How Good Are the 2013-14 Rangers (Part II)

[Bardof425*]

That's the thing, faceoffs are a means to puck possession: a small part of a very important factor. So if the Rangers are a good puck possession team who struggles in faceoffs, who cares?

So you win an offensive zone draw back to the point where a one timer ends up in the net; or is saved and the rebound is whacked in. Winning that draw was really important. What does that scenerio do to help the puck possession numbers?

 

[Emptyvoid]

I think the last Cup winner to be really good on face-offs was Boston. I have no doubt that it will cause trouble for us in the playoffs, but I will happily eat crow if that's not true. It's been an apparent problem in practically every game this season.

Stepan and Brassard are awful; Richards is at 50%.

I don't disagree that losing faceoffs isn't an issue for this team, I just disagree how much it affects our game.

I think if we still played under Torts and his system, I'd whole heartily agree. Winning faceoffs was so much more important under Torts for his game plan than it is under AV.

 

[Emptyvoid]

So you win an offensive zone draw back to the point where a one timer ends up in the net; or is saved and the rebound is whacked in. Winning that draw was really important. What does that scenerio do to help the puck possession numbers?

But how often does that kind of scenario happens? It's pretty rare that someone wins the faceoff that cleanly, puts it on the stick on their teammate for a one timer and that it goes into the net.

Of course it can happen....I just don't think enough where we should be concerned about that kind of scenario.

 

[NYR713]

The Rangers would be a solid team if the guys who are here to score could score. Otherwise they have the defense, goaltending and position depth. The depth players are doing their part, chipping in goals here and there and playing solid 2-way games. The biggest problems are Nash, Richards and St. Louis. If they were playing to the heights that they are signed to play at, this team would be scary.

If you look at the teams that seem to be a consensus group of top teams out there, they all have 3+ guys that have scored at least 20 goals(some 30+), then the depth to supplement. The Rangers have Nash as the only player who has broken 20 goals, not counting MSL because all his scoring was done in TB. Not even having to be 40 goal scorers and point per game players, if these guys could pull the equivalent of even 70 point players (the equivalent being over the course of 82 games) there wouldn't be so much doubt towards a playoff run. These 3 guys have to step up for the final run and playoffs. If NYR can win games, mostly relying on their depth scoring support, they could be beasts if their big players played big.

 

[Thirty One]

I think the last Cup winner to be really good on face-offs was Boston. I have no doubt that it will cause trouble for us in the playoffs, but I will happily eat crow if that's not true. It's been an apparent problem in practically every game this season.

Stepan and Brassard are awful; Richards is at 50%.

So Brassard at 1.9% below average is awful? So I guess 1.9% above average is great? Meaning the difference between a awful center and a great center is 3.8%, a difference of 38 faceoffs won per 1000 faceoffs (about a season's worth).

Winning offensive zone faceoffs gets you an average 2.45 goals per 100 draws, so the difference between a great faceoff center and an awful one is about 0.931 goals per season (and that assuming no neutral zone draws).

So yeah, I'm unconcerned.

So you win an offensive zone draw back to the point where a one timer ends up in the net; or is saved and the rebound is whacked in. Winning that draw was really important. What does that scenerio do to help the puck possession numbers?

What if the center wins it back so cleanly that his defensemen misses it at the point and it takes a bad bounce off the side-boards and rolls past his goalie?

 

[aufheben]

So Brassard at 1.9% below average is awful? So I guess 1.9% above average is great? Meaning the difference between a awful center and a great center is 3.8%, a difference of 38 faceoffs won per 1000 faceoffs (about a season's worth).

Winning offensive zone faceoffs gets you an average 2.45 goals per 100 draws, so the difference between a great faceoff center and an awful one is about 0.931 goals per season (and that assuming no neutral zone draws).

So yeah, I'm unconcerned.


What if the center wins it back so cleanly that his defensemen misses it at the point and it takes a bad bounce off the side-boards and rolls past his goalie?

That's fine, most of us have noticed it as a consistent problem all season, but to each his own.

 

[Emptyvoid]

So Brassard at 1.9% below average is awful? So I guess 1.9% above average is great? Meaning the difference between a awful center and a great center is 3.8%, a difference of 38 faceoffs won per 1000 faceoffs (about a season's worth).

Winning offensive zone faceoffs gets you an average 2.45 goals per 100 draws, so the difference between a great faceoff center and an awful one is about 0.931 goals per season (and that assuming no neutral zone draws).

So yeah, I'm unconcerned.


What if the center wins it back so cleanly that his defensemen misses it at the point and it takes a bad bounce off the side-boards and rolls past his goalie?

Thanks for the perspective. Sometimes it's hard to imagine what being a poor faceoff team (~48%) actually means in terms of production and posession.

 

[aufheben]

You don't have to imagine anything, the Rangers face-off ability gives us trouble on a almost nightly basis.

 

[Thirty One]

You don't have to imagine anything, the Rangers face-off ability gives us trouble on a almost nightly basis.

That's the way you feel. Evidence points to that not being the case.

 

[aufheben]

That's the way you feel. Evidence points to that not being the case.

We're 21st in the league on face-offs. That may not prevent us playoff success, but it's been a noticeable flaw the entire season.

 

[Emptyvoid]

We're 21st in the league on face-offs. That may not prevent us playoff success, but it's been a noticeable flaw the entire season.

But does that mean it's actually causing us trouble?

Being 21st in the league, how does that detrimentally affect our goal scoring, defense, possession, etc?

I'm thinking being good at faceoffs may be a luxury not a necessity to winning.

 

[aufheben]

But does that mean it's actually causing us trouble?

Being 21st in the league, how does that detrimentally affect our goal scoring, defense, possession, etc?

I'm thinking being good at faceoffs may be a luxury not a necessity to winning.

No, that stat by itself doesn't prove that it's giving us trouble. It's obvious, daily; specifically Stepan, and on the PP.

 

[Emptyvoid]

No, that stat by itself doesn't prove that it's giving us trouble. It's obvious, daily; specifically Stepan, and on the PP.

Obvious how? Ok, so we lost the face off. Now what?

Edit: Okay the PP I'm willing to concede because it costs us a minimum of 20 seconds to regain the zone. That may be another interesting study. If there's a correlation between PP% and face off ability.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

I love 31 busting myths one at a time.

 

[Thirty One]

No, that stat by itself doesn't prove that it's giving us trouble. It's obvious, daily; specifically Stepan, and on the PP.

Stepan has a 51.2% faceoff percentage on the PP....

 

[Blueshirt Special]

OK I haven't read through the last few pages because it seems like there are a lot of tangent agruments going on that I have neither the time or inclination to get involved in, so I'll just pick up with what had concerned me when I first posted in this thread which was right after the previous philly game where we got manhandled.

The main difference between then and now has been the physical play. This time around with philly we took it ot them in all 3 zones which is exctly how we will have to play in the playoffs.

We are playing much tougher in front of our own net. There are other factors as well, but that, to me, is the most visible difference.

carry on

 

[True Blue]

I love 31 busting myths one at a time.

Stats never tell the whole story. And can be made to sing in any direction. I work enough with them.

Does winning more face offs than not, make you a better team? Just answer that, instead of reaching for some stat to try to support your stance.

 

[Thirty One]

Stats never tell the whole story. And can be made to sing in any direction. I work enough with them.

Does winning more face offs than not, make you a better team? Just answer that, instead of reaching for some stat to try to support your stance.

You keep the strawman industry afloat, True Blue.

 

[BlueshirtBlitz]

Stats never tell the whole story. And can be made to sing in any direction. I work enough with them.

Does winning more face offs than not, make you a better team? Just answer that, instead of reaching for some stat to try to support your stance.

Sure.

Is it important enough to make a great team a meh team? The stats show otherwise.

 

[Thirty One]

Sure.

Is it important enough to make a great team a meh team? The stats show otherwise.

I'm far more interested in what your gut says.

But seriously, I love it when people let their opposition rest on the fact that stats may be misleading, rather than how specifically the particular stat is.

 

[Cassano]

Faceoffs are overrated IMO.

I'm far more interested in what your gut says.

But seriously, I love it when people let their opposition rest on the fact that stats may be misleading, rather than how specifically the particular stat is.

THIS. So much.

specifically Stepan, and on the PP.

I love 31 busting myths one at a time.

Stepan has a 51.2% faceoff percentage on the PP....

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Stats never tell the whole story. And can be made to sing in any direction. I work enough with them.

Does winning more face offs than not, make you a better team? Just answer that, instead of reaching for some stat to try to support your stance.

I don't think anyone said that winning faceoffs was no advantage at all, just not that significant in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Thirty One]

I don't think anyone said that winning faceoffs was no advantage at all, just not that significant in the grand scheme of things.

And especially since faceoffs are a mean towards getting possession, and the Rangers are a good possession team, so....

 

[SnowblindNYR]

And especially since faceoffs are a mean towards getting possession, and the Rangers are a good possession team, so....

Seems like thinking a little outside the box is a chore for most people so they just disagree when an argument goes against their well established beliefs.

 

[Emptyvoid]

Seems like thinking a little outside the box is a chore for most people so they just disagree when an argument goes against their well established beliefs.

It's human nature. We need an ounce of doubt to trash things we don't believe but a mountain of evidence to shift us from established beliefs.

I mean logically, regarding faceoffs, where would it have the most effect? Possession. I think we can all agree on that, you win a face off and you get the puck.

But we're already a good possession team, clearly we could do it without being stellar on the dot. Would being a better faceoff team improve our possession? Perhaps, but I'm arguing that it wouldn't be a significant amount.

Edit: I know i quoted you snowblind, but my comment was a more general sense. I know where you stand.

Edit 2: My opinion on what we need to improve on that would pay the biggest dividends? Gaining the zone on the power play. We've been abysmal at it the past month, corresponding very well to the time our PP% has started to sink. Once we set up, we look good and make high quality plays. But that's maybe for 30-45 seconds of the PP instead of the 1:15-1:45 we could be and what I imagine the best teams on the PP do.