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
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
The problem is that nobody but you is talking about where they are in the standings in the regular season, but rather what a specific piece of information will mean for the playoffs. There's an obvious caveat of "provided they make it" in there. There's an obvious caveat of "depending on who they play" in there. So what is your point?
Thirty One
Safe is safe.
- Dec 28, 2003
- 28,981
- 24,357
I gave you a recent example that flies in the face of your 'theory'. Ignore it if you like, but ignoring it doesn't change anything.
Thirty One
Safe is safe.
- Dec 28, 2003
- 28,981
- 24,357
My current point is that I am disputing that their record says that they are the 3rd best team in the conference.
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
Yes, the completely un-nuanced argument. I understand that point of view. I also think there's merit to wondering how good a team really is when they rely overmuch on shootout points. The NHL point system is so screwed up, it does not really give you much of an accurate picture.
Dismissing the concept outright by repeating "no" over and over (using different words) really doesn't lend much to your argument. Tell me, why do you think that teams with a larger shootout record, and more points in the standings as a result, are better teams than the Rangers? Specifically talking about Toronto, Tampa, Montreal and Philadelphia?
gary laser eyes
Registered User
- Apr 6, 2007
- 4,174
- 0
The team lacks consistent output from it's top forwards. The only consistent forward all season has been Zucc. Stepan has turned it on since the Olympics which is a good sign. Brassard and Nash need to put up points on a consistent basis. 8-game point droughts from Brassard and 5-6 game goal droughts from Nash won't cut it. Richards just sucks.
St Louis is the wildcard here. If he can settle down and start putting up points consistently that would take a lot of pressure off of other guys.
I'm cautiously optimistic. Friday's game is huge.
St Louis is the wildcard here. If he can settle down and start putting up points consistently that would take a lot of pressure off of other guys.
I'm cautiously optimistic. Friday's game is huge.
Are you asking someone to justify why they think teams that are higher than the Rangers in the standing are better than the Rangers? Isn't your record all that really matters?
Ail
Based and Rangerspilled.
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
You should read the whole exchange. Yeah, I am, because a valid argument has been made for why the Rangers record (taken as a whole) is an indicator that they will be a better playoff team than some of the other teams around here. If there's a valid argument one way, I'd like to hear the argument the other way, instead of just saying "duuuuh standings!"
I did read the whole exchange, and I've heard no evidence whatsoever that the argument is valid. Just a hypothesis based on an assumption.
Thirty One
Safe is safe.
- Dec 28, 2003
- 28,981
- 24,357
Hypothesis: There are no shootouts in the playoffs.
Conclusion: Not enough data available.
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
In other words, you think there is no merit at all to the idea that a team's record in situations that don't exist in the playoffs indicates nothing as far as potential success in the playoffs?
Tell me, do you also think that players who are good at the shootout are good goal scorers?
Honestly if St. Louis can get hot and back to being a consistent producer (which I believe he will, the question is just when), the Rangers will be a team no one wants to play against. Between Zuccarello who has shown he can produce in the playoffs and St. Louis, I think we're a dangerous team. Although a very small sample size, I have a gut feeling that Brassard is going to be a big playoff producer throughout the rest of his career.
The real wildcard(s) in our success are Derek Stepan and Rick Nash, with a big emphasis on the latter. With those two going (and of course St. Louis), we suddenly become a very deep offensive group that has the ability to shut down any team in the league between McDonagh, Girardi, Staal, Stralman (who has been huge in the playoffs for us) and of course Lundqvist.
Teams like the Bruins and Penguins have been together for years and their top players have always been their top players. Look at the Rangers leading scorers two years ago and compare that to now. It takes time to gel and get a set lineup. This is only year 1 of Vigneault's campaign here. If we make the playoffs and can avoid a nightmare matchup (Boston) in the first round, I think we can surprise.
The real wildcard(s) in our success are Derek Stepan and Rick Nash, with a big emphasis on the latter. With those two going (and of course St. Louis), we suddenly become a very deep offensive group that has the ability to shut down any team in the league between McDonagh, Girardi, Staal, Stralman (who has been huge in the playoffs for us) and of course Lundqvist.
Teams like the Bruins and Penguins have been together for years and their top players have always been their top players. Look at the Rangers leading scorers two years ago and compare that to now. It takes time to gel and get a set lineup. This is only year 1 of Vigneault's campaign here. If we make the playoffs and can avoid a nightmare matchup (Boston) in the first round, I think we can surprise.
Thirty One
Safe is safe.
- Dec 28, 2003
- 28,981
- 24,357
If anyone is interested, I compiled the Rangers most likely first round opponents with the data from http://sportsclubstats.com :
http://rangersunlimited.com/standings/
http://rangersunlimited.com/standings/
Yeah, not exactly what I said, but I do understand re-phrasing someone's words is an internet-forum tactic to spin an argument.
Indicates nothing? I don't know...there are now a number of years of teams with shootout records and playoff records, so I guess someone can do research on this. And whatever the research shows, one side will say "see, that proves it!" and the other side will say "sample size too small!". Dems the internets for ya.
There are good goal scorers who are good at the shootout, and good goal scorers who are not so good at it. Not sure what that proves, but whatever.
Last edited:
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
All I did was post the argument of those who don't agree with the premise. If you aren't one of those, then fine. And you're right. Someone should compile the data. And I agree, no one will agree on it (irony!).
It's analogous to the point being made, which is that the record in the shootout, good or bad, doesn't indicate the quality of a team or a player, since it isn't a situation encountered either in the playoffs, in the case of teams, or during the game, in the case of players.
gary laser eyes
Registered User
- Apr 6, 2007
- 4,174
- 0
If anyone is interested, I compiled the Rangers most likely first round opponents with the data from http://sportsclubstats.com :
http://rangersunlimited.com/standings/
No easy match ups there, but I'd prefer Columbus.
Well, I'd prefer to make the playoffs first of all. Miss is a pretty high probability.
But there is still correlation...though nobody can quantify for sure how much. Dismissing teams as playoff contenders because they're good at shootouts is just as silly as anointing them champions because they're good at shootouts.
- Jul 20, 2005
- 4,923
- 2,329
In 2013:
the top shootout team made it to the 2nd round. (SJ)
The 2nd team missed the playoffs (Buffalo)
The 3rd team won the cup (Chicago)
The 4th-6th teams got knocked out in the first round (Anaheim, St. Louis, Vancouver)
The 7th team missed the playoffs. (Columbus)
The 8th team made it to the cup finals (Boston)
The 9th-10th teams made it to the 2nd round (Ottawa, NYR)
*out of the top 12 shootout teams 5 made it to the 2nd round. The team that lost the SCF was 8th. The team that won the cup was 3rd overall.
In 2012:
the top shootout team made it to the finals (NJ)
The 2nd team missed the playoffs (Minnesota)
The 3rd-6th teams got knocked out in the first round (Pitt, Boston, Detroit, SJ)
The 7th team missed the playoffs (Colorado)
The 8th-9th teams got knocked out in the first round (Vancouver, Chicago)
The 10th team missed the playoffs (Buffalo)
*out of the top 12 shootout teams only the Devils, who lost in the SCF, made it out of the first round. The team that won the cup was 14th overall
In 2011:
The top 2 shootout teams got knocked out in the first round (Pitt, LA)
The 3rd team missed the playoffs (Calgary)
The 4th team got knocked out in the first round (NYR)
The 5th team made the ECF (Tampa)
The 6th team made the 2nd round (Nashville)
The 7th team got knocked out in the first round (Chicago)
The 8th team missed the playoffs (Colorado)
The 9th team made the 2nd round (Washington)
The 10th team made the WCF (SJ)
*out of the top 12 shootout teams, 4 teams made it out of the first round, two went to the conference finals. The SCF loser was 18th overall. The cup winner was 28th overall.
If there is a correlation between shootout wins and playoff success, I dont see it.
It seems to be almost comically random.
the top shootout team made it to the 2nd round. (SJ)
The 2nd team missed the playoffs (Buffalo)
The 3rd team won the cup (Chicago)
The 4th-6th teams got knocked out in the first round (Anaheim, St. Louis, Vancouver)
The 7th team missed the playoffs. (Columbus)
The 8th team made it to the cup finals (Boston)
The 9th-10th teams made it to the 2nd round (Ottawa, NYR)
*out of the top 12 shootout teams 5 made it to the 2nd round. The team that lost the SCF was 8th. The team that won the cup was 3rd overall.
In 2012:
the top shootout team made it to the finals (NJ)
The 2nd team missed the playoffs (Minnesota)
The 3rd-6th teams got knocked out in the first round (Pitt, Boston, Detroit, SJ)
The 7th team missed the playoffs (Colorado)
The 8th-9th teams got knocked out in the first round (Vancouver, Chicago)
The 10th team missed the playoffs (Buffalo)
*out of the top 12 shootout teams only the Devils, who lost in the SCF, made it out of the first round. The team that won the cup was 14th overall
In 2011:
The top 2 shootout teams got knocked out in the first round (Pitt, LA)
The 3rd team missed the playoffs (Calgary)
The 4th team got knocked out in the first round (NYR)
The 5th team made the ECF (Tampa)
The 6th team made the 2nd round (Nashville)
The 7th team got knocked out in the first round (Chicago)
The 8th team missed the playoffs (Colorado)
The 9th team made the 2nd round (Washington)
The 10th team made the WCF (SJ)
*out of the top 12 shootout teams, 4 teams made it out of the first round, two went to the conference finals. The SCF loser was 18th overall. The cup winner was 28th overall.
If there is a correlation between shootout wins and playoff success, I dont see it.
It seems to be almost comically random.
Thirty One
Safe is safe.
- Dec 28, 2003
- 28,981
- 24,357
Some more data:
In the past five years:
The top-eight playoff teams in terms of shootout winning percentage have 196 playoff wins
The bottom eight have 241 playoff wins
Compare that to ROW:
Top eight have 234 playoff wins
Bottom eight have 203
In the past five years:
The top-eight playoff teams in terms of shootout winning percentage have 196 playoff wins
The bottom eight have 241 playoff wins
Compare that to ROW:
Top eight have 234 playoff wins
Bottom eight have 203
How good are the Rangers? Right now I would say wild card and out in round 1. Too soft and weak. They will be worn down by opponents in the playoffs. If they play Boston, they will be lucky to win 1 game. If Pittsburgh, maybe 2 or 3.
- Status
Latest posts
-
Rumor: 2024-2025 Trade Rumors and Free Agency Talk | Part Deux- Latest: AegonLeConqueror
-
-
-
-
Canucks & NHL News, Rumours, and & Fantasy GM | Chaos Lurks Beneath the Surface- Latest: Nona Di Giuseppe
