Carcillo and the Noise

[Thirty One]

If anyone actually read it, it's not about Dan Carcillo. It's about drawing conclusions based on a small sample when it's convenient.

I didn't as much as bring up the Carcillo's on-ice contributions. I think I've been clear that there's many players I would rather have in that spot, but there are many I wouldn't too.

This is like the Sean Avery thing all over again.

When we take unimportant players and make them a focal point of discussion?

Kind of. Sean Avery, although the much better hockey player, was the subject of much of the same overanalysis.

But, Hockey IS an emotional game and those emotions are affected by things done on the ice.

There's no way to quantify this.

I don't think there's any doubt that emotions are affected by things that happen on the playing field. I wouldn't doubt that, and I doubt anyone else who has played hockey or other sports would either.

But do those spikes in emotions make players play above their talent level?

 

[Crease]

Kind of annoying that these guys can't seem to get their energy level up without a jackass in the lineup.

 

[KreiMeARiver*]

When we take unimportant players and make them a focal point of discussion?

Yeah unimportant players that single-handedly turned around our season in 2007

 

[aufheben]

If anyone actually read it, it's not about Dan Carcillo. It's about drawing conclusions based on a small sample when it's convenient.

I didn't as much as bring up the Carcillo's on-ice contributions. I think I've been clear that there's many players I would rather have in that spot, but there are many I wouldn't too.





Kind of. Sean Avery, although the much better hockey player, was the subject of much of the same overanalysis.


I don't think there's any doubt that emotions are affected by things that happen on the playing field. I wouldn't doubt that, and I doubt anyone else who has played hockey or other sports would either.

But do those spikes in emotions make players play above their talent level?

Not above, but they could get they up to normal rather than ****.

 

[Thirty One]

Not above, but they could get they up to normal rather than ****.

I think that's a stretch too.

All teams lay eggs. Even teams with energy players.

 

[aufheben]

I think that's a stretch too.

All teams lay eggs. Even teams with energy players.

No doubt.

 

[pld459666]

If anyone actually read it, it's not about Dan Carcillo. It's about drawing conclusions based on a small sample when it's convenient.

I didn't as much as bring up the Carcillo's on-ice contributions. I think I've been clear that there's many players I would rather have in that spot, but there are many I wouldn't too.





Kind of. Sean Avery, although the much better hockey player, was the subject of much of the same overanalysis.


I don't think there's any doubt that emotions are affected by things that happen on the playing field. I wouldn't doubt that, and I doubt anyone else who has played hockey or other sports would either.

But do those spikes in emotions make players play above their talent level?

I would say some times yes. More often than not, No.

It's not playing above your talent level, it's about doing things with a little more urgency, a little more zeal. I think the effort level changes which is where I think the team was having a hard time matching Carolina specifically last game.

 

[Thirty One]

I would say some times yes. More often than not, No.

It's not playing above your talent level, it's about doing things with a little more urgency, a little more zeal. I think the effort level changes which is where I think the team was having a hard time matching Carolina specifically last game.

And I don't think Carcillo makes the Rangers play with more urgency or zeal.

Even if playing a certain way did increase the Rangers playing level/consistency etc., wouldn't it increase the other team's too?

 

[pld459666]

And I don't think Carcillo makes the Rangers play with more urgency or zeal.

Even if playing a certain way did increase the Rangers playing level/consistency etc., wouldn't it increase the other team's too?

re 1st part. We agree to disagree on that.

regarding 2nd part.

Talent to talent are we a better team than Carolina? I believe we are.

I think if you looked at both teams from best player to worst player I would give the Rangers a clear edge.

If Rangers increased their level of urgency to match that of Carolina, I think it's a clear win for the Rangers.

I can't imagine that Carolina has another level in tham than what they displayed the other night.

So, the point is, had the Rangers got a spark after Carolina scored to make it 2-1 maybe the game is different.

Maybe not. It's not guaranteed.

I just think that the Canes played with a better effort level, a bit more urgnecy and the Rangers did not or could not raise their game to match.

30 years ago a coach would have a knuckle dragger go out and pound someone in an effort to change things. We have gotten away from that (to my dismay lol) but there's still that element of the game where physical play can change the dynamics of a game.

I think, effort level being equal, the Rangers are a much better team than Carolina and should win these games late in the season. I think the Rangers were lacking in that regards and I think a guy like Carcillo (and Prust before him) can change the dynamics of a game.

 

[007]

Agreed, but Dorsett is the better player and is coming off an injury so couldn't be expected to be the "change of pulse" player he might be normally.

Actually surprised Dan C. has gone so long without being a problem player. The way other fan bases wrote about him, it sounded as if he would cost the Rangers within 5 games.

Other than getting away with breaking his stick to delay the game against Chicago, which he got away with, he has been very good for the team.

A funny thing about the Rangers, over the years, at least going as far back as Matt Barnaby, they've done well with "energy" players -- or rather "pests."

Barnaby, Avery, Prust, and now possibly Carcillo, are all players who came to the Rangers with reputations for "edgy" play (read: suspension-machines).

While all of them engaged in some cheeky behaviour as Blueshirts, I was pleasantly surprised by the lack of truly dirty play (I'm thinking of Brian Marchment/Darcy Tucker-type submarining, or deliberate headshots). There could be two reasons for this: either the Rangers fostered an environment where these guys had a better grasp of not going over the edge, or when they were on other teams, the only times we heard their names where when they got suspensions.

More importantly, for whatever reason, the Rangers simply WON GAMES with Barnaby or Avery or Prust in the lineup.

There have been failures along the way, as well. Ryan Hollweg lost the plot, and so did Dale Purinton.

I think that is the effect the Rangers have been going for when they picked up first Dorsett, now Carcillo. I think Dorsett is less "edgy", and in that way less likely to cost the team; however, Carcillo has, to my mind, been more visible and in the roles they play, I think visible is good.

 

[Thirty One]

The Rangers won games with Barnaby?

 

[RGY]

Dorsett was brutal before his injury. I'm tired of hearing the excuses for this guy. He is not that special, especially at the salary he makes. Carcillo has been much more effective and consistent. Much more noticeable.

 

[007]

The Rangers won games with Barnaby?

Not many, but those they won, they won with Barnaby in the lineup. I remember very distinctly the same sorts of winning % with Barnaby in the lineup vs. out of the lineup stats that we saw in the Avery era. Of course, it's simplistic to say he was winning the games, but the Rangers were awful with him in the lineup, and putrid without.