rd period.
Click to expand...

There's a huge difference between what the Rangers did to Montreal in the 3rd periods of game 2 and 6, and the Penguins in game 7. That Pens game was straight up prevent defense. The two games against the Habs were brilliant defensive efforts.
 
Raspewtin said:
There's a huge difference between what the Rangers did to Montreal in the 3rd periods of game 2 and 6, and the Penguins in game 7. That Pens game was straight up prevent defense. The two games against the Habs were brilliant defensive efforts.
Click to expand...

Regardless, it still amazes me how many people want to blame the Rangers instead of giving credit to the opposition.
 
Brian Boyle said:
These stats aren't available before 2007-08. I didn't include 2008-09 because that was a Torts-Renney collaboration.

The stat measures the percentage of unblocked shot attempts the Rangers get compared to their opponents. It moves down uniformly as as teams get a lead and expand on it.

corsifenwick.png

corsifenwickpercent.png
Click to expand...

Thanks for the calculation. Pretty easy to understand. When will they develop time of possession? Put a chip in every stick and every puck and really go nuts with the stats. Interesting that numbers are higher with Renney. Just recall cringing with the lead, albeit as much as with anyone. Perhaps there were greater blocked shots (assuming that a blocked shot doesn't count as a "shot for" that would then not much the calculation up).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom