GDT: Game 13: New York Rangers vs Minnesota Wild, 7pm ET, MSG

[SA16]

PDO is one of the worst stats around. Just look at the two stats individually. Why do you need one number which doesn't even make sense considering you're adding things with different denominators?

 

[mrhockey193195]

PDO is one of the worst stats around. Just look at the two stats individually. Why do you need one number which doesn't even make sense considering you're adding things with different denominators?

Exactly how I feel about OPS in baseball.

 

[Machinehead]

Exactly how I feel about OPS in baseball.

OPS makes a lot more sense because the point of OPS is to determine bases per plate appearance. Slugging only applies to at-bats, so if you walk four times, you're slugging .000 even though you have accumulated four bases. All three stats are counting bases in some way.

Shooting percentage and save percentage are fundamentally not counting the same thing.

 

[DanielBrassard]

PDO is one of the worst stats around. Just look at the two stats individually. Why do you need one number which doesn't even make sense considering you're adding things with different denominators?

You don't but I think it's a rudimentary way to figure out if you can expect regression in either direction, I don't think it's meant to be anything more than that and obviously it's somewhat limited in its usefulness because it doesn't take into account how much talent a team has.

 

[romba]

This GDT needs a Tribute: Silverfish tag added

 

[Machinehead]

You don't but I think it's a rudimentary way to figure out if you can expect regression in either direction, I don't think it's meant to be anything more than that and obviously it's somewhat limited in its usefulness because it doesn't take into account how much talent a team has.

People always get this "boogah boogah boogah" over regression and I don't know what the big deal is.

Of course our special teams isn't going to be this good all year. We're 9-2-1.

If you won 9 out of 12 the whole year, you'd win about 62 games. I don't think the 2023-24 Rangers are going to be on the shortlist of greatest ever teams.

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

He's talking a lot now. Why?

He just retired and he's a pretty personable guy who is pretty popular amongst players and former players alike.

Makes total sense.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

People always get this "boogah boogah boogah" over regression and I don't know what the big deal is.

Of course our special teams isn't going to be this good all year. We're 9-2-1.

If you won 9 out of 12 the whole year, you'd win about 62 games. I don't think the 2023-24 Rangers are going to be on the shortlist of greatest ever teams.

My question is if our special teams regress why can't our 5 on 5 improve to compensate? Plus, I don't think our PK is unsustainable, our PP is in terms of percentage. But it's still one of the best PPs in the league.

 

[majordomo]

No, you're wrong! It's Mackenzie Skapski!!

I always liked that guy!!!!!

 

[SA16]

You don't but I think it's a rudimentary way to figure out if you can expect regression in either direction, I don't think it's meant to be anything more than that and obviously it's somewhat limited in its usefulness because it doesn't take into account how much talent a team has.

Seems entirely pointless to me and is for people too lazy to be able to look at two stats at once. It's especially pointless given the baseline is assumed to be 100 which it isn't. The same as the baseline for corsi is assumed to be 50 for all lines which it isn't.

 

[Machinehead]

My question is if our special teams regress why can't our 5 on 5 improve to compensate? Plus, I don't think our PK is unsustainable, our PP is in terms of percentage. But it's still one of the best PPs in the league.

Our 5v5 play isn't currently an outlier the way our special teams play is.

The analytics actually place us just above middle of the pack overall. I don't think that's wrong.

I'm gonna get heat for this, but the Rangers are an above average team that I wouldn't be shocked at all to see go out in the first round. Especially in the current format where you might play the best team in the first round because divisions.

When the PP regresses a bit, (another hot take) we'll probably just win fewer games. Like I said, we're not going 62-16-4.

 

[will1066]

He just retired and he's a pretty personable guy who is pretty popular amongst players and former players alike.

Makes total sense.

I thought he might be promoting a new book or something, not having listened to this or the Spittin Chiclets one.

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

I thought he might be promoting a new book or something, not having listened to this or the Spittin Chiclets one.

Nah just making the rounds post career as hes got some good stories and he is a good interview.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Our 5v5 play isn't currently an outlier the way our special teams play is.

The analytics actually place us just above middle of the pack overall. I don't think that's wrong.

I'm gonna get heat for this, but the Rangers are an above average team that I wouldn't be shocked at all to see go out in the first round. Especially in the current format where you might play the best team in the first round because divisions.

When the PP regresses a bit, (another hot take) we'll probably just win fewer games. Like I said, we're not going 62-16-4.

Literally every team with the current format can leave in the first round. This isn't the NBA.

 

[will1066]

My question is if our special teams regress why can't our 5 on 5 improve to compensate? Plus, I don't think our PK is unsustainable, our PP is in terms of percentage. But it's still one of the best PPs in the league.

I think it's bogus to try and create a statistical relationship between independent variables, and then put a regression rule on top if it. No, you can be great at both shooting and saving. There's no force in the universe that dictates that you can't be off the charts in both.

 

[mrhockey193195]

OPS makes a lot more sense because the point of OPS is to determine bases per plate appearance. Slugging only applies to at-bats, so if you walk four times, you're slugging .000 even though you have accumulated four bases. All three stats are counting bases in some way.

Shooting percentage and save percentage are fundamentally not counting the same thing.

But still, they are two different metrics on two different scales. Why not just look at them independently? Or have a new slugging-esque metric that is total bases over plate appearances?

 

[Captain Lindy]

Interested to see the response at home after Minny did a number on them in the second half of the game the other night.

The Rangers need to match that level, or their level of that first period I should say, for 60 minutes.

As Lav stated, I think that was a sneaky trip on the schedule that had them go right back on the road with a little time change as well, but they gutted out the point. Not to mention they were down several players for the first time. I think we will see a good effort tonight

This! The only concern I have is the Schneider/Jones pairing. Scarily bad defensively.

 

[TheDirtyH]

I think it's bogus to try and create a statistical relationship between independent variables, and then put a regression rule on top if it. No, you can be great at both shooting and saving. There's no force in the universe that dictates that you can't be off the charts in both.

I've always found the "short-hand for luck" substitution especially awful. As though anything that can't be obviously or easily controlled for or secured in a data-set must just be hocus pocus

 

[Machinehead]

Literally every team with the current format can leave in the first round. This isn't the NBA.

Yeah, anything can happen, but the Rangers are probably not going into that round a favorite.

Also just FYI: The higher seed lost seven matchus in the NBA playoffs last year and an 8-seed made the Finals. It's not nearly as bad as the memes would have you believe.

 

[Machinehead]

But still, they are two different metrics on two different scales. Why not just look at them independently? Or have a new slugging-esque metric that is total bases of plate appearances?

This is what OPS is.

 

[FoxysExpensiveNYDigs]

Spicy Pork pregame meal leads to a Zibanejad breakout game.

 

[NYR Viper]

People always get this "boogah boogah boogah" over regression and I don't know what the big deal is.

Of course our special teams isn't going to be this good all year. We're 9-2-1.

If you won 9 out of 12 the whole year, you'd win about 62 games. I don't think the 2023-24 Rangers are going to be on the shortlist of greatest ever teams.

Okay Debbie...

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Yeah, anything can happen, but the Rangers are probably not going into that round a favorite.

Also just FYI: The higher seed lost seven matchus in the NBA playoffs last year and an 8-seed made the Finals. It's not nearly as bad as the memes would have you believe.

Is it not as bad as the memes say or are the memes just outdated? 10 years ago it was absolutely true.

 

[Rongomania]

Playing the wild more than isles and devs at this point is insane. The NHL has murdered our sick rivalries. Beyond lame.

 

[Larrybiv]

Our 5v5 play isn't currently an outlier the way our special teams play is.

The analytics actually place us just above middle of the pack overall. I don't think that's wrong.

I'm gonna get heat for this, but the Rangers are an above average team that I wouldn't be shocked at all to see go out in the first round. Especially in the current format where you might play the best team in the first round because divisions.

When the PP regresses a bit, (another hot take) we'll probably just win fewer games. Like I said, we're not going 62-16-4.

Agreed, clearly "at best" we'll only get 57. Let's not get crazy.