How Good Are the 2013-14 Rangers (Part II)
- Thread starter Thirty One
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
- Status
Thirty One
Safe is safe.
- Dec 28, 2003
- 28,981
- 24,357
Dude, that was a facetious statement. Get it? 90% of all statistics are false. This has nothing do with any debate.
Thirty One
Safe is safe.
- Dec 28, 2003
- 28,981
- 24,357
Thirty One
Safe is safe.
- Dec 28, 2003
- 28,981
- 24,357
I love this. A Sens blogger looks at the makeup of a Cup Contender, a topic discussed much on here. Warning: Longness and Fancystats.
http://www.silversevensens.com/2014/3/25/5545016/the-anatomy-of-a-cup-contender
He's clearly just an optimist for the Rangers.
http://www.silversevensens.com/2014/3/25/5545016/the-anatomy-of-a-cup-contender
He's clearly just an optimist for the Rangers.
How exactly does one differentiate between an "unlucky" shooting percentage and having a group of players who are simply inaccurate shooters?
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
Thirty One
Safe is safe.
- Dec 28, 2003
- 28,981
- 24,357
Yeah I compared the team's shooting percentages this year compared to their players' historic shooting percentages and it was resulted in a difference of ~11-12 goals if I remember correctly.
Obviously. I was just curious if there was some sort of metric referenced by the article which I was unaware of. I.e., if they based it on last year's totals, career averages for each player, quality of shots taken (is that measured?), etc.
Elvis Presley
Aka #30
Hi Guys!
I hope everyone is having a great day. I wanted to reach out to all of you drop in my two scents/cents/sense.
I believe if we make it to the playoffs, then it's anybody's cup to win, including US! That being said, I liked the way we have been looking the second half (despite some inconsistencies). With McD playing out of his mind, Mr H King Presleyqvist getting it together and doing his usual amazing job, scoring from what seems to be from all lines.
If they can keep up playing with that heart and emotion that we've seen the past couple games (post-Columbus game), I think we would be going in to the playoffs with decent momentum. If you think the regular season dictates playoff results, talk to LA, and all the other 8 seeds that went all the way.
Lastly, in addition to the seemingly-improving-depth, MZA playing insane, Pouliot being a silent but deadly asset, and Hagelin remembering what it's like to skate with a puck on his stick, we still have a lot of positives. Maybe Klein will get a bit more tougher on the blue line (not that he hasn't been doing a decent job) and our PP will pick up again. Who knows?
This seems to be all over the place, but hopefully some of you get the point.
Lets go Rangers. Long live the King.
Kind Regards,
Elvis Presley
I hope everyone is having a great day. I wanted to reach out to all of you drop in my two scents/cents/sense.
I believe if we make it to the playoffs, then it's anybody's cup to win, including US! That being said, I liked the way we have been looking the second half (despite some inconsistencies). With McD playing out of his mind, Mr H King Presleyqvist getting it together and doing his usual amazing job, scoring from what seems to be from all lines.
If they can keep up playing with that heart and emotion that we've seen the past couple games (post-Columbus game), I think we would be going in to the playoffs with decent momentum. If you think the regular season dictates playoff results, talk to LA, and all the other 8 seeds that went all the way.
Lastly, in addition to the seemingly-improving-depth, MZA playing insane, Pouliot being a silent but deadly asset, and Hagelin remembering what it's like to skate with a puck on his stick, we still have a lot of positives. Maybe Klein will get a bit more tougher on the blue line (not that he hasn't been doing a decent job) and our PP will pick up again. Who knows?
This seems to be all over the place, but hopefully some of you get the point.
Lets go Rangers. Long live the King.
Kind Regards,
Elvis Presley
- Sep 17, 2007
- 24,926
- 22,848
How good are we? Here are some numbers to chew on:
[table="head;width=500"]Year|GF/G|Rank|GA/G|Rank|PP%|Rank|PK%|Rank
2009-10|2.67|16th|2.61|10th|18.3|13th|84.3|7th
2010-11|2.73|16th|2.38|5th|16.9|18th|83.7|10th
2011-12|2.71|11th|2.22|3rd|15.7|23rd|86.2|5th
2012-13|2.63|15th|2.25|4th|15.7|23rd|81.1|15th
2013-14|2.60|18th|2.41|6th|18.6|14th|84.4|7th
2013-14*|2.69|16th|2.22|4th|18.3|16th|85.4|5th
[/table]
* Excludes the first 5 games which were a complete trainwreck (we gave up 25 goals and scored 7)
[table="head;width=500"]Year|GF/G|Rank|GA/G|Rank|PP%|Rank|PK%|Rank
2009-10|2.67|16th|2.61|10th|18.3|13th|84.3|7th
2010-11|2.73|16th|2.38|5th|16.9|18th|83.7|10th
2011-12|2.71|11th|2.22|3rd|15.7|23rd|86.2|5th
2012-13|2.63|15th|2.25|4th|15.7|23rd|81.1|15th
2013-14|2.60|18th|2.41|6th|18.6|14th|84.4|7th
2013-14*|2.69|16th|2.22|4th|18.3|16th|85.4|5th
[/table]
* Excludes the first 5 games which were a complete trainwreck (we gave up 25 goals and scored 7)
Good thing we made all those improvements to the offensive system and everyone's happy
(scoring less goals per game than ever).
Emptyvoid
Registered User
- Apr 11, 2009
- 3,616
- 166
....or the same as '11-12, if you take away the first 5 games, which you shouldnt. Then its .2 more goals per game given up.
Emptyvoid
Registered User
- Apr 11, 2009
- 3,616
- 166
Is it really that unreasonable to take away the first five games though? Isn't it more indicative of how the team is playing the past fifty games for future success? What effect does that terrible road trip to start have now?
But regardless, your point is still the same. We aren't scoring more, but we're still defending well.
I'd be interested in our possession stats. G/F and G/A are just one side of the story.
Thirty One
Safe is safe.
- Dec 28, 2003
- 28,981
- 24,357
They're good: http://www.extraskater.com/teams/on-ice?type=total
They're at 53.3 FF%. In the last 5 seasons, there have been 8 teams above 55%; 3 went to the Cup finals, 2 won the Cup. They're close to that mark. That being said, they are below the Devils, so...
I really think that the Devils put a large hole into fancy stats. They're a) not a very talented team and b) not a very good team. I think they put a hole way more than Toronto because at least Toronto has some legit talent up front that just happens to be better on the counter attack than in possession, at least that's explainable. Unless Pete Deboer just really knows how to make chicken salad from chicken ****. I can get excited about a stat when the ****** Devils dominate it.
It's amazing how good our PP has looked most of this year yet the numbers are mediocre. I think it's a lot better than the numbers though. This year at least when they don't score they quite often put pressure. Look at the game against Columbus. Columbus were 0-3 with 1 shot on goal, we were 0-4 with 10 shots on goal. Not every 0-for is the same.
Thirty One
Safe is safe.
- Dec 28, 2003
- 28,981
- 24,357
Emptyvoid
Registered User
- Apr 11, 2009
- 3,616
- 166
We've been on a bit of a slide with the PP the last 20 games or so. We generate some good chances, haven't been able to finish them properly. Hopefully it'll sort itself out before the playoffs.
Emptyvoid
Registered User
- Apr 11, 2009
- 3,616
- 166
Yep, an outlier certainly puts a hole in the whole ship....
I'm having trouble, can you explain how to read this? Not sure if left to right, or top to bottom. I is confused.
This really isn't true. I'm stupid optimistic and my expectations of what I can do are usually not realistic compared to my typical end results. Best way I can describe it is with a psych study I once saw. Self-labeled pessimists, realists and optimists were all given the same goal and asked ahead of starting it how they thought they would do. The pessimists had the lowest expectations, the realists higher, and the optimists had the highest expectations. The self-labeled pessimists and optimists fell close to what they'd expected. The optimists were the one group that actually feel short of their expectations. The thing is, even thought the optimists fell short of what they expected to do, in the end the optimists had notably out-produced the results of the pessimists and realists. My own observations seem to time and again align with this. I reckon if you aim lofty and fall short, it generally seems you will still fall way ahead of the pack who shoot for much lesser results.
I think it takes all types though. Like my ex wife balanced my insane goals out nicely. While I was busy working toward some nutty lofty goal, she'd unknown to me to stash a few grand in a side account to prevent me from blowing us up. I have for sure achieved some staggering success in life backed with almost unswerving confidence. But there were moments, too, when that has backfired and her overly-cautious nature saved our tails. So I have an honest appreciation for all three groups, so long as I can manage, lead, or be the captain
I mean it makes sense. Whenever I've seen the Devils it seems like their strategy has been put it in the other teams corner and cycle until the games over. I'd be curious to see how many shot attempts they make per 60 compared to the other top possession team. That might help explain it, as there's never a perfect stat but possession metrics have proven to be pretty accurate.
They have the fewest shots on goal for and against, you're right. That said if half the league did that I somehow doubt those teams would be winning that much. It's a ****** strategy for winning consistently I think, so it's still a loophole isn't it?
- Status
