Player Discussion David Quinn: Part II

[McRanger]

I see you never left. How very lucky for the rest of us. Oh, wait. You DO have that silent majority in your corner, right?

Wait, wait....this is your statement is it not?

Whenever the goalie plays unbelievable the Rangers win.

Whenever means every or any time. So when you state that every time the Rangers goalie plays unbelievable (i.e they steal games by standing on their heads), the Rangers win. Otherwise they loose. So yes, in fact you are stating the only games that they win. It is an if-then statement. If the goalie plays unbelievable, they win. If not, they loose. Or would you care to further sink your own statements?

The "whenever" refers to the goalie playing unbelievable, not the Rangers winning. If he wrote "Whenever the Rangers win the goalie plays unbelievable" your criticism would be accurate.

So we would need to see whether they always win when the goalie plays unbelievable.

Every persons definition of "unbelievable" is probably different, but when the Rangers get a SV% over 95% they are 10-0.

OTOH when the Rangers get a SV% under 91.5%, they are 1-10-3. The one win was the Montreal comeback. When they get a SV% under 88%, they are 0-8-1.

So, at least with respect to the sentence you put in bold, he appears to be correct.

 

[True Blue]

The "whenever" refers to the goalie playing unbelievable, not the Rangers winning. If he wrote "Whenever the Rangers win the goalie plays unbelievable" your criticism would be accurate.

So we would need to see whether they always win when the goalie plays unbelievable.

Every persons definition of "unbelievable" is probably different, but when the Rangers get a SV% over 95% they are 10-0.

OTOH when the Rangers get a SV% under 91.5%, they are 1-10-3. The one win was the Montreal comeback. When they get a SV% under 88%, they are 0-8-1.

So, at least with respect to the sentence you put in bold, he appears to be correct.

Whenever the goalie plays unbelievable the Rangers win. Whenever the goalie plays average or worse, the Rangers lose.

This is the whole statement. Which means that the premise is that the sole time the Rangers win, are when the goalies play "unbelievable". The definition of the term is: too improbable for belief. If a goalie's performance is too improbably for belief, it has to truly be amazing. I have not found that each win was due to an utterly amazing performance. Guess we have some different standards for what unbelievable or amazing or to improbable for belief is. One would think that a performance that is termed too improbably for belief does not come around too much.

If, OTOH, we are stating that the Rangers loose when their goalies have poor games or even mediocre games, that is a different tale. Same for wins when the goalies are solid or very good. Performances that are so good that you do not believe your eyes have just occurred are pretty rare.

 

[JHS]

Whenever the goalie plays unbelievable the Rangers win. Whenever the goalie plays average or worse, the Rangers lose.

This is the whole statement. Which means that the premise is that the sole time the Rangers win, are when the goalies play "unbelievable". The definition of the term is: too improbable for belief. If a goalie's performance is too improbably for belief, it has to truly be amazing. I have not found that each win was due to an utterly amazing performance. Guess we have some different standards for what unbelievable or amazing or to improbable for belief is. One would think that a performance that is termed too improbably for belief does not come around too much.

If, OTOH, we are stating that the Rangers loose when their goalies have poor games or even mediocre games, that is a different tale. Same for wins when the goalies are solid or very good. Performances that are so good that you do not believe your eyes have just occurred are pretty rare.

By any chance are you a member of Congress because your ability to distort conclusions based on semantics is reflective of a strong trait many in Congress right now seem to have.

Listen, I'm not going into a semantics debate with you here about whatever the meaning of whenever means. No one on this board wants to read that. Also, just saying-- you appear a little angry to me now.

As @McRanger correctly pointed out, I never said "the only games the Rangers win are when the goalie plays amazing." I said " whenever the goalie plays unbelievable the Rangers win." That's a categorically accurate statement and you look legitimacy desperate trying to pick apart anything here. Consistent with that statement I went on to say, "whenever the goalie plays average or worse, the Rangers lose." Again a categorically accurate statement.

I'd love to be able to rip apart anything you write but you just attack me so I don't even need to waste my time trying to pick apart anything you write since it's just arguing with me.

 

[haveandare]

The "whenever" refers to the goalie playing unbelievable, not the Rangers winning. If he wrote "Whenever the Rangers win the goalie plays unbelievable" your criticism would be accurate.

So we would need to see whether they always win when the goalie plays unbelievable.

Every persons definition of "unbelievable" is probably different, but when the Rangers get a SV% over 95% they are 10-0.

OTOH when the Rangers get a SV% under 91.5%, they are 1-10-3. The one win was the Montreal comeback. When they get a SV% under 88%, they are 0-8-1.

So, at least with respect to the sentence you put in bold, he appears to be correct.

Gotta wonder how different this would be from any other team. SV% over 95% generally would mean you only have to score two goals to win a game. Even the Red Wings with the worst offense in the league average over 2 goals a game.

 

[True Blue]

By any chance are you a member

Ok. I'll bite. A member or what?

 

[JHS]

Ok. I'll bite. A member or what?

I posted that on accident and have since edited the post-compute glitch

 

[True Blue]

By any chance are you a member of Congress because your ability to distort conclusions based on semantics is reflective of a strong trait many in Congress right now seem to have.

Yes. I take time off from impeachment debates to come post on a message board.

Listen, I'm not going into a semantics debate with you here about whatever the meaning of whenever means. No one on this board wants to read that. Also, just saying-- you appear a little angry to me now.

Not at all. I am incredulous that your Quinn Derangement Syndrome has now taken you to a level in which you claim that the sole reason the Rangers have any wins is because the goalies stand on their heads.

As @McRanger correctly pointed out, I never said "the only games the Rangers win are when the goalie plays amazing." I said " whenever the goalie plays unbelievable the Rangers win." That's a categorically accurate statement and you look legitimacy desperate trying to pick apart anything here. Consistent with that statement I went on to say, "whenever the goalie plays average or worse, the Rangers lose." Again a categorically accurate statement.

You never stated that the only times the Rangers win is when a goalie plays amazing. You stated that the only time they win is when a goalie plays "unbelievable". Who is the one playing with semantic? I find the notion that each one of the Rangers wins is a result of either Georgiev of Henke putting on a performance that is too good to be believed disingenuous at best.

I'd love to be able to rip apart anything you write but you just attack me so I don't even need to waste my time trying to pick apart anything you write since it's just arguing with me.

If you don't want people to respond to your posts then why post on a messageboard?

Just providing a valuable service by poking holes in the narrative.

 

[JHS]

Yes. I take time off from impeachment debates to come post on a message board.

Not at all. I am incredulous that your Quinn Derangement Syndrome has now taken you to a level in which you claim that the sole reason the Rangers have any wins is because the goalies stand on their heads.

You never stated that the only times the Rangers win is when a goalie plays amazing. You stated that the only time they win is when a goalie plays "unbelievable". Who is the one playing with semantic? I find the notion that each one of the Rangers wins is a result of either Georgiev of Henke putting on a performance that is too good to be believed disingenuous at best.

If you don't want people to respond to your posts then why post on a messageboard?

Just providing a valuable service by poking holes in the narrative.

As @McRanger pointed out-- the stats he so kindly looked up support my conclusion. Also, I gave credit to the coach who deserves credit for the Rangers winning.

 

[True Blue]

As @McRanger pointed out-- the stats he so kindly looked up support my conclusion. Also, I gave credit to the coach who deserves credit for the Rangers winning.

I have yet to see anyone support your stance of the sole reason for the Rangers wins are goalie performances that are simply too good to be believed. I know, it's the silent majority.

 

[Athor]

What team doesn't frequently win when the goalie plays unbelievable & vice versa?

 

[JHS]

What team doesn't frequently win when the goalie plays unbelievable & vice versa?

...but wait @True Blue took exception to me making this very straight forward conclusion just a few posts ago. ....

 

[Athor]

...but wait you took exception to me making this very straight forward conclusion just a few posts ago. Are you now agreeing with me and what the stats show???

More that it's kinda like a 'well duh' statement. Go look at sv% across the league for every game & what the winner had. It's not the only reason, but it's a big contributing factor every game.

Someone else by the way.

 

[True Blue]

...but wait @True Blue took exception to me making this very straight forward conclusion just a few posts ago. ....

No. I took exception of your statement that the Rangers 15 wins are wins solely as a result that the goalies performances were simply too good to be believed.

 

[JHS]

Gotta wonder how different this would be from any other team. SV% over 95% generally would mean you only have to score two goals to win a game. Even the Red Wings with the worst offense in the league average over 2 goals a game.

I agree with you-- it's obvious but even obvious conclusions on here can';t be left unchallenged.

 

[True Blue]

I agree with you-- it's obvious but even obvious conclusions on here can';t be left unchallenged.

So then why bring it up as a way to #### on Quinn? If it is just something that happens to any and all teams, why bring it up in a thread in which you have done nothing but attack Quinn?

 

[JHS]

So then why bring it up as a way to #### on Quinn? If it is just something that happens to any and all teams, why bring it up in a thread in which you have done nothing but attack Quinn?

Because it makes the point that the Rangers are reliant on goaltending to win games and with the overwhelmingly negative defensive stats this team has put up this season( an actual reflection on coaching and defensive structure) my point is that the Rangers performance this year has been elevated by strong goaltending.

According to hockeyrefrence.com the Rangers currently rank 9th in the league in save percentage. They've also given up the second most shots against out of anyone in the league( only Chicago has given up more.) So if you stick with the conclusion here-- the Rangers goaltending has at minimum played well above the NHL average and the defense has played well below average based on these two metrics. Anyway you slice it, the stats support my conclusion-- the goaltending needs to be great for the Rangers to win.

 

[True Blue]

Because it makes the point that the Rangers are reliant on goaltending to win games and with the overwhelmingly negative defensive stats this team has put up this season( an actual reflection on coaching and defensive structure) my point is that the Rangers performance this year has been elevated by strong goaltending.

I am not sure I am getting this. If basically EVER NHL team relies on superb goaltending to win games, then how it be a negative reflection on the coaching staff ? If the Rangers are no different than any other teams that win with good goaltending and loose with poor goaltending, how can it be an inditement on Quinn but no other head coach in the league?
According to hockeyrefrence.com the Rangers currently rank 9th in the league in save percentage. They've also given up the second most shots against out of anyone in the league( only Chicago has given up more.) So if you stick with the conclusion here-- the Rangers goaltending has at minimum played well above the NHL average and the defense has played well below average based on these two metrics.

Anyway you slice it, the stats support my conclusion-- the goaltending needs to be great for the Rangers to win.

But you have stated that such a conclusion can be done for each and every NHL team. our statement was that the sole item responsible for each and every Rangers win were goalie performances that were out of this world. You have also concluded that this is the case for everyone. In which case I am not so sure as to what it has to do with Quinn. I mean this is your statement is it not?

it's obvious but even obvious conclusions on here can';t be left unchallenged​

 

[EdJovanovski]

Is it a rule that everyone on HFNYR has to hate our coach?
I think having a winning record when we’re the youngest team in the NHL isn’t too bad.

 

[McRanger]

Whenever the goalie plays unbelievable the Rangers win. Whenever the goalie plays average or worse, the Rangers lose.

This is the whole statement.

That is not a statement. Those are two statements.

Which means that the premise is that the sole time the Rangers win, are when the goalies play "unbelievable".

For your premise to be true, "unbelievable" and "average or worse" would have to be the only two states of a goalies play. You were kind enough to point out the narrow definition of "amazing" so obviously that is not true. What about above average? Great? Stellar? Excellent? Incredible? Stunning? Astounding? Astonishing? Nothing in those two statements refers to those games. The Rangers can't win games with above average goaltending and lose games with excellent goaltending?

The definition of the term is: too improbable for belief. If a goalie's performance is too improbably for belief, it has to truly be amazing. I have not found that each win was due to an utterly amazing performance. Guess we have some different standards for what unbelievable or amazing or to improbable for belief is. One would think that a performance that is termed too improbably for belief does not come around too much.

If, OTOH, we are stating that the Rangers loose when their goalies have poor games or even mediocre games, that is a different tale. Same for wins when the goalies are solid or very good. Performances that are so good that you do not believe your eyes have just occurred are pretty rare.

I don't see how you are qualified to speak about what JHS believes or does not believe. Are you saying you know for certain that after a 95% save performance by Hank/Geo that JHS does not shut off his TV and truly not believe what he saw? Can you say that TB? Can you truly?

 

[McRanger]

Gotta wonder how different this would be from any other team. SV% over 95% generally would mean you only have to score two goals to win a game. Even the Red Wings with the worst offense in the league average over 2 goals a game.

Its probably not that different. I'm just messing with TB because of the pedantic nature of this argument and because I am bored at work.

Funny though, I just looked up the Red Wings and they are 1-2-0 in the games where they got the best save percentage (96.8%, 94.6% and 94.4%) and 0-1-2 in the games where they got their worst save percentage (78.9%, 76.9% and 75%). They got 2 points in those 3 games! The same amount as the top 3 games! They should get like a plaque at the end of the season or something.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

Is it a rule that everyone on HFNYR has to hate our coach?
I think having a winning record when we’re the youngest team in the NHL isn’t too bad.

I gave him an A.

 

[True Blue]

I don't see how you are qualified to speak about what JHS believes or does not believe. Are you saying you know for certain that after a 95% save performance by Hank/Geo that JHS does not shut off his TV and truly not believe what he saw? Can you say that TB? Can you truly?

Actually, yes.

 

[JHS]

I am not sure I am getting this. If basically EVER NHL team relies on superb goaltending to win games, then how it be a negative reflection on the coaching staff ? If the Rangers are no different than any other teams that win with good goaltending and loose with poor goaltending, how can it be an inditement on Quinn but no other head coach in the league?
According to hockeyrefrence.com the Rangers currently rank 9th in the league in save percentage. They've also given up the second most shots against out of anyone in the league( only Chicago has given up more.) So if you stick with the conclusion here-- the Rangers goaltending has at minimum played well above the NHL average and the defense has played well below average based on these two metrics.
But you have stated that such a conclusion can be done for each and every NHL team. our statement was that the sole item responsible for each and every Rangers win were goalie performances that were out of this world. You have also concluded that this is the case for everyone. In which case I am not so sure as to what it has to do with Quinn. I mean this is your statement is it not?

it's obvious but even obvious conclusions on here can';t be left unchallenged​

The stats show that the Rangers give up the second most shots but still have the 9th best goaltending in the league. The logical conclusion is that comparative to the rest of the NHL, the Rangers are getting consistently good goaltending and consistently bad defense. Shot attempts reflects the poor defense and save percentage reflects goaltending. Therefore, Quinn's coaching and the teams performance have been elevated by a position( goaltending) that Quinn is not directly responsible for- but the defense( something he is directly responsible for) has been, by every conceivable metric, far below average.

Therefore, my conclusion remains unchanged-- the team and the coach have been elevated by well above average goaltending. A conclusion that is also supported by every major talking head( Vally, Anson Carter and others.)

 

[True Blue]

The stats show that the Rangers give up the second most shots but still have the 9th best goaltending in the league. The logical conclusion is that comparative to the rest of the NHL, the Rangers are getting consistently good goaltending and consistently bad defense. Shot attempts reflects the poor defense and save percentage reflects goaltending. Therefore, Quinn's coaching and the teams performance have been elevated by a position( goaltending) that Quinn is not directly responsible for- but the defense( something he is directly responsible for) has been, by every conceivable metric, far below average.

Therefore, my conclusion remains unchanged-- the team and the coach have been elevated by well above average goaltending. A conclusion that is also supported by every major talking head( Vally, Anson Carter and others.)

Which brings us right back to the top of you do realize that the defense is icing either three rookies and one sophomore or two rookies, one sophomore and one Staal? Since you want to pin everything on Quinn, I do not suppose you can name even 1 team in say the last 25 years that started a defense that is so young? Right back down the rabbit hole we go....

 

[McRanger]

Our defending is bad for a number of reasons.

Some are not on the coaching staff like personnel (most of the defense is either bad, young or both) and some that are on the coaching staff like the system we play (that does not seem designed at all to stop or even disrupt players in the neutral zone or at the blue line).