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

[BlueshirtBlitz]

I don't think it's miniscule. I would be shocked if it didn't cause problems for us in the playoffs.

Fair enough.

But I think the benefits our centers bring- for example, Stepan is superb defensively and has pretty good possession numbers because of that- will outweight their weaknesses on FOs.

edit- and I guess to further clarify my point, our centers have proven their overall games can outweigh their FO deficiency because we're a top 5 team in the league even with centers who can't win FO's.

 

[jerseyjinx94]

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.

I would say it's a divide between optimists and pessimists. I wouldn't classify you as a realist. You think we have no shot at winning the Cup. That's not a realist's perspective. How many time do we have to go over this?

 

[jerseyjinx94]

Also, you think this team has more weaknesses than strengths? I disagree about that, as well.

 

[Ail]

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.

While some people "minimize flaws" you exaggerate them and downplay the team's strengths. Whether or not you agree with what the advanced stats say or don't say is your problem. Since the team is winning maybe you should be talking about what is contributing to that rather than what might potentially cause them to lose in the future. When they go on a 5 game losing streak I will listen to why you think this is a bad team and what is causing them to lose.

 

[Thirty One]

While some people "minimize flaws" you exaggerate them and downplay the team's strengths. Whether or not you agree with what the advanced stats say or don't say is your problem. Since the team is winning maybe you should be talking about what is contributing to that rather than what might potentially cause them to lose in the future. When they go on a 5 game losing streak I will listen to why you think this is a bad team and what is causing them to lose.

Don't forget minimizing the flaws in those teams he wants to draw wild comparisons to.

 

[AlternateSideParking]

They're 40-24-4 since the disaster start.

26-12-2 since Christmas.

Boston should be a concern, but they lost to Washington in 2012 and any team not named Maple Leafs closes them out in Game 7 a year ago.

They can be beaten.

 

[Inferno]

They're 40-24-4 since the disaster start.

26-12-2 since Christmas.

Boston should be a concern, but they lost to Washington in 2012 and any team not named Maple Leafs closes them out in Game 7 a year ago.

They can be beaten.

Really, if you take out the start to the season and replace those results with our PPG since then we're a 94 point team. 3rd best in the East.

If you use the post Christmas numbers to extrapolate we're a 103 point team...2nd best in the East.

OBVIOUSLY you CAN'T extrapolate those numbers and the Rangers record is what it is, as all teams have bad stretches they'd like to remove.

But, remember, our bad stretch was EARLY in the season. We're talking HUGE sample sizes there folks.

Rangers are a top 3-4 team in the East....exactly what we expected going into the season.

and really, not having to face Bawstun till the ECF means an ECF appearance isnt out of the question.

nor is a 1st round exit.

too much parity in this league.

 

[Emptyvoid]

Really, if you take out the start to the season and replace those results with our PPG since then we're a 94 point team. 3rd best in the East.

If you use the post Christmas numbers to extrapolate we're a 103 point team...2nd best in the East.

OBVIOUSLY you CAN'T extrapolate those numbers and the Rangers record is what it is, as all teams have bad stretches they'd like to remove.

But, remember, our bad stretch was EARLY in the season. We're talking HUGE sample sizes there folks.

Rangers are a top 3-4 team in the East....exactly what we expected going into the season.

and really, not having to face Bawstun till the ECF means an ECF appearance isnt out of the question.

nor is a 1st round exit.

too much parity in this league.

Along those lines, its partly why I feel its ok to extrapolate. How far you get in the playoffs has a lot do with how well you're playing leading up to it. You think Blackhawks feel good about their chances right now? I bet they felt x10000 better about it before the olympic break.

 

[Thirty One]

The only reasonable sample to judge a team is their entire record, unadjusted for shootout, from 1941-1993; 1995-present.

 

[Jersey Girl]

Along those lines, its partly why I feel its ok to extrapolate. How far you get in the playoffs has a lot do with how well you're playing leading up to it. You think Blackhawks feel good about their chances right now? I bet they felt x10000 better about it before the olympic break.

Losing your two best players will do that.

 

[AlternateSideParking]

The 1993 Penguins and 1996 Wings were the two best teams in modern day NHL history and didn't reach the SCF.

The Rangers don't need to finish on a winning streak. They need to stay healthy. One of the rarely talked about factoids from the 1994 team is that they were healthy for most of that postseason (and yes, playing with pain means your still healthy)

They're looking at Philly, Boston and Pitt as the toughest road.

 

[Inferno]

The 1993 Penguins and 1996 Wings were the two best teams in modern day NHL history and didn't reach the SCF.

The Rangers don't need to finish on a winning streak. They need to stay healthy. One of the rarely talked about factoids from the 1994 team is that they were healthy for most of that postseason (and yes, playing with pain means your still healthy)

They're looking at Philly, Boston and Pitt as the toughest road.

if youre the rangers you shouldnt be at all scared about the Flyers.

Rangers have really outplayed them in every game this season if my memory serves me right. even in the games we lost it felt like we dominated them for the vast majority of the game.

Rangers havent lost to them at home in seemingly forever, and we've won what, like 20 out of the last 25 times against them or something absurd like that?


COULD we lose? Of course. It's the playoffs.

But they don't scare me.

Penguins do scare me quite a bit more. Even if injured they are still an incredibly talented team.

Their D and Goaltending will make or break them.

Bawstun is clearly the best team in the East and probably in the entire NHL, but, they have a pretty damn hard road to the ECF themselves. Theyre going to have to face either a Detroit team that's starting to heat up AND get healthy...Or a Columbus team that likes to play the dirty game that the Brooins like to play with an elite goalie.

That's physically draining.

Then, they'll have to face Montreal which seems to have their number or Tampa which has one of the best pure goal scorers in the league and an elite goalie (this year anyway).

That's a tough road.

To me, i'd rather face the teams with better skaters and poorer goalies than vice versa.

Goalie is the only position where you can truly say the player can single handedly win you a game and a series. very few skaters can do that...hell very few lines can do that.

I'd much rather face Mason and Fleury than face Bobrovsky and Bishop/Price.

 

[True Blue]

Whether or not you agree with what the advanced stats say or don't say is your problem.

Stats are stats. I just know that they do not always tell the full story. Like relyin gon +/- stats for example.

Since the team is winning maybe you should be talking about what is contributing to that rather than what might potentially cause them to lose in the future.

Actually, I reserve the right to comment on whatever I feel like commenting at at the time.

When they go on a 5 game losing streak I will listen to why you think this is a bad team and what is causing them to lose.

At the same time you have the right to listen or not listen to whomever and for whatever reason.

 

[RGY]

Really, if you take out the start to the season and replace those results with our PPG since then we're a 94 point team. 3rd best in the East.

If you use the post Christmas numbers to extrapolate we're a 103 point team...2nd best in the East.

OBVIOUSLY you CAN'T extrapolate those numbers and the Rangers record is what it is, as all teams have bad stretches they'd like to remove.

But, remember, our bad stretch was EARLY in the season. We're talking HUGE sample sizes there folks.

Rangers are a top 3-4 team in the East....exactly what we expected going into the season.

and really, not having to face Bawstun till the ECF means an ECF appearance isnt out of the question.

nor is a 1st round exit.

too much parity in this league.

Early in the season on a west coast trip when this team was transitioning from one style of game under torts to an entirely different style under AV, especially in the defensive aspect because we went from a collapsing zone defense to man-to-man.

 

[Inferno]

Stats are stats. I just know that they do not always tell the full story. Like relyin gon +/- stats for example.

Actually, I reserve the right to comment on whatever I feel like commenting at at the time.

At the same time you have the right to listen or not listen to whomever and for whatever reason.

I like stats and i like the eyeball test.

to me, the eyeball test is whether or not we are the better teams on most nights, and if, when we lose, it's a goaltending issue....IE is the other teams goalie outplaying our goalie on that night.

To me, id say most of our losses this year were when the opposing goalie outplayed ours. I'd also say we outplayed the opposition FAR more than we've been outplayed, and id say, as a "luck" stat, we've lost more games that we've outplayed the opposition than we've won where we were outplayed by the opposition.

that eyeball test, to me anyway, seems to back up what the stats say.

 

[Thirty One]

Stats are stats. I just know that they do not always tell the full story. Like relyin gon +/- stats for example.

Discounting stats because of +/-?

That's like discounting Al Pacino movies because of Gigli.

 

[aufheben]

I like stats and i like the eyeball test.

to me, the eyeball test is whether or not we are the better teams on most nights, and if, when we lose, it's a goaltending issue....IE is the other teams goalie outplaying our goalie on that night.

To me, id say most of our losses this year were when the opposing goalie outplayed ours. I'd also say we outplayed the opposition FAR more than we've been outplayed, and id say, as a "luck" stat, we've lost more games that we've outplayed the opposition than we've won where we were outplayed by the opposition.

that eyeball test, to me anyway, seems to back up what the stats say.

Is it the other team's goalie, or our forwards just not great finishers in general? Or both? I can't count how many times the GDT's were filled with Scrub "Hasek" ABC.

 

[Thirty One]

Is it the other team's goalie, or our forwards just not great finishers in general? Or both? I can't count how many times the GDT's were filled with Scrub "Hasek" ABC.

I think it's definitely a possibility that the Rangers forwards are, as a whole, below average finishers, in spite of Nash, St. Louis, Pouliot, etc. But I can't see them being tied with Florida in that regard or significantly below Calgary.

 

[Raspewtin]

The Rangers have a shot at competing if literally every player is firing on all cylinders. Lundqvist has to be great. All of the D have to be largely mistake free. Every forward has to give it everything they have, they can't play games where Boyle's line is the best line anymore. Nash has to be completely engaged. This isn't the kind of team that can have an underperforming star come playoff time. The real contenders can afford to lose a star player. Last year Toews played like **** but Chicago won it anyway on the backs of Kane and their depth players. Seguin played like **** all of last playoffs, but Boston's depth kept them a float. Brown did not play well in the SCF and the Kings won anyway.

The Rangers don't have this luxury.

 

[Cassano]

The Rangers have a shot at competing if literally every player is firing on all cylinders. Lundqvist has to be great. All of the D have to be largely mistake free. Every forward has to give it everything they have, they can't play games where Boyle's line is the best line anymore. Nash has to be completely engaged. This isn't the kind of team that can have an underperforming star come playoff time. The real contenders can afford to lose a star player. Last year Toews played like **** but Chicago won it anyway on the backs of Kane and their depth players. Seguin played like **** all of last playoffs, but Boston's depth kept them a float. Brown did not play well in the SCF and the Kings won anyway.

The Rangers don't have this luxury.

Why don't they?

 

[Raspewtin]

I'm being cautiously optimistic about how well our depth players will do in the playoffs. Will Brassard pull of his heroics from last year? Because without them the Caps could've beat us in 5. Does anyone think Brassard will repeat that?

What happened last year when Nash and Stepan were largely kept off the score sheet most of the playoffs? Out in 5 against a better team. The addition of Pouliot doesn't solve that in my opinion, I have doubts about how effective his line will be when their space is largely taken away. MSL can't keep up this disappearing act if the Rangers want to get far.

Basically what I tried to say is that another superstar disappearing act will have us out just as quick as last time, when we face a good team.

 

[RGY]

I'm being cautiously optimistic about how well our depth players will do in the playoffs. Will Brassard pull of his heroics from last year? Because without them the Caps could've beat us in 5. Does anyone think Brassard will repeat that?

What happened last year when Nash and Stepan were largely kept off the score sheet most of the playoffs? Out in 5 against a better team. The addition of Pouliot doesn't solve that in my opinion, I have doubts about how effective his line will be when their space is largely taken away. MSL can't keep up this disappearing act if the Rangers want to get far.

Basically what I tried to say is that another superstar disappearing act will have us out just as quick as last time, when we face a good team.

But that could be said for a lot of teams going into the playoffs. Teams need their star players to perform. But also like you said chicago had great depth last year. Boston has as well. The rangers have made cost efficient decisions and all the sudden have great depth. You should be glad Boyle's line continually plays strong because when the other lines get going you have a force of 4 lines.

 

[True Blue]

Why don't they?

Namely they do not have the caliber of players that the those other teams do.

 

[True Blue]

But that could be said for a lot of teams going into the playoffs. Teams need their star players to perform.

I think, and I do not speak for him, his point was that Boston and Chicago are much more talented as a whole. If Toews disappears, Chicago still has other uber talented players that are as talented as any in the league, for example.

 

[jerseyjinx94]

I don't understand how you can say we need our stars to play well to win in the playoffs and then you cite two teams who had a star do nothing and go far. That doesn't make sense.