Toggle sidebar

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

  • 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
Not open for further replies.
Surprisingly plotting ROW vs FO% reveals almost no correlation. However, I don't think this is the proper way to tell the importance of FO as you really need the breakdown of FO%. For example a team that is 50% overall on faceoffs because the top guy is great, second guy is good, and bottom two are horrible almost certainly has an edge over a team with a weak top few guys and strong fourth line center (like us) as they benefit from the possession much more.

Additionally many good FO players are not impact players on the game (Boyle, Moore, Gaustad etc...) so it's possible some of the worse teams in the league had lots of limited offensive players who were strong on FO. What we really need to see is how a team improves from moving from an X FO% to Y FO% where Y>X. Unfortunately there are too many variables to be able to fully identify this. Perhaps somehow has done some sort of study to determine the impact.
 
SA16 said:
Surprisingly plotting ROW vs FO% reveals almost no correlation. However, I don't think this is the proper way to tell the importance of FO as you really need the breakdown of FO%. For example a team that is 50% overall on faceoffs because the top guy is great, second guy is good, and bottom two are horrible almost certainly has an edge over a team with a weak top few guys and strong fourth line center (like us) as they benefit from the possession much more.

Additionally many good FO players are not impact players on the game (Boyle, Moore, Gaustad etc...) so it's possible some of the worse teams in the league had lots of limited offensive players who were strong on FO. What we really need to see is how a team improves from moving from an X FO% to Y FO% where Y>X. Unfortunately there are too many variables to be able to fully identify this. Perhaps somehow has done some sort of study to determine the impact.
Click to expand...

ROW vs. the FO% of the highest TOI center might be worth looking at. Obviously imperfect (lots of teams run two guys evenly and any conclusion of "play Konopka for 20 minutes" is bad) but there might be a positive correlation there and it would tie in.
 
I harped on FO% a lot during the playoff push for that '11-'12 team. However they were a worse possession team than this one is by 4%.

Also, last night:

Best possession teams

Team 5v5 CF%
Anaheim Ducks 68%
New York Rangers 66%
Nashville Predators 57%
Philadelphia Flyers 55%
Pittsburgh Penguins 53%
 
Ail said:
I harped on FO% a lot during the playoff push for that '11-'12 team. However they were a worse possession team than this one is by 4%.

Also, last night:

Best possession teams

Team 5v5 CF%
Anaheim Ducks 68%
New York Rangers 66%
Nashville Predators 57%
Philadelphia Flyers 55%
Pittsburgh Penguins 53%
Click to expand...

Just shows what I already knew. The Rangers outplayed the Flames badly but were loose defensively in their end and Lundqvist gave them a freeby.
 
True Blue said:
I asked you a fairly simple question. Does winning face offs make you a better team?
Click to expand...

Yes, it does. Being above average or great at every realm of the game will make you a better team.

But there are no perfect teams. And it seems that if we were good at FOs, you would probably complain about some other deficiency.
 
jerseyjinx94 said:
Yes, it does. Being above average or great at every realm of the game will make you a better team.

But there are no perfect teams. And it seems that if we were good at FOs, you would probably complain about some other deficiency.
Click to expand...
No, there are no perfect teams. But there are some teams that are better than others. And simply saying that an aspect, which CAN improve your team, does not matter, is not accurate. If it can make you better, than how can it not matter?
 
True Blue said:
No, there are no perfect teams. But there are some teams that are better than others. And simply saying that an aspect, which CAN improve your team, does not matter, is not accurate. If it can make you better, than how can it not matter?
Click to expand...

Well that's true. I don't care what the numbers say, we need to be able to win a big face off now and then. I don't care if the other teams win 4 to our 1, it's more about timing, that big face off. Someone's got to knuckle down and win it.

But the point was you can be a fan of any team and find a weakness. Sometimes you have to acknowledge the strengths as well.
 
jerseyjinx94 said:
But the point was you can be a fan of any team and find a weakness. Sometimes you have to acknowledge the strengths as well.
Click to expand...
Sure, but sometimes you also have to be realistic about if the team has more strengths or weaknesses.

Though I guess that is where some divide into the optimists or realists.

Anything that can make you better, should not just be shrugged off.
 
True Blue said:
Sure, but sometimes you also have to be realistic about if the team has more strengths or weaknesses.

Though I guess that is where some divide into the optimists or realists.

Anything that can make you better, should not just be shrugged off.
Click to expand...

Nobody is shrugging it off.

You're taking an issue that, in the grand scheme of things, is fairly minuscule because of the various strengths of the team and using it to act as if the team isn't that good.
 
What should they do to improve faceoffs? Hold another special edition Mark Messier training camp for the faceoff impaired? The deadline is over and this is it. The team is still one of the top posession teams in the league despite mediocre faceoffs from their top-6. Do you guys want the team to be top 5 in the league for every stat before you can admit they have a good chance to make noise in the playoffs? They're not tough enough, they're too small, they suck in the dot, they don't have a legit #1C, where's the PMD, they don't clear the paint, MSL will never show up in NY, Rick Nash is a lazy floater the list goes on yet they keep winning.

Every team has problems, would anyone still want to be Chicago right now going in to the post-season? I wouldn't.
 
aufheben said:
If anyone doesn't want to hear criticism of the Rangers, feel free to simply ignore it.
Click to expand...

Please answer the question. What should they do to improve the FO%?

I'm also not sure why people would simply ignore posts they don't agree with since it would eliminate most of the discussion on a discussion board.
 
Ail said:
Please answer the question. What should they do to improve the FO%?

I'm also not sure why people would simply ignore posts they don't agree with since it would eliminate most of the discussion on a discussion board.
Click to expand...

The tone I got from your post was that things we can't change aren't worthy of discussion. What should they do to improve them? They can't improve Stepan's FO ability in a couple weeks. What AV will probably end up having to do in the playoffs is use D. Moore and Boyle in situations where Stepan isn't trusted.

Example: IIRC, Stepan lost an important face-off at the end of the Calgary game? Was that FOL the reason we lost? No, but stuff like that doesn't help.

It's just a concern of mine, I'm not saying they're doomed because of it. Stepan takes BY FAR the most FO's on the team, and he's our worst FO man.
 
Last edited:
aufheben said:
The tone I got from your post was that things we can't change aren't worthy of discussion. What should they do to improve them? They can't improve Stepan's FO ability in a couple weeks. What AV will probably end up having to do in the playoffs is use D. Moore and Boyle in situations where Stepan isn't trusted.
Click to expand...

Everything is worthy of discussion I suppose. The point of that post was to point out that despite every time this thread is opened there is something new wrong with the team, they are still winning and weaknesses be damned this is what they have to work with for the playoffs.

Yes Boyle and Moore should always be used in any crucial faceoff in the defensive zone outside of icings.
 
aufheben said:
It's just a concern of mine, I'm not saying they're doomed because of it. Stepan takes BY FAR the most FO's on the team, and he's our worst FO man.
Click to expand...
People are trying to minimize flaws by attempting to geometrically link stats to wins. As Billy Beane found out, sabermetrics are fatally flawed. They are useful and should be used, but hardly tell the entire tale and at times tell the wrong tale.

In the end, one can say that this aspect or that aspect is not important. But suddenly when you add up all of the aspects, you have deficiencies. And these deficiencies contribute to sub standards, which do not contribute to winning.
 
True Blue said:
People are trying to minimize flaws by attempting to geometrically link stats to wins. As Billy Beane found out, Sabremetrics are fatally flawed. They are useful and should be used, but hardly tell the entire tale and at times tell the wrong tale.

In the end, one can say that this aspect or that aspect is not important. But suddenly when you add up all of the aspects, you have deficiencies. And these deficiencies contribute to sub standards, which do not contribute to winning.
Click to expand...
I can't find that Billy Beane quote....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom