GF, GA, and where the Rangers need to go

[Crease]

I did a quick study to see how the Rangers compared to the eventual SC champs and the league average, since 2006, in terms of GF and GA. Everyone who has been watching knows that the Rangers are above-average in their own zone but below-average in the other team's zone. But I wanted to find out how much they need to improve in one or both areas in order to stack up against the best of the best. This is the result. Explanation follows.

Year | GFC_Champ | GFC_Avg | GAC_Champ | GAC_Avg
2012-13 | 0.84 | 0.99 | 0.91 | 1.17
2011-12 | 1.16 | 1.01 | 0.96 | 1.2
2010-11 | 0.95 | 1.02 | 0.98 | 1.16
2009-10 | 0.82 | 0.95 | 0.96 | 1.07
2008-09 | 0.8 | 0.88 | 1.1 | 1.1
2007-08 | 0.83 | 0.93 | 0.92 | 1.15
2006-07 | 0.94 | 1 | 0.96 | 1.12
2005-06 | 0.87 | 1.02 | 1.21 | 1.18
Average | 0.9 | 0.97 | 1 | 1.14

GCF_Champ: "Goals For" compared to SC Champ
GFC_Avg: "Goals For" compared to League Average
GAC_Champ:"Goals Against" compared to SC Champ
GAC_Avg: "Goals Against" compared to League Average

Calculations and how to interpret the table: I promise you this is very straightforward math. A simple "percent of" calculation. So anything greater than "1" means that the Rangers outperformed the benchmark and anything less than "1" means the Rangers underperformed the benchmark.

For example, look at the 2010-2011 GFC_Champ (0.95). The Bruins scored 246 goals that season. The Rangers scored 233 goals that season. 233/246 = 0.95. Or in other words, the Rangers scored 5% less than the eventual SC champs in 2010-2011. Conversely, the Rangers gave up (195/198 = 0.98) 2% more goals than the eventual SC champs in 2010-2011.

What the results indicate: No surprise, but the Rangers need to score more. But it looks like they have to score more without sacrificing much defense. The eventual SC Champs, on average, score 10% more goals while giving up the same amount. Interesting.

Click to read more...

 

[Megustaelhockey]

I think the best the Rangers can hope to do is score 225 and give up 185.

 

[Crease]

By the way, here are the raw numbers in case you want to look at it that way:

Year | GFChamp | GFAvg | GFRangers | GAChamp | GAAvg | GARangers
2012-13 | 265 | 224 | 222 | 174 | 224 | 191
2011-12 | 194 | 224 | 226 | 179 | 224 | 187
2010-11 | 246 | 229 | 233 | 195 | 229 | 198
2009-10 | 271 | 233 | 222 | 209 | 233 | 218
2008-09 | 264 | 239 | 210 | 239 | 239 | 218
2007-08 | 257 | 228 | 213 | 184 | 228 | 199
2006-07 | 258 | 242 | 242 | 208 | 242 | 216
2005-06 | 294 | 253 | 257 | 260 | 253 | 215

2012-13 is prorated for 82 games. LA in 2011 was the outlier. All other eventual SC champs are goal-scoring machines with above-average defense.

 

[Kakko]

Pretty telling that even with us being way ahead of the league in GA, but still not as good as the champs most years.
Especially since people have recently been arguing that defense isn't as important

 

[Clown Fiesta]

Pretty telling that even with us being way ahead of the league in GA, but still not as good as the champs most years.
Especially since people have recently been arguing that defense isn't as important

Anyone arguing that is disillusioned, gotta find a balance. However if you can get a increase in GF while only dipping a little in GA you should be fine. Which I think this team is capable of doing, but we'll see.