Thirty One
Safe is safe.
- Dec 28, 2003
- 28,981
- 24,357
How Good Are the 2013-14 Rangers (Part II)
- Thread starter Thirty One
- Start date
-
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
- Jul 20, 2005
- 4,923
- 2,329
I wasn't joking about them being the gold standard. They are.
I just don't see any sustainability. I think they were a fluke. But that's just my opinion.
Possibly. I would like to see how he does with a larger sample under AV. Talbot certainly hasn't had a problem with his stats this year.
Fair enough. Have you seen enough of this year's team to say that they are the real deal? I guess what I am asking for is what in this year's model is convincing you that they are better?
Sure, but Talbot also has played A LOT less than Henke. I do not believe that his stats are sustainable if he was the starter.
12 games left. There are 6 in those 12 the rangers need to be able to win. New Jersey, Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver, Carolina, and Buffalo. Ottawa as well to make it 7. They probably need 7-8 wins to get into the playoffs. Philly, CBJ, MTL, and PHO are all teams they can beat. Colorado, Philly, and CBJ will be there toughest matchups. This team can determine its own fate.
Thirty One
Safe is safe.
- Dec 28, 2003
- 28,981
- 24,357
It's always interesting to see people cherry-pick the concept of sample size.
Of course Talbot's 18 games is too little to draw a conclusion.
Just like how the Rangers' last 8 games proves they're a pretender.
Who is cherry picking? I am not the one who tries to make the Rangers seem better by ignoring actual games played.
Whew. Glad that's worked out.
I do not point to the Rangers last 8 games. I point to their overall record. Like it or not, they are exactly what their record states they are.
Last edited by a moderator:
Thirty One
Safe is safe.
- Dec 28, 2003
- 28,981
- 24,357
Thirty One
Safe is safe.
- Dec 28, 2003
- 28,981
- 24,357
That outside of 4-on-4 OT and shootout (which don't exist in the playoffs) the Rangers compare favorably to the rest of the East.
How exactly do you figure as there are 6 teams with more points? And teams like Columbus and Washington are only 2 pts behind.
And what overall point are you trying to get to?
Unfortunately, the real world does not see them as having the 3rd best record in the East.
Thirty One
Safe is safe.
- Dec 28, 2003
- 28,981
- 24,357
No.
As was brought up in another thread, the 2011-12 Devils won a ton of games in the shootout during the regular season. Not only did that team come within two games of winning the Stanley Cup, they did it by winning a number of playoff OT games, including games six and seven against Florida when down three games to two, game six against us, etc.
Zero correlation there.
Thirty One
Safe is safe.
- Dec 28, 2003
- 28,981
- 24,357
If you think that's proof of zero correlation, I don't know what to tell you.
The Devils run in 2011-2012 is a small sample size. Extremely small.
I agree with 31 on this. I think its something to be said about the team that they would be 3rd in the East if you're only looking at a regulation wins. I think it favors them if they go to the playoffs. Yes they have to get there first, but when there I believe they have a chance to do some damage.
I agree with 31 on this. I think its something to be said about the team that they would be 3rd in the East if you're only looking at a regulation wins. I think it favors them if they go to the playoffs. Yes they have to get there first, but when there I believe they have a chance to do some damage.
- Jul 20, 2005
- 4,923
- 2,329
I honestly have no idea.
Its been a bizarre year. They start off the year with a new coach and a new system on a crazy road trip that consists of a half dozen opening nights while having a bunch of players either not playing or dealing with off-ice issues. Late October/November rolls around and the Rangers start to get their game together. We hit the beginning of December and the team, despite having what should be a fully acclimated and healthy roster, collapses. Lundqvist gets back to form and the team has a nice run from the new year to the Olympic break. After the break they come back and beat Chicago and then promptly have a mini-collapse again, during which they trade their captain.
The team has been an inconsistent mess at times and yet I think by the numbers they should have a better record. But its been a weird year and hard to get a solid handle on.
To answer your question, I didn't think that '11-'12 was going to win the East and get to the ECF. I don't think it is a stretch to say that surprised many people. I also think, and its just my opinion, that team overachieved during most of the regular season. I had similar expectations for this years team, not to win the East, but in the ballpark of what I originally thought the '11-'12 team was going to do or should have done. I like the style they play. And I like a lot of elements of the roster, especially the D and in net. I have some concerns, near that top being that unlike their conference winning counterparts, I think this team is underachieving.
I'd like to give them another year, preferably one with SOME element of stability, before I decide what this team can achieve. I didn't write off Torts and that roster after one year. I figure AV deserves the same.
Talbot has also played against easier competition. Still, his stats are impressive for a rookie goalie on a team that has, at times, been a mess in their own end.
But I think Hanks problems this year are his own. It is my opinion, and I have nothing to back this up but from what I have seen, that his early season injury lingered through the end of 2013. And that has greatly affected his numbers, and as a result, the teams winning percentage. The defense has made some spectacular foul ups at times, man-to-man doesn't leave much room for error, but I never thought he looked comfortable in goal until after he re-gained the starting position around the new year. Maybe he just needed some rest.
Thirty One
Safe is safe.
- Dec 28, 2003
- 28,981
- 24,357
How about you correlate the team to where they actually are in the standings? Not in a fantasy would have/could have/might be, but rooted in actual reality.
Thirty One
Safe is safe.
- Dec 28, 2003
- 28,981
- 24,357
Ail
Based and Rangerspilled.
Okay so if a team wins the President's trophy they are the best team in the league and should automatically win the 'Cup right? I mean if regular season record is the defining label for a team then the Presidents team should also win the 'Cup every year.
Thirty One
Safe is safe.
- Dec 28, 2003
- 28,981
- 24,357
Very simply, where do the Rangers stand in the conference? Where do they stand? How many points are they ahead of the # 9 team in the conference?
No one said that. But pretending that a team sits in the standings in a place other than exactly where they sit in the standings, is just that. Nothing but pretense. Just like pretending what a team's record could be if you eliminate a sleeve of games you do not like is also just that. Nothing but pretense.
- Status
