Post-Game Talk: Edmonton Oilers at New York Rangers - 11/11/17: Movin' On Up

[aufheben]

So how come the scoring 5 on 5 doesn't reflect that? Easier to get into a defensive system? (I know the scoring now is high but it was last year too at this point and it regressed).

Goalies Edit: nvm

 

[Tawnos]

4F 1D becoming more and more common probably has a pretty big impact on PP numbers in the last few years aswell.

That's more than likely the result of more teams having 7+ PP capable forwards than it was in the past.

defenseman were also allowed to mug forwards around the net back then.

Yep. I am wondering if this year PPs seem more effective because defensive players have had to change the way they approach a player with the puck plus the faceoff crackdown.

Edit: that's just what it seems like. 16 games is a long time for a team to stay over 25% or even 30% like Dallas.... but there are some bad performances out there too.

 

[Sayba]

AV's line usage still makes no sense to me. He way overuses the 2nd and 3rd lines, and way underuses the 1st line. Kreids and Buch playing less than 15 is a joke.

His minute usage is infuriating

 

[ManUtdTobbe]

That's more than likely the result of more teams having 7+ PP capable forwards than it was in the past.



Yep. I am wondering if this year PPs seem more effective because defensive players have had to change the way they approach a player with the puck plus the faceoff crackdown.

Edit: that's just what it seems like. 16 games is a long time for a team to stay over 25% or even 30% like Dallas.... but there are some bad performances out there too.

Maybe, i don't know why, but i know that 4F 1D is proven to produce more goals.

 

[Larrybiv]

Those answers above are good reasons, but i would swear that the single most important reason would be at the dot. Literally ALL PP units seem to have a big advantage upon the dropping of the puck. Dont know the FO pctgs. for the PP team, but it seems because of less interference and clogging up the FO dot,(time is saved) the puck is gathered and the PP team is set to go. Makes for more goals (which is what the NHL wants). Sorry if i didnt make myself clear.

 

[kovazub94]

What was Graves wood?

Relax, Graves would be next.

 

[Holocene]

It's nice to enjoy watching the Rangers again. I can't decide who's been my favorite player to watch over this streak... Zib, Buch, Shatty, Skjei, Miller, and Hayes have all been great. Our PP is so good and entertaining to watch when it's clicking as opposed to last year where it was mostly just frustrating to watch them consistently fail to keep it in the zone or get in at all.

 

[will1066]

What's funny is our PP was over 20% last year and no one seemed to notice.

I think it is the way our PP is now much a more noticeable in-game factor and a legitimate threat in the eyes of opponents. They know we have Shatty back there, and they are beginning to discover that Buch and Zib are legit threats on the PP as well. This year's PP moves the puck better and shoots better. There have been some PPs where we score right away with some set plays. Not saying that didn't happen last year, but it seems this year the PP is also more efficient in scoring with PP time to spare. Last year may have been over 20% but we remember that time after the time we squandered PP chances to tie the game when down a goal and the PP often came up empty in crucial moments, a lot of the time failing to even get set up. That is the stuff that gets noticed.

 

[SA16]

It's nice to enjoy watching the Rangers again. I can't decide who's been my favorite player to watch over this streak... Zib, Buch, Shatty, Skjei, Miller, and Hayes have all been great. Our PP is so good and entertaining to watch when it's clicking as opposed to last year where it was mostly just frustrating to watch them consistently fail to keep it in the zone or get in at all.

Even with that it was the 11th best in the league last year. And 14th the year before that. It hasn't been bad in years and gets overblown because they have had several playoff stretches where they didn't score at all. This year it looks to be on another level though

 

[chosen]

Messier, Richter and Leetch ahead. He's tied with Zubov in regard to importance to winning SC.

Richter was the 2nd best goalie in the Finals, to me, considering who the goalies were facing.

 

[chosen]

None of which actually matters in terms of underachieving. Kovalev finished top 5 in scoring exactly once in his career. That's also the only season he finished top 10. The guy had the talent to win scoring titles.

Specifically, in terms of careers as Rangers, beyond their rookie seasons, Kovalev was 95th in scoring league-wide over 6 seasons. Kreider is 139 over 5 seasons (that becomes 112 if you eliminate 12-13 where he clearly wasn't ready for the NHL). Either way, their Rangers careers aren't all that dissimilar, but which of the two would you have expected to even be a top-50 scorer in the league?

Kovalev as a Ranger might be the single biggest disappointment in terms of individual performance in Rangers history and Kreider doesn't come close to comparing. I thought Kreider's ceiling was 30-30. Last year he was 28-25.

Since you seem to have a formula for underachieving, I am curious exactly what it is. So far, your explanation seems to be based solely on your initial expectations.

I'm still waiting for you or anyone else who can explain how Kreider can be the best player on the ice by far every once in a while and invisible at other times. Kovalev was frustrating because of his grace, but never invisible.

 

[Tawnos]

Since you seem to have a formula for underachieving, I am curious exactly what it is. So far, your explanation seems to be based solely on your initial expectations.

I'm still waiting for you or anyone else who can explain how Kreider can be the best player on the ice by far every once in a while and invisible at other times. Kovalev was frustrating because of his grace, but never invisible.

Kovalev was invisible a lot. As much or more than Kreider.

And yeah. Underachieving is based on expectation, which is based on what a player’s talent level indicates they should be capable of. That’s everyone’s definition. What else would it be based on?

Many, if not most, human beings are incapable of high levels of performance on a consistent basis. The NHL is pretty much made up of players who have found a way to be that way or players whose physical abilities are at such a high level that they can make it without ever achieving that level of consistency. That’s where Kreider is. That’s where Kovalev was. These players have the tools but not the will.

 

[Fitzy]

Any answer to most underachieving Ranger that doesn't have Daigle listed at #1 is wrong.

There, debate over.

 

[Tawnos]

Any answer to most underachieving Ranger that doesn't have Daigle listed at #1 is wrong.

There, debate over.

At that point in his career, Daigle actually slightly exceeded my expectations though.

 

[haohmaru]

None of which actually matters in terms of underachieving. Kovalev finished top 5 in scoring exactly once in his career. That's also the only season he finished top 10. The guy had the talent to win scoring titles.

Specifically, in terms of careers as Rangers, beyond their rookie seasons, Kovalev was 95th in scoring league-wide over 6 seasons. Kreider is 139 over 5 seasons (that becomes 112 if you eliminate 12-13 where he clearly wasn't ready for the NHL). Either way, their Rangers careers aren't all that dissimilar, but which of the two would you have expected to even be a top-50 scorer in the league?

Kovalev as a Ranger might be the single biggest disappointment in terms of individual performance in Rangers history and Kreider doesn't come close to comparing. I thought Kreider's ceiling was 30-30. Last year he was 28-25.

There's no way, dude.

The "Messier Guarantee" game was made possible by Kovalev. We don't get to the Final without his performance in that game so there's no way I can label him the "single biggest disappointment" in anything. We don't have a Cup, still, in 77 years if not for him. Watch that game 6 if you can. He's the reason for the season.

He averaged almost a point a game in 100+ career playoff games. Was he an enigma? Sure. Was he ever a top 6 winger in the league? Probably not. Having "top 5 in scoring" expectations for a guy are expectations that will rarely be met by anything other than generational talent. I like Kovalev for what he was and, at his best, he was pretty damned good. He had a hell of a year at age 34 in Montreal. And, yes, he had some disappointing years too but this "lazy" (not you, but some) Russian stereotype really needs to go away.

 

[Tawnos]

There's no way, dude.

The "Messier Guarantee" game was made possible by Kovalev. We don't get to the Final without his performance in that game so there's no way I can label him the "single biggest disappointment" in anything. We don't have a Cup, still, in 77 years if not for him. Watch that game 6 if you can. He's the reason for the season.

He averaged almost a point a game in 100+ career playoff games. Was he an enigma? Sure. Was he ever a top 6 winger in the league? Probably not. Having "top 5 in scoring" expectations for a guy are expectations that will rarely be met by anything other than generational talent. I like Kovalev for what he was and, at his best, he was pretty damned good. He had a hell of a year at age 34 in Montreal. And, yes, he had some disappointing years too but this "lazy" (not you, but some) Russian stereotype really needs to go away.

Don’t get me wrong. I love Kovalev. Mostly for some of those moments you mentioned. I watched his whole career. Loving a player and being disappointed in them are not mutually exclusive. I just think Kovalev’s performance missed his capability by a huge margin, whereas Kreider, if he can do what he did last year every year, will at least come close.

I think maybe expectations is the wrong word. It’s more like understanding a player’s ceiling. If Kovalev was a consistent 80 point player in that era (80 points was not elite), I might say he was only slightly a disappointment or maybe not even one. Instead, he was a 65 point player with a few outlier seasons.

And again, Kreider has always had a ceiling of 30-30. He came pretty close to that last year. I think, in the end, he’ll come close to that again this season. My level of disappointment, while in existence, is far lower.

 

[kovazub94]

Richter was the 2nd best goalie in the Finals, to me, considering who the goalies were facing.

Not going to go back but I read your post as a reference to the whole SC run, not just the Finals.

 

[Kaapo Cabana]

Richter was the 2nd best goalie in the Finals, to me, considering who the goalies were facing.

Accurate

Kirk McLean is the reason that series wasn't a sweep

 

[NYR Viper]

Derek Stepan has 7 points in 18 games.

7.

7.

Desharnais has more points.

Shattenkirk is more than double that output.

Honestly, even if Shatty wasnt doing well, and if ADA and Lias situation turned out exactly the same..i Still probably trade Stepan (tho maybe not for that package)

I think we should just be happy that Shattenkirk has come in, as projected, and really done a very nice job both on the PP and at 5v5. He has been a breath of fresh air on the back-end as far as being able to handle the puck and make plays.

In saying that, I'm still VERY excited for DeAngelo and Andersson. I'd make that trade every day if we could but I also wish Stepan well in Arizona. I thin that once that team settles in together (lots of changes) things will get better. The question is, does Chayka wait long enough or does he move OEL.

 

[Gardner McKay]

He's playing with their best players who are all putting up numbers...he isn't.

Wunderkid Chayka is really doing great things over there in AZ

Great game. Our power play is unbelievable and man it is so much fun to watch. Lundqvist is starting to look like vintage Lundqvist.

Also I see some folks here posting about Nash for Puljujärvi. Why would Edmonton, a team that is doing poorly, trade a former 4th overall (1 year removed from his draft) for a declining player? Ask your self that if all other things were equal and the situations were reversed, would you trade Puljujarvi for Nash? K. Thats my point.

 

[True Blue]

It's nice to enjoy watching the Rangers again. I can't decide who's been my favorite player to watch over this streak... Zib, Buch, Shatty, Skjei, Miller, and Hayes have all been great. Our PP is so good and entertaining to watch when it's clicking as opposed to last year where it was mostly just frustrating to watch them consistently fail to keep it in the zone or get in at all.

Actually shooting the puck as opposed to overpassing on the perimeter has been nice to see.

 

[pld459666]

I think the biggest and most notable improvement on our PP is motion.

Guys are moving a lot more, creating lanes for shots where it was pretty predictable in years past.

Factor in that we have a lot more options now in the aforementioned Shattenkirk, Mika, Zuccs, Butchy and Kreider (and that's the 1st unit)

It's not really surprising to see the PP be a danger to opposing teams every game.

 

[Leonardo87]

Feels like forever for the next game, damn.

 

[Ail]

Wunderkid Chayka is really doing great things over there in AZ

Great game. Our power play is unbelievable and man it is so much fun to watch. Lundqvist is starting to look like vintage Lundqvist.

Also I see some folks here posting about Nash for Puljujärvi. Why would Edmonton, a team that is doing poorly, trade a former 4th overall (1 year removed from his draft) for a declining player? Ask your self that if all other things were equal and the situations were reversed, would you trade Puljujarvi for Nash? K. Thats my point.

Obligatory "because Chiarelli."

 

[Gardner McKay]

Obligatory "because Chiarelli."

I forgot about that. I retract my statement. So.. Nash for Puj + 2nd?