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

[Blueshirt Special]

Win the games in your own conf that you're "supposed" to win, and you can shake off a tough loss to a very good western conf team this late in the season.

Otherwise?

 

[jerseyjinx94]

You need to embrace the randomness of hockey.

It's not a popular thing to say, but it's the truth. You don't even need to look at advanced stats to see that. Watching the game, the Rangers were all over the Sharks' zone. They scored a goal, there just wasn't any evidence of it (I suppose if they were a better team they would have made better luck for themselves there ).

Now, that would be a lot more re-assuring if there were 43 games left instead of 13, but here we are.

Yeah, I agree with this.

But we just need points in any way possible.

 

[aufheben]

I want to find Corsi and put my foot up his ass. I feel like advanced stats are mocking me this year. Out-posses and out-play probably 4 out of 5 teams we play and we're the definition of mediocrity. We're the anti-Leafs. This team is cursed.

The Leafs score a lot of goals.

 

[Thirty One]

The Leafs score a lot of goals.

Yeah, that's his point.

The Leafs are 11th in the league in GF/GP despite being 25th in the league in SF/GP. The Rangers are 19th in the league in GF/GP despite being 3rd in the league in SF/GP.

 

[jerseyjinx94]

Those numbers verify my observation that it appears that every time we shoot, we aim for the logo on the goalie's chest.

 

[True Blue]

I don't know why people keep saying "maybe win 1 playoff series at best". We made it to the ECF and finished first in our conference with a team that wasn't nearly as talented.

THAT less talented team was much better than the sum of its parts and was very hard to play against. Oh, and they finished with over 100 points.

THIS team is a cream puff to play against. They are tied for 8th in the East and 4th in the worse division in hockey. They are 2 points out of the 9th spot and 3 out of 10th. 7 teams in the West have more points and 2 Western teams have only 1 less points.

Why "at best"? Because again, you are what your record says you are. The Rangers are at best a mediocre teams. Mediocre teams typically do not make hay in the playoffs.

 

[heyheynyr]

How good exactly? You probably can't find an adjective to describe the Rangers properly. The thing is were a scary team. I live with non-rangers fans who all say they would be terrified to play the Rangers in the playoffs. If we get in/get hot the team has a chance to do damage. We can roll out 4 lines to start, three of which have players that can make plays and score. Granted we've been inconsistent all year, and seeing all three lines scoring has legit never been a thing. I do believe we will get into the playoffs and thats where we can do our damage, as were a matchup nightmare with guys like Stepan, Nash, MSL who can create scoring chances often when they're on, with our incredibly deep defense and Hank being Hank.

 

[True Blue]

The thing is were a scary team.

Really? Just who is it that are scared of this cream puff of a team?

If we get in/get hot the team has a chance to do damage.

Yawn.....been hearing this exact line (from fans to players to front office) since the Lindros trade. Heard it so much, that I am beginning to detest the term "do damage".

I live with non-rangers fans who all say they would be terrified to play the Rangers in the playoffs.

I know a bunch of people who would welcome their team playing the Rangers in the playoffs.

We can roll out 4 lines to start, three of which have players that can make plays and score.

More yawns....where is this uber talented team in terms of scoring?

I do believe we will get into the playoffs and thats where we can do our damage, as were a matchup nightmare with guys like Stepan, Nash, MSL who can create scoring chances often when they're on, with our incredibly deep defense and Hank being Hank.

Boston is quaking in their boots. What you describe is a paper tiger.

 

[Tawnos]

THAT less talented team was much better than the sum of its parts and was very hard to play against. Oh, and they finished with over 100 points.

THIS team is a cream puff to play against. They are tied for 8th in the East and 4th in the worse division in hockey.

I've been wondering about this lately. The West has 7 of the top 10 teams in the league and 5 of the bottom 10 teams in the league. Only two teams in the middle. The East has 3 of the top 10, 5 of the bottom 10 and 8 of the middle 10.

Does that mean the West is much better? Or does that mean there's much more parity in the East.

 

[Thirty One]

I've been wondering about this lately. The West has 7 of the top 10 teams in the league and 5 of the bottom 10 teams in the league. Only two teams in the middle. The East has 3 of the top 10, 5 of the bottom 10 and 8 of the middle 10.

Does that mean the West is much better? Or does that mean there's much more parity in the East.

The West is a lot better. The head-to-head records is something to view.

But that's all the more reason the Rangers could do some damage in the playoffs.

 

[Tawnos]

The West is a lot better. The head-to-head records is something to view.

But that's all the more reason the Rangers could do some damage in the playoffs.

Head-to-head provides way too small and spread out of a sample to accurately judge the strength of the conference.

 

[Thirty One]

Head-to-head provides way too small and spread out of a sample to accurately judge the strength of the conference.

It's over 700 games....

 

[Tawnos]

It's over 700 games....

At the end of the year, it will be 36% of the games. Does a 30 game sample for one team accurately portray how good that team is? Neither does a 900 game sample in a 2,460 game season portray how good a conference is.

 

[Thirty One]

At the end of the year, it will be 36% of the games. Does a 30 game sample for one team accurately portray how good that team is? Neither does a 900 game sample in a 2,460 game season portray how good a conference is.

No, but when you multiply it by 30 it should give you a pretty good idea.

 

[Tawnos]

No, but when you multiply it by 30 it should give you a pretty good idea.

Except that it isn't one team we're talking about here. It's not a 900 game sample of a single team. It's a 30 game sample multiplied over 30 different teams, in varying situations on the season.

By the way, there aren't 900 interconference games, anyway. There are 450.

 

[True Blue]

Does that mean the West is much better? Or does that mean there's much more parity in the East.

I think that it's both and not in a good way. The West is better. The East has a few really good teams and a slew of mediocre ones. The Rangers fall into the category of being an also ran in the field of mediocre teams. Not the best view point.

 

[Thirty One]

Except that it isn't one team we're talking about here. It's not a 900 game sample of a single team. It's a 30 game sample multiplied over 30 different teams, in varying situations on the season.

By the way, there aren't 900 interconference games, anyway. There are 450.

And do you know what's a good measure to to balance that variation? A sample of 450.

 

[Tawnos]

I think that it's both and not in a good way. The West is better. The East has a few really good teams and a slew of mediocre ones. The Rangers fall into the category of being an also ran in the field of mediocre teams. Not the best view point.

There is always that possibility. I think it's really hard to tell. Records don't really tell the whole story, either overall or in the conference, when you're talking about an entire group of teams. You are what your record says you are, but that only holds true when you're comparing teams with a reasonably similar schedule. The West's schedule and the East's schedule are too far removed from each other to compare easily. Even comparing teams from different divisions in the same conference is pushing it, to some extent.

I think for me, in the end, this is more of a reasoning exercise than really thinking that the East is better than the West. It's hard not to look at 5 of those teams and wonder if anyone in the East, including Boston and Pittburgh, can really compete with them.

 

[Leonardo87]

How good exactly? You probably can't find an adjective to describe the Rangers properly. The thing is were a scary team. I live with non-rangers fans who all say they would be terrified to play the Rangers in the playoffs.

Yeah, I am sure Boston is shaking in their little boots if they have to play the Rangers in the playoffs.

 

[Thirty One]

Yeah, I am sure Boston is shaking in their little boots if they have to play the Rangers in the playoffs.

I bet there's few matchups they'd prefer less.

 

[aufheben]

In terms of top end teams the West is clearly better. We have Boston, and Pittsburgh who ***** the bed most of the time. Chicago, San Jose, Anaheim, Colorado, LA, and arguably Minnesota, are better than every team in the East sans Boston and Pittsburgh.

 

[Megustaelhockey]

In terms of top end teams the West is clearly better. We have Boston, and Pittsburgh who ***** the bed most of the time. Chicago, San Jose, Anaheim, Colorado, LA, and arguably Minnesota, are better than every team in the East sans Boston and Pittsburgh.

Good list, auf - I don't know how impressed I am by Colorado, LA, and Minnesota, but the rest of those teams... one of them or Boston will win the Cup in my mind.

 

[NYR Viper]

Good list, auf - I don't know how impressed I am by Colorado, LA, and Minnesota, but the rest of those teams... one of them or Boston will win the Cup in my mind.

I wouldn't want to play LA or Colorado over a 7 game series.

 

[Thirty One]

I do not find Colorado intimidating.

 

[aufheben]

I don't know about Colorado, but LA I would 100% not want to play.