Post-Game Talk: Game 2 of a Day-Night Double Header

[GordonGecko]

Just like last game, Milbury gave the Rangers absolutely no credit. In between the 2nd and 3rd period, he said the Islanders bad bounces lead to Ranger scoring chances and the goal we scored was a lucky one. Please try to assault another kid and get fired.

And this suprises you? Not only is he a former Islanders guy, but he hates Ulf Samuleson with a passion and blames him for wrecking his boy's career

 

[GordonGecko]

The odds are very much against the Rangers winning the cup this year.

Odds pretty much against every team in the NHL, what's your point?
http://www.vegasinsider.com/nhl/odds/futures/

 

[Let Blaine Die]

And this suprises you? Not only is he a former Islanders guy, but he hates Ulf Samuleson with a passion and blames him for wrecking his boy's career

Why is Milbury an analyst anyway? You'd think NBC would be able to get better talking heads than Mike ****ing Milbury.

 

[NHRangerfan]

And this suprises you? Not only is he a former Islanders guy, but he hates Ulf Samuleson with a passion and blames him for wrecking his boy's career

He simply hates the Rangers...after giving Jagr crap on every NBC telecast he did while JJ was a Ranger, he all of a sudden found all kinds of love for him on Sunday during the Rangers/Devils game...what a fraud.

Though he isn't alone, lots of Devil fans that I know who did the same thing when he was a Ranger, now think he is the best thing since sliced bread now that he's a Debbie.

 

[Bardof425*]

Klein was solid, I agree.

Doesn't mean you can just discount a statistic because...why are you discounting it again? Oh yeah, you don't have any tangible argument to discredit it, you just yell at people like a homeless person telling them "IT'S GARBAGEE111".

I do have a tangible argument and I've stated it before in pieces, which is puck possession and shots on goal although objective on the surface are subjective in terms of their value as stats. Not all shots are equal (obviously) and puck possession sometimes is dangerous and often leads to scoring chances (i.e, when John Tavares has the puck for 5 seconds) and sometimes it is nothing more than pinning the puck against the boards waiting for someone to pry it away (and in today's league where pucks are almost never frozen along the boards this happens all the time). So, the advanced stats although they appear objective; they are not.

My real issue is that this is an opinion board; a place to voice your thoughts and impressions and to allow for others to either agree, disagree and in many cases attack you. However, some seem to think this is a place to try and be "correct" and to establish themselves as correct and instead of just voicing an opinion they present advanced stats as though they are objective and reliable.

I often wonder if such people watch the game, decide that Kevin Klein had a bad game and instead of posting that they don't like the way he played they check the Corsi to see if their opinion is correct. And if the stats carroborate their opinion they post with the stats as proof that they in fact are right.

Or do they just look at the stats and post using the stats as their opinion.

These stats are for professionals who need them to cover their ass when a prospect or player they touted falls on his face; the same way baseball scouts will draft a pitcher who's 6' 5" instead of one who's 5' 10" because it covers their ass if he fails. I just don't see what place it has on these boards. I want to read people's opinions; not see how much leg work they did after a game. Sue me.

 

[Levitate]

I do have a tangible argument and I've stated it before in pieces, which is puck possession and shots on goal although objective on the surface are subjective in terms of their value as stats. Not all shots are equal (obviously) and puck possession sometimes is dangerous and often leads to scoring chances (i.e, when John Tavares has the puck for 5 seconds) and sometimes it is nothing more than pinning the puck against the boards waiting for someone to pry it away (and in today's league where pucks are almost never frozen along the boards this happens all the time). So, the advanced stats although they appear objective; they are not.

Actual puck possession time isn't even a real thing. When advanced stats talks about puck possession, they're basically just measuring shots for your team while you're on the ice vs shots against your team while you're on the ice, not how much time you or your team actually has the puck on the stick.

That said, supposedly they've found that shot quality isn't much of a thing and there's no relevant way of measuring that, but eh.

These stats are for professionals who need them to cover their ass when a prospect or player they touted falls on his face; the same way baseball scouts will draft a pitcher who's 6' 5" instead of one who's 5' 10" because it covers their ass if he fails. I just don't see what place it has on these boards. I want to read people's opinions; not see how much leg work they did after a game. Sue me.

I think the advanced stats can definitely be useful but they are incomplete and not particularly good at picking out individual players and providing a clear picture of how good or bad they are.

 

[Bardof425*]

Actual puck possession time isn't even a real thing. When advanced stats talks about puck possession, they're basically just measuring shots for your team while you're on the ice vs shots against your team while you're on the ice, not how much time you or your team actually has the puck on the stick.

That said, supposedly they've found that shot quality isn't much of a thing and there's no relevant way of measuring that, but eh.




I think the advanced stats can definitely be useful but they are incomplete and not particularly good at picking out individual players and providing a clear picture of how good or bad they are.

So, it's all about the shots on goal with adjustments made for zone starts and competition? Again, subjective and not reliable even over a large sample. If people quoted these stats as just an additional measure of a player's performance I would be fine. But too often they are used as a means of providing a definitive measure of performance and that is not credible; at all.

You shouldn't need stats to determine how good or bad you think a player is; if you watch them play night after night. And as Ranger fans I assume we're all watching them night after night.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

I do have a tangible argument and I've stated it before in pieces, which is puck possession and shots on goal although objective on the surface are subjective in terms of their value as stats. Not all shots are equal (obviously) and puck possession sometimes is dangerous and often leads to scoring chances (i.e, when John Tavares has the puck for 5 seconds) and sometimes it is nothing more than pinning the puck against the boards waiting for someone to pry it away (and in today's league where pucks are almost never frozen along the boards this happens all the time). So, the advanced stats although they appear objective; they are not.

My real issue is that this is an opinion board; a place to voice your thoughts and impressions and to allow for others to either agree, disagree and in many cases attack you. However, some seem to think this is a place to try and be "correct" and to establish themselves as correct and instead of just voicing an opinion they present advanced stats as though they are objective and reliable.

I often wonder if such people watch the game, decide that Kevin Klein had a bad game and instead of posting that they don't like the way he played they check the Corsi to see if their opinion is correct. And if the stats carroborate their opinion they post with the stats as proof that they in fact are right.

Or do they just look at the stats and post using the stats as their opinion.

These stats are for professionals who need them to cover their ass when a prospect or player they touted falls on his face; the same way baseball scouts will draft a pitcher who's 6' 5" instead of one who's 5' 10" because it covers their ass if he fails. I just don't see what place it has on these boards. I want to read people's opinions; not see how much leg work they did after a game. Sue me.

This 1,000 times this. What's annoying is how smug "holier than thou" advanced stats proponents are. They seem to think they have the objective key measure every player and team's performance and are smarter than everyone else because they can understand basic math. I know it was tongue in cheek, but remember the original name of 31's thread? Every joke is partially true.

 

[Cassano]

This 1,000 times this. What's annoying is how smug "holier than thou" advanced stats proponents are. They seem to think they have the objective key measure every player and team's performance and are smarter than everyone else because they can understand basic math. I know it was tongue in cheek, but remember the original name of 31's thread? Every joke is partially true.

Wow Snowblind, I think the exact opposite. The smugness is coming from the side that has no proponent facts to base their opinions off of and end up retorting to the 'you just don't understand hockey' or 'watch the damn game', but in a more aggressive tone more often than not.

 

[Killem Dafoe]

There is just a lot of smugness in general, but that's the internet. Some people feel the need to prove themselves. Nothing wrong with that. We each have different personalities and ways of posting in a forum like this. You just got to roll with it and let some people do their thing.

 

[Ex Officer Friendly]

One thing I liked about both outdoor games is that it seems like even when the team gets down a goal or two they just fight back and not seem to break down like they did in the beginning of the season

 

[Pizza]

There are a lot of IFs in any Stanley Cup equation. A few things are constants though.

Superior goal tending.

Solid D.

Timely scoring.

If Hank gets red hot (I still think we have not seen that upper level from him), that alone makes the Rangers a very scary opponent.

If Staal continues his consistent play and the D can elevate a bit more, we are even scarier.

If Nash actually shows up in the playoffs, Zucc, Kreider, Cally, others ditto...well you get where I'm going.

This team....at it's best can play with anyone. That's a tall order, but not impossible.

 

[SwedeAmerican]

just was on the isles board... of course they're giving the Rangers no credit and also saying that Ranger fans were obnoxious...

 

[GordonGecko]

I'm sure they love how nobody told C-Lo the Islanders were actually the home team

ha ha

 

[KingP]

just was on the isles board... of course they're giving the Rangers no credit and also saying that Ranger fans were obnoxious...

Right where we want them

MAD

 

[ImIdaho]

Who cares what Stan thinks?

Just stick Stan in a wooden rocker that's placed in a corner and give him some apple sauce to keep him quiet.

 

[Bardof425*]

Wow Snowblind, I think the exact opposite. The smugness is coming from the side that has no proponent facts to base their opinions off of and end up retorting to the 'you just don't understand hockey' or 'watch the damn game', but in a more aggressive tone more often than not.

This is exactly the issue. You hit it on the head. We base our opinions on what we see hopefully with a large sample; and most posters when forming an opinion with a small sample qualify their comments with something that recognizes that fact. We are hockey fans who form opinions on players based on our perception of how much they help our team win games. Why do we NEED additional information. We can use it if we want but you guys make it seem like advanced stats are a necessary component to fan player evaluation. I think it's not.

 

[a tribe cq]

Well that was cold.

Edit:

Harder to analyze while there but, I'd go with.

1. Hank
2. Stralman
3. Carbomb

 

[Bardof425*]

Wow Snowblind, I think the exact opposite. The smugness is coming from the side that has no proponent facts to base their opinions off of and end up retorting to the 'you just don't understand hockey' or 'watch the damn game', but in a more aggressive tone more often than not.

Oh and btw advanced stats are not "facts" so neither of us is using proponent facts in our differing analyses.

 

[Bardof425*]

just was on the isles board... of course they're giving the Rangers no credit and also saying that Ranger fans were obnoxious...

We were. As were they. It was alot of fun.

 

[The Perfect Paradox]

While I am glad that the Rangers took four of four points, I am completely done with the outdoor games. These outdoor games lost their novelty after the second or third Winter Classic IMO. Even seeing my favorite team play in them doesn't really get me excited. Maybe if I actually attended one of these three games I would be singing a different tune.

POTG for me was Staal. These last few games he has been absolutely fantastic. His style of play and ability to shut down the opposition is in top form. He's playing at the level he was at before those string of injuries started.

 

[Thirty One]

This 1,000 times this. What's annoying is how smug "holier than thou" advanced stats proponents are. They seem to think they have the objective key measure every player and team's performance and are smarter than everyone else because they can understand basic math. I know it was tongue in cheek, but remember the original name of 31's thread? Every joke is partially true.

o.

Oh and btw advanced stats are not "facts" so neither of us is using proponent facts in our differing analyses.

Well, yeah, they are. You can make the argument that they are facts that are misinterpreted, but they are facts.