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

[aufheben]

What people never seem to bring up when talking about that 'amazing' 2012 team was that they peaked in February and played .500 hockey from there on out and through the playoffs. It's a long season and we were just riding a great hot streak that ended--plain and simple.

Well if playing mediocre gets you to the ECF, they must have been a pretty good team nonetheless.

 

[pld459666]

My god, this is upsetting.


I feel like we traded a potential cup winner for Rick Nash.

Yeah, no.

As nice as it was to see the Rangers do what they did that year, I never looked at them like a team that was capable of winning a cup.

hard working team that had more flaws than today's team has.

But we got to the Conference Finals and blah blah blah....

 

[NYR Viper]

Yeah, no.

As nice as it was to see the Rangers do what they did that year, I never looked at them like a team that was capable of winning a cup.

hard working team that had more flaws than today's team has.

But we got to the Conference Finals and blah blah blah....

Eh, I'm not sure that team was all that far off though. Add another scoring threat and I think they would have beaten the Devils. Then what?

 

[Blueshirt Special]

Eh, I'm not sure that team was all that far off though. Add another scoring threat and I think they would have beaten the Devils. Then what?

You mean add someone like .....er, uh, nevermind

 

[McRanger]

I did not say that the Bruins were scared of that Rangers team either.

Let's not spend another thread talking about semantics, one was trashed enough with the "blows away" "compares favorably to" idiocy.

In this case, in your most honest heart of hearts, do you think the Bruins would prefer to face the '11-12 team or this current paper tiger?

I specifically asked if teams were "scared" of the the '11-'12 team, but whatever.

Which Bruins team? The '11-'12 one that got eliminated in the first round by Washington or this one?

I think the Bruins would prefer to play whichever Rangers team has non-God-like Lundqvist in net. Since he is around less frequently this year, I would have to go with this team.

If its the '11-'12 Lundqvist then its the one from the last Bruins game where we lost despite out shooting Boston 34-21. They would definitely prefer him over the one from the first 3 games that the Rangers won despite being out shot 70-109.

 

[True Blue]

What people never seem to bring up when talking about that 'amazing' 2012 team was that they peaked in February and played .500 hockey from there on out and through the playoffs.

Did they or did they not have more success than any other Rangers team in the last 20 years?

It's a long season and we were just riding a great hot streak that ended--plain and simple.

Never fails to amaze me how many reasons exist for the '11-12 team to be lucky and how many excuses are made for this paper tiger to be unlucky.

I know, I know. If we do not count the October games, and not the recent Philly/Boston/San Jose losses and take out a handful of pesky November losses, this is the absolute best team in the league.

 

[True Blue]

I specifically asked if teams were "scared" of the the '11-'12 team, but whatever.

No team in hockey is "scared" of playing another team.

Which Bruins team? The '11-'12 one that got eliminated in the first round by Washington or this one?

Rank them as you see fit.

If its the '11-'12 Lundqvist then its the one from the last Bruins game where we lost despite out shooting Boston 34-21. They would definitely prefer him over the one from the first 3 games that the Rangers won despite being out shot 70-109.

That team played a team defense that this one can only dream of. And Henke will not get such shot blocking again.

 

[McRanger]

Well, a big part of the reason that the Rangers had such a good record and were 11th in scoring is because they managed to outwork the opposition and grind other teams down on the forecheck. It certainly wasn't due to their talent. If they had a good record due to their skill, I doubt coaches and analysts would wrongly attribute it to hard work. I don't think Peter DeBoer is making this up and it seems like a pretty accurate assessment of that team.

The Rangers had a reputation of being soft prior to the 2011-12, and they were still trying to finding their identity 10 games into the season, so I'm not fully surprised that Thornton said they were soft (although the Rangers played fair from a soft game, I believe Prust fought Clowe). The Rangers started playing some of their best hockey after Thornton's comments so he may have sparked them in a way.

They were 13th in GF, which is certainly solid enough when you give up very few goals. And yes they certainly did grind out goals at times.

I know I am in the minority but I think that Rangers team looked significantly "tougher" than this team because they spent so much time doing board work due to the fact that their system was a mess. When you spend all your time in the defensive zone trying to force the puck up the boards and diving in front of pucks and all your offensive time playing dump and chase because you have no coherent transition game, you tend to look extremely gritty and hard working.

If I saw my neighbor cutting his grass with a scissor I wouldn't think to myself "that man has great work ethic". I would think "that idiot is making this process a lot more difficult than it needs to be".

 

[aufheben]

They were 13th in GF, which is certainly solid enough when you give up very few goals. And yes they certainly did grind out goals at times.

I know I am in the minority but I think that Rangers team looked significantly "tougher" than this team because they spent so much time doing board work due to the fact that their system was a mess. When you spend all your time in the defensive zone trying to force the puck up the boards and diving in front of pucks and all your offensive time playing dump and chase because you have no coherent transition game, you tend to look extremely gritty and hard working.

If I saw my neighbor cutting his grass with a scissor I wouldn't think to myself "that man has great work ethic". I would think "that idiot is making this process a lot more difficult than it needs to be".

But they were still better than this team. There is nothing tough about this team, not physicality wise, not strategy wise, IMO. We may have great possession or get a lot of shots, but often have nothing to show for it. What's tough about this team?

 

[McRanger]

Did they or did they not have more success than any other Rangers team in the last 20 years?

Never fails to amaze me how many reasons exist for the '11-12 team to be lucky and how many excuses are made for this paper tiger to be unlucky.

I know, I know. If we do not count the October games, and not the recent Philly/Boston/San Jose losses and take out a handful of pesky November losses, this is the absolute best team in the league.

That team is certainly the Gold Standard.

Just like Petr Prucha is the Gold Standard for rookie forwards.

No team in hockey is "scared" of playing another team.

Rank them as you see fit.

That team played a team defense that this one can only dream of. And Henke will not get such shot blocking again.

And yet hank only faces .3 shots per game more. That means every 3 or 4 games, he sees one extra shot.

 

[KreiMeARiver*]

But they were still better than this team. There is nothing tough about this team, not physicality wise, not strategy wise, IMO. We may have great possession or get a lot of shots, but often have nothing to show for it. What's tough about this team?

And we got even softer and smaller by trading Cally.

Who here would believe it if I told you we'd trade Cally and actually get SMALLER as a result?

haha

Now he's apparently gone cold as ice. I give up....

 

[aufheben]

That team is certainly the Gold Standard.

Just like Petr Prucha is the Gold Standard for rookie forwards.



And yet hank only faces .3 shots per game more. That means every 3 or 4 games, he sees one extra shot.

This team used to defend the slot at all costs, now they invite the opposition in for brunch.

I like AV, I like quite a bit of our players, and I like our transition game; but there's honestly nothing about this team that impresses me in any way.

 

[OverTheCap]

They were 13th in GF, which is certainly solid enough when you give up very few goals. And yes they certainly did grind out goals at times.

I know I am in the minority but I think that Rangers team looked significantly "tougher" than this team because they spent so much time doing board work due to the fact that their system was a mess. When you spend all your time in the defensive zone trying to force the puck up the boards and diving in front of pucks and all your offensive time playing dump and chase because you have no coherent transition game, you tend to look extremely gritty and hard working.

If I saw my neighbor cutting his grass with a scissor I wouldn't think to myself "that man has great work ethic". I would think "that idiot is making this process a lot more difficult than it needs to be".

They also looked more gritty and hard-working because of the way they scored goals. More deflections, more rebounds, more driving to the net, more screening the goalie. Their shooting percentage was higher than the this year's team despite having less skill.

It wasn't just the running around in their own zone that made them look tough, there was a definite team mindset and willingness to do whatever it takes to win that is sorely absent from most Sather teams. Their mental toughness is what sets them apart - that team found ways to win games even if they were outplayed or down a goal. Now it seems like although we are outplaying opponents, we can't find a way to win.

 

[Thirty One]

This team used to defend the slot at all costs, now they invite the opposition in for brunch.

I like AV, I like quite a bit of our players, and I like our transition game; but there's honestly nothing about this team that impresses me in any way.

aufheben pls

How many afternoon games do they have anyways?

 

[aufheben]

aufheben pls

How many afternoon games do they have anyways?

Touche.

 

[KreiMeARiver*]

aufheben pls

How many afternoon games do they have anyways?

haha good one

 

[McRanger]

This team used to defend the slot at all costs, now they invite the opposition in for brunch.

I like AV, I like quite a bit of our players, and I like our transition game; but there's honestly nothing about this team that impresses me in any way.

When they foul up in the defensive zone they certainly do it spectacularly.

 

[McRanger]

They also looked more gritty and hard-working because of the way they scored goals. More deflections, more rebounds, more driving to the net, more screening the goalie. Their shooting percentage was higher than the this year's team despite having less skill.

Which I attribute to the fluky nature of goal scoring. They had an unsustainable shooting percentage, even more so when you look talent level and the way they approached offense.

They also won a ridiculous amount of one goal games, mostly due to Hank having a historic year in net.

It wasn't just the running around in their own zone that made them look tough, there was a definite team mindset and willingness to do whatever it takes to win that is sorely absent from most Sather teams. Their mental toughness is what sets them apart - that team found ways to win games even if they were outplayed or down a goal. Now it seems like although we are outplaying opponents, we can't find a way to win.

Winning breeds confidence. Even if you are winning games you should be losing. And that team definitely was confident.

It is certainly easy to be confident when you have Hank playing like was.

 

[OverTheCap]

Which I attribute to the fluky nature of goal scoring. They had an unsustainable shooting percentage, even more so when you look talent level and the way they approached offense.

They also won a ridiculous amount of one goal games, mostly due to Hank having a historic year in net.

Not sure if flukey is an accurate way to describe how the goals were being scored. Even talented teams like Chicago and Boston score goals through rebounds, deflections, crashing the net, etc. And that's how a lot of goals are scored in the playoffs.

I don't necessarily think their shooting percentage was unsustainable either. The teams from 2009 to 2012 generally maintained a shooting percentage slightly over 9%. In 2012, they had a 9.5% shooting percentage, so it was a bit of an increase from their 9.13% shooting percentage in 2010-11 but nothing out of the ordinary.

Winning breeds confidence. Even if you are winning games you should be losing. And that team definitely was confident.

It is certainly easy to be confident when you have Hank playing like was.

That team was confident, although I'm not sure I'd attribute that all to Hank. They had the killer instinct to score timely goals and appeared confident in their own ability to tie or win a game.

 

[BlueshirtBlitz]

It's not about being "soft" or "small."

We dominated one of the best teams in the league, full of size and talent.

It's about scoring ****ing goals. The problem isn't that we lost grit by trading Dubi and Arty for Nash, the problem is that Nash forgot how to score goals once he got here, likely due to his concussions. Feels bad, man.

 

[Thirty One]

It's not about being "soft" or "small."

We dominated one of the best teams in the league, full of size and talent.

It's about scoring ****ing goals. The problem isn't that we lost grit by trading Dubi and Arty for Nash, the problem is that Nash forgot how to score goals once he got here, likely due to his concussions. Feels bad, man.

Nash is 15th in the league in goals per game since he got here.

Hockey Reference

 

[McRanger]

Not sure if flukey is an accurate way to describe how the goals were being scored. Even talented teams like Chicago and Boston score goals through rebounds, deflections, crashing the net, etc. And that's how a lot of goals are scored in the playoffs.

I think fluky is an accurate term. I don't think those teams had more quality chances than this one and they certainly don't get as many shots. After that a lot of it comes down to goaltending and bounces.

I don't necessarily think their shooting percentage was unsustainable either. The teams from 2009 to 2012 generally maintained a shooting percentage slightly over 9%. In 2012, they had a 9.5% shooting percentage, so it was a bit of an increase from their 9.13% shooting percentage in 2010-11 but nothing out of the ordinary.

A half a percentage point over a season can be more than a dozen goals, but you are right it is not as out of whack as it seems. I would like to see their shooting percentage splits for that season. Specifically for the last quarter of the season, when they had a non-playoff winning percentage.

That team was confident, although I'm not sure I'd attribute that all to Hank. They had the killer instinct to score timely goals and appeared confident in their own ability to tie or win a game.

Not all because of Hank, of course. The puck going in the net breeds confidence as well.

 

[True Blue]

That team is certainly the Gold Standard.

When another team does better, we can discuss them as a mile post.

And yet hank only faces .3 shots per game more. That means every 3 or 4 games, he sees one extra shot.

Did a shot blocking, defense-first mentality help his stats?

 

[pld459666]

Eh, I'm not sure that team was all that far off though. Add another scoring threat and I think they would have beaten the Devils. Then what?

That team still lacked a legit sniper on the LW.

We had no PMD and our PP was atrocious/

And frankly, I had/have no faith in a system that by design keep the puck away from prime scoring areas like the front of the net.

get the puck to the blue line, dump it.

Chase after the puck, grind it along the walls, behind the goalie. get in trouble? whip it around blindly.

On defence? turtle and block shots. whip the puck around the boards blindly. Chip it out and chase it down.

The system was anythign BUT puck possession.

We bent, but we never broke.

There were games where we would spend MINUTES at a time hemmed in our own zone.

That's both physically mentally exhausting.

We had no breakout, we had no game plan through the Neutral Zone and the PP was a joke.

I had no faith in that system and I enjoyed the ride more out amazement than confidence.

 

[Blueshirt Special]

That team still lacked a legit sniper on the LW.

We had no PMD and our PP was atrocious/

And frankly, I had/have no faith in a system that by design keep the puck away from prime scoring areas like the front of the net.

get the puck to the blue line, dump it.

Chase after the puck, grind it along the walls, behind the goalie. get in trouble? whip it around blindly.

On defence? turtle and block shots. whip the puck around the boards blindly. Chip it out and chase it down.

The system was anythign BUT puck possession.

We bent, but we never broke.

There were games where we would spend MINUTES at a time hemmed in our own zone.

That's both physically mentally exhausting.

We had no breakout, we had no game plan through the Neutral Zone and the PP was a joke.

I had no faith in that system and I enjoyed the ride more out amazement than confidence.

Perfect synopsis of that season