Post-Game Talk: Devils @ Rongos

[mas0764]

Blais is going to struggle if in the top 6. His skill set is best on a third line role. He’s also never shown a scoring touch at all during his NHL career. The roster has the same fatal flaw it had last year- we have 2 top lines missing that third forward to make them complete and far too many bottom 6 types. Those thinking Vesey will close one of the top 6 holes are probably showing their incredibly bad hockey knowledge and solidifying their place on the “are you kidding me” list. Vesey has no place in the top 6 on virtually any NHL roster and if he’s your best hope to fill the gap on the Rangers top 6 we are in far worse shape than anyone is giving credit too.

I will say this, I would expect a lot of the goals to be scored on the power play. The power play is the Rangers best offensive threat and 5 on 5 play will hopefully be good enough until a legit top 6 winger becomes available at the trade deadline.

Huh it’s almost like we needed another young quality forward or two in our system.

 

[will1066]

Huh it’s almost like we needed another young quality forward or two in our system.

In 2022, after spending years toiling as an NHL journeyman, Jim-may Vesey is a top 6 forward playing on the top line with Mika Zibanejad ($8.5 million salary) and Christopher Kreider ($6.5 million salary) on a one-year $930,067.32 contract.

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

But they are being deployed as a third line. Why have a non functioning first line at its expense? They need to find three lines that work.

They have been before, doesn't mean that they will be now.

They need to figure out how to make the other lines work, you don't do that by breaking up the one that does because then you'll have 3 lines that don't.

 

[bleedblue94]

well if they weren't so married to the "Kid line" they could try one of Kakko, Laf, or even Krav on Zib's wing , but no they will try and jam a bottom 6er in there instead and that line is going to stink

They aren't married to the kid line, they didnt even start camp together. The kid line has just been very good whenever it has been together in camp.

 

[will1066]

They have been before, doesn't mean that they will be now.

They need to figure out how to make the other lines work, you don't do that by breaking up the one that does because then you'll have 3 lines that don't.

But this is exactly an NHL coaching trope. Breaking up a line that's going well to spread or redistribute the offense has existed as soon as hockey invented head coaches. Kakko was working well with Panarin and Strome but Gallant gallantly broke it up to get Mika-Kreider going, who were struggling with Laf I think it was.

 

[Kane One]

That's just a bunch of cherry picking. There was one outlier season where pulling your goalie was black magic. In just about every other year measured it literally doesn't do anything.

6v5 powerplays suck f***ing ass compared to 5v4 and the other team having like an 85% chance to score on shot attempts is (*checks analytics*) bad according to the analytics.

Not saying I don’t believe you, but do you have any sources or data on this?

 

[huerter]

Doesn't have to be. Blais has no business being on the Kreider-Zibanejad line. And Trocheck is not much better than Strome. There's an expectation of something from him that isn't there. Lafreniere should be on PP1. There's no reason Blais and Trocheck, not exactly world beaters, should be priorities over our #1 overall pick.

You lost me. The only place Laffy can play on PP1 is in Panarins spot. Hence the awkwardness.

 

[The Crypto Guy]

The problem isnt that the kid line needs to be broken up to cater to the top 2 lines, the problem is the kid line is our 3 line and should be at least the 2nd line and getting 17 minutes a game.

We’ll see what happens when the season starts but it would be terrible coaching if they are still getting 13 minutes if they play as dominate as they did the in playoffs and preseason.

 

[Do you want ants]

The problem isnt that the kid line needs to be broken up to cater to the top 2 lines, the problem is the kid line is our 3 line and should be at least the 2nd line and getting 17 minutes a game.

We’ll see what happens when the season starts but it would be terrible coaching if they are still getting 13 minutes if they play as dominate as they did the in playoffs and preseason.

Or you give the kid line more ice time by playing the 4th line less. Don’t see why we need to cut the ice time from our top 2 lines when we can just play the 4th line a minimal amount. The 4th line can get their ice time on the PK.

 

[Lion Hound]

When I see Rangers/Devils on the schedule, I actually give a sigh of Boring. For a once heated Rivalry, I just feel like they are never overly exciting games to watch. Last night even though it was preseason echoed my sentiments.


Hajek- Not seeing anything that jumps off the page here as a player that has earned the 6/7th spot. He leaves me with the feeling that he is a player that is going to make big mistakes at inopportune times. The staff seems to really like him, so maybe when they practice they are seeing a different animal, but I feel like the team has given himample time to solidify this position, and if he’s not really performing well against pre-season opposition, whats going to happen when he stuck out there against the Crosby line, or pinned in deep vs the Ovechkin line. He’s the guy that from a defensive standpoint just doesn’t give any confidence that he can get the job done. IMO the experiment should be over, and look to either add there or give it to Jones.


Othmann- Didn’t show as well in this game. I don’t think he was terrible though. It’s Hard to believe that he is only 19. Its also hard to believe he is only 6’0 175lbs. He looks older. Carrier himself as a larger body on the ice. Looks more mature and more confident then any prospect on the NYR that I can remember except for maybe Schneider who walked into his first game cool as a cucumber. For contractual reasons, and age restrictions I think he’s going to head back to the OHL but thus far he to me stands out as a player who is going to be a positive factor for this club.


Kid line- had some really good shifts last night after a shaky start. They play well together. With that said, I still want to see Kakko up on the top line. I think he will really do well with Zibanejad and Kreider. In addition to that, I really want to see Lafreniere play with Trocheck. Maybe Kravtsov or Blais on the RW.


Blais- Happy to see him get into the game. He didn’t overdo it. He did play the body which is what he does. Very likeable player and I could see him becoming somewhat of a fan favorite. I don’t see anything however that tells me Sammy Blais is a 1st line player. When you have two players with the chemistry that Zibanejad and Kreider have sometimes it makes that RW interchangeable. That’s great to balance out a roster, but im just not sold with Blais up top.


Gauthier- More of the same. Drive the net…hard. Knock people over in the play. Fail to convert. I think he very predictable as a player. I also think in pre-season he got the message from Gallant. He needs to play a high energy checking role. Last night he was credited with 8 hits, and had 2 shots on goals. Despite production, he is outplaying the Hunt’s, Gettinger, Henriksson, Cuylle, Edstrom, Khodorenko. He hasn’t outplayed Vesey. To make the squad im assuming he needs to do that. One thing that concerns me about Gauthier. Hockey IQ. I don't think its there.


Edstrom- Im intrigued. Want to see more of him in the preseason. I think he moves well for such a big player. Blocked 3 shots last night. Was only credited with 1 hit but I thought he had more.


Bartkowski, Welinski, Scanlin. Not as bad as I thought. Let them marinate in HFD. One of them might be worth a callup.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

That's just a bunch of cherry picking. There was one outlier season where pulling your goalie was black magic. In just about every other year measured it literally doesn't do anything.

6v5 powerplays suck f***ing ass compared to 5v4 and the other team having like an 85% chance to score on shot attempts is (*checks analytics*) bad according to the analytics.

The question is let's say you pull your goalie with 90 seconds to go, on average how much time in does a team score in the empty net and does a team have a higher probability to score 5 on 5 in 90 seconds or 6 on 5 in the time before the opposing team scores an empty netter on average.

 

[haohmaru]

Jesus Christ, can you STOP naming these threads "Rongos"?

 

[Kane One]

Jesus Christ, can you STOP naming these threads "Rongos"?

I liked the classier GDT titles that Loffen originally made. Now the titles have the opponent in lowercase.

And yeah, these PGT titles suck and spoil the outcome for anyone who didn’t watch live.

 

[Machinehead]

The question is let's say you pull your goalie with 90 seconds to go, on average how much time in does a team score in the empty net and does a team have a higher probability to score 5 on 5 in 90 seconds or 6 on 5 in the time before the opposing team scores an empty netter on average.

Not having a goaltender raises the other team's chances of scoring orders of magnitude over your own. I know you hate goalies but it's true.

 

[Kane One]

Not having a goaltender raises the other team's chances of scoring orders of magnitude over your own. I know you hate goalies but it's true.

Yes but does that really matter since you were already losing? It’s not like you get -1 in the standings if you give up an extra goal.

Assuming there’s 90 seconds remaining, does the trailing team have higher odds of scoring with an empty net than they do without?

 

[Machinehead]

Yes but does that really matter since you were already losing? It’s not like you get -1 in the standings if you give up an extra goal.

Assuming there’s 90 seconds remaining, does the trailing team have higher odds of scoring with an empty net than they do without?

The problem is you're operating under the presumption of 90 seconds where we're close to the point of "welp, I've lost anyway.

Teams are pulling their goalies with 150 seconds left now. I'd rather have that extra time over the other team scores and it's over. The only time I would pull my goalie is when, like you said, it's over if I don't anyway.

Because, honestly? It really doesn't work and I'm compiling the data.

 

[Kane One]

The problem is you're operating under the presumption of 90 seconds where we're close to the point of "welp, I've lost anyway.

Teams are pulling their goalies with 150 seconds left now. I'd rather have that extra time over the other team scores and it's over. The only time I would pull my goalie is when, like you said, it's over if I don't anyway.

Because, honestly? It really doesn't work and I'm compiling the data.

I’m sure the stats would show a different picture depending on the length of game remaining.

So if you can break it down by 30 second intervals, I’d be interested.

Patrick Roy was pulling goalies with like 4 minutes left which is obviously absurd.

 

[Machinehead]

Here's a six year study, and you can see what I was referring to. The purple bar shows that for that year, pulling your goalie early and often was a panacea. This hasn't shown to be repeatable. I can't find which of these seasons is purple but I'm assuming it's early in the study because it's around 2014, 2015 when coaches started pulling with 2:30 left.

In other years it does nothing, and in two of these seasons, it made your chances of scoring marginally worse. That's probably because you pulled your goalie at 1:30, the other team scored at 1:27, and you stopped trying after that.

You can see that a season where average pull was 1:15 (orange) faired just as well as a season where average pull was 1:45 (pink).

Leave to the NHL coaches to listen to analytics literally one time and it's for a nonsense outlier.

And here's a 15-year study that shows that goalie pulls absolutely skyrocketed again, around 2014 because that's when the faulty data came out.

The results show that the rise in goalie pulling has nudged goals for negligibly and causes goals against to go off the scale. All pulling early and often does is get your scored on early and often. It was always a last-second desperate ploy and if not for one season of bad data it would have remained that.

 

[Off Sides]

Solution, don't be trailing towards the ends of the game and it eliminates the desire to pull the goalie.

 

[Kane One]

Here's a six year study, and you can see what I was referring to. The purple bar shows that for that year, pulling your goalie early and often was a panacea. This hasn't shown to be repeatable. I can't find which of these seasons is purple but I'm assuming it's early in the study because it's around 2014, 2015 when coaches started pulling with 2:30 left.

View attachment 589870

In other years it does nothing, and in two of these seasons, it made your chances of scoring marginally worse. That's probably because you pulled your goalie at 1:30, the other team scored at 1:27, and you stopped trying after that.

You can see that a season where average pull was 1:15 (orange) faired just as well as a season where average pull was 1:45 (pink).

Leave to the NHL coaches to listen to analytics literally one time and it's for a nonsense outlier.

View attachment 589873View attachment 589874

And here's a 15-year study that shows that goalie pulls absolutely skyrocketed again, around 2014 because that's when the faulty data came out.

The results show that the rise in goalie pulling has nudged goals for negligibly and causes goals against to go off the scale. All pulling early and often does is get your scored on early and often. It was always a last-second desperate ploy and if not for one season of bad data it would have remained that.

How does that compare to when a team is down by a goal with that same X amount of time remaining but doesn’t pull the goalie?

 

[Machinehead]

How does that compare to when a team is down by a goal with that same X amount of time remaining but doesn’t pull the goalie?

Well, "doesn't pull the goalie" isn't really a piece of data we have. They're pulling him at some point dating back to the 1930's.

I think the reason we're seeing more total pulls in the data is threefold: 1) coaches are doing it down by 3 now, 2) coaches are doing it WAAAY more down by 2, and 3) I think a lot of teams used to the tie the game before he was pulled back when it was an "under one minute" thing.

Really, we're looking at when, not if. The data is showing us that pulls ranging from just under 2 minutes to just over 1 minute aren't seeing any meaningful divergence in success rate. I would be interested to see a comparison between now an say, the 90's where it was more like a 0:30 to 1:00 thing. Maybe 1:00-1:30 is better than that, but I'm not a fan of the 1:30 and above pulls because they're not leading to goals for.

To be clear, I'm not saying don't pull. I'm saying it's a last resort because most goalie pulls are suicide. You have to get down to literally losing anyway so maybe in that 0:30 to 1:15 range, and that's just my opinion.

The leading research on "we should be pulling earlier" was released in 2018 by Aaron Brown and Cliff Asness, and the entire premise of it was "losing 1-0 is no different from losing 2-0." That's true...at 0:00. 1 goal and 2 goals sure as f*** makes a difference with 1:50 left.

For me, and again this is just me, I'd rather have the time, because the data is showing me the returns on early pulls are marginal. To me, time left to score is the variable these models aren't taking into account at all.

I can't tell you how many times I thought the Rangers had the momentum anyway, looked like scoring in let's say 90 seconds to 2 minutes, and pulled the goalie only to be down by 2 within seconds. That's my problem with it more than the concept of pulling itself.

Brown and Asness said the ideal time to pull was with FIVE TO SIX PISSING MINUTES LEFT which I think illustrates that they're missing a variable.

 

[Machinehead]

And also to be clear, I'm not saying I'm necessarily right. It's far easier to debunk than prove.

It's simply a matter of, when people say "don't the analytics say pull early?" my evidence-based response is "bleh..."

That I hate pulling early is more my opinion.

 

[Kane One]

Well, "doesn't pull the goalie" isn't really a piece of data we have. They're pulling him at some point dating back to the 1930's.

I think the reason we're seeing more total pulls in the data is threefold: 1) coaches are doing it down by 3 now, 2) coaches are doing it WAAAY more down by 2, and 3) I think a lot of teams used to the tie the game before he was pulled back when it was an "under one minute" thing.

Really, we're looking at when, not if. The data is showing us that pulls ranging from just under 2 minutes to just over 1 minute aren't seeing any meaningful divergence in success rate. I would be interested to see a comparison between now an say, the 90's where it was more like a 0:30 to 1:00 thing. Maybe 1:00-1:30 is better than that, but I'm not a fan of the 1:30 and above pulls because they're not leading to goals for.

To be clear, I'm not saying don't pull. I'm saying it's a last resort because most goalie pulls are suicide. You have to get down to literally losing anyway so maybe in that 0:30 to 1:15 range, and that's just my opinion.

The leading research on "we should be pulling earlier" was released in 2018 by Aaron Brown and Cliff Asness, and the entire premise of it was "losing 1-0 is no different from losing 2-0." That's true...at 0:00. 1 goal and 2 goals sure as f*** makes a difference with 1:50 left.

For me, and again this is just me, I'd rather have the time, because the data is showing me the returns on early pulls are marginal. To me, time left to score is the variable these models aren't taking into account at all.

I can't tell you how many times I thought the Rangers had the momentum anyway, looked like scoring in let's say 90 seconds to 2 minutes, and pulled the goalie only to be down by 2 within seconds. That's my problem with it more than the concept of pulling itself.

Brown and Asness said the ideal time to pull was with FIVE TO SIX PISSING MINUTES LEFT which I think illustrates that they're missing a variable.

What I think never makes sense is when teams already have a two goal deficit, they’d pull their goalie, and when scored upon, they put the goalie back in.

But when a team is down by one, pull their goalie and get scored upon, they put their goalie back in. How is a two goal deficit here any different than pulling the goalie when down by two?

 

[Machinehead]

What I think never makes sense is when teams already have a two goal deficit, they’d pull their goalie, and when scored upon, they put the goalie back in.

But when a team is down by one, pull their goalie and get scored upon, they put their goalie back in. How is a two goal deficit here any different than pulling the goalie when down by two?

I agree with you here. If we've established that we don't care how much we lose by (and fair enough, when does goal differential make a difference?) then who decides where the line is? Why put him back in at all? Ship has sailed at that point. Now you need 2 in 60 seconds, might as well pull him again. That all seems arbitrary to me.

I guess maybe it's just a human thing. We've had enough embarrassment.

 

[NjDevsRR]

Had to drop this in here