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

[Thirty One]

Optimists and pessimists always think they're realists. Otherwise why take that position?

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Realism: "the quality of a person who understands what is real and possible in a particular situation and is able to deal with problems in an effective and practical way"

Pessimism: "an inclination to emphasize adverse aspects, conditions, and possibilities or to expect the worst possible outcome"

This board tends towards the latter, pretty clearly.

Notice how a realist looks at what is "possible in a particular situation" and a pessimist "emphasize adverse aspects . . . and . . . expect the worst possible outcome."

After 1 cup in 74 years and countless poor decisions, you'd have to give the fanbase the benefit of the doubt regarding why they are generally pessimistic, no?

Anyway, I've seen plenty of folks chart the Rangers course to the Stanley Cup finals before they've even secured a playoff spot. Is that what you consider realism?

 

[True Blue]

This board tends towards the latter, pretty clearly.

I would say that the Rangers sterling track record has something to do with that, no?

Notice how a realist looks at what is "possible in a particular situation" and a pessimist "emphasize adverse aspects . . . and . . . expect the worst possible outcome."

Yes, I know. ANYTHING is possible. IF only the chips fall correctly, the Rangers win the Cup. Tell me, how many times have you been able to hang your hat on such possibilities. One would think that building a franchise for success year over year, as opposed to hoping for possibilities, would lead to you know.....more success.

 

[Thirty One]

After 1 cup in 74 years and countless poor decisions, you'd have to give the fanbase the benefit of the doubt regarding why they are generally pessimistic, no?

Using the Rangers pre-WW2 record as justification as why fans are pessimistic towards the 2013-14 team? Sure!

Anyway, I've seen plenty of folks chart the Rangers course to the Stanley Cup finals before they've even secured a playoff spot. Is that what you consider realism?

Where did you see this?

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Optimists and pessimists always think they're realists. Otherwise why take that position?

I respect this coming from you, since you often fail to take a position on any subject. Takes one to know one.

 

[Thirty One]

I respect this coming from you, since you often fail to take a position on any subject. Takes one to know one.

If by that you mean I don't see every situation as a false dichotomy, and recognize there's shade of grey between the absolutes, then I agree.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Using the Rangers pre-WW2 record as justification as why fans are pessimistic towards the 2013-14 team? Sure!


Where did you see this?

You dont think the notion that star power needs to be brought into the bright lights of NYC is a flawed team building philosophy that has haunted this team for decades? Different teams, different players, but that philosophy has remained constant.

That overarching theme has a lot more influence on the Rangers futility than the countless (and often meaningless) stats you throw out there for any given season.

 

[Thirty One]

You dont think the notion that star power needs to be brought into the bright lights of NYC is a flawed team building philosophy that has haunted this team for decades? Different teams, different players, but that philosophy has remained constant.

That overarching theme has a lot more influence on the Rangers futility than the countless (and often meaningless) stats you throw out there for any given season.

I think adding good players to a team will make them better, whether they represent "star power" or not.

I don't see any parallels between adding Pavel Bure to the 2001-02 team and adding Martin St. Louis to the 2013-14 team, beyond that they were both good players.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

I think adding good players to a team will make them better, whether they represent "star power" or not.

I don't see any parallels between adding Pavel Bure to the 2001-02 team and adding Martin St. Louis to the 2013-14 team, beyond that they were both good players.

I think there are parallels, most notably that its very likely their best days are/were behind them.

 

[Thirty One]

I think there are parallels, most notably that its very likely their best days are/were behind them.

Because what they can do now is only of value if they couldn't do more at any point in past?

I don't know why I put a question mark. I know by now that's one of your primary evaluation principles.

 

[McRanger]

I think there are parallels, most notably that its very likely their best days are/were behind them.

Most of the players brought in at the '93/'94 deadlines were past their prime. Some of them well past.

But somehow I don't think that particular parallel would be received warmly.

And with good reason; the circumstances surrounding the team are completely different.

 

[jerseyjinx94]

After 1 cup in 74 years and countless poor decisions, you'd have to give the fanbase the benefit of the doubt regarding why they are generally pessimistic, no?

No - I don't think so. It's like last year, when the Giants were abysmal, a few of my friends said things like "After '07, I have to believe." I think that's flawed as hell. You need to analyze the current team and situation.

Anyway, I've seen plenty of folks chart the Rangers course to the Stanley Cup finals before they've even secured a playoff spot. Is that what you consider realism?

Yes, it is. It is a possible situation. Saying the Rangers have a chance to win the Stanley Cup is realism. Saying they have no shot is pessimism.

 

[jerseyjinx94]

I would say that the Rangers sterling track record has something to do with that, no?

Probably. They've definitely been underwhelming as a franchise overall.

Yes, I know. ANYTHING is possible. IF only the chips fall correctly, the Rangers win the Cup. Tell me, how many times have you been able to hang your hat on such possibilities. One would think that building a franchise for success year over year, as opposed to hoping for possibilities, would lead to you know.....more success.

One would think? You take such an arrogant position. I'm not saying I disagree with you. I just wanted to post that this "I'm sick of the anything is possible argument" is a pessimistic view, not a realistic view. A realist looks at the situation and analyzes all possibilities. The Rangers winning the Cup is a possibility. Saying they will is optimistic. Saying they can is realistic.

Most people here are optimists or pessimists. I try to be an optimist, but I get pessimistic sometimes, especially with certain players.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Most of the players brought in at the '93/'94 deadlines were past their prime. Some of them well past.

But somehow I don't think that particular parallel would be received warmly.

And with good reason; the circumstances surrounding the team are completely different.

Agreed. Were the likes of Larmer, Anderson, Noonan, Matteau, etc brought in to carry that 94 team? No. The foundation was already there.

Theres a time to go for it, and theres a time to keep your bullets in the chamber. Glen Sather, time and time again, has shown no ability whatsoever to show restraint and weigh the situation. So, while it may be admirable in the eyes of some that hes always looking to "win now," the truth is it does more harm than good when the team isn't ready.

Without a #1C and a PMD, moves like the one for St. Louis amount to little more than a hail mary.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

No - I don't think so. It's like last year, when the Giants were abysmal, a few of my friends said things like "After '07, I have to believe." I think that's flawed as hell. You need to analyze the current team and situation.



Yes, it is. It is a possible situation. Saying the Rangers have a chance to win the Stanley Cup is realism. Saying they have no shot is pessimism.

Its also possible the Rangers plane crashes on the way to Calgary this week and we don't have to worry about the finals at all.

Is this me being a realist or a pessimist?

 

[jerseyjinx94]

Its also possible the Rangers plane crashes on the way to Calgary this week and we don't have to worry about the finals at all.

Is this me being a realist or a pessimist?

That's a bit of ********* way to make a point, and a poor attempt at humor or something. You should be ashamed.

To answer your ******** question, it is realistic to consider that it is possible that that happens. To say there is no way the plane lands safely would be pessimistic. For your sake, I hope it lands safely.

 

[Thirty One]

Its also possible the Rangers plane crashes on the way to Calgary this week and we don't have to worry about the finals at all.

Is this me being a realist or a pessimist?

Bodog gives the Rangers a 25-1 chance of winning the Stanley Cup. What odds do they give for the plane crashing on the way to Calgary?

Though I give you props for recognizing the difference between probable and possible.

I do think that the Rangers dying in a physical series against Boston is far more likely, however.

That overarching theme has a lot more influence on the Rangers futility than the countless (and often meaningless) stats you throw out there for any given season.

OK, I will bite.

I'm always willing to discuss the downfalls of statistics. If you want to give me examples of which stats specifically and how they are meaningless, that would be super. I'm not expecting it though. I've found that you embrace a stat based on whether it fits into your pre-assumed position or not, instead of its merits.

 

[True Blue]

One would think? You take such an arrogant position. I'm not saying I disagree with you.

I'm sorry, I do not get it. I am taking an arrogant position by asking that the franchise learns how to build for lasting success? That is arrogant? And yet you also say that you agree with me.

I just wanted to post that this "I'm sick of the anything is possible argument" is a pessimistic view, not a realistic view.

Ok, then tell me this. In the last 73 years, how many times has the organization been able to point to "anything is possible".

A realist looks at the situation and analyzes all possibilities. The Rangers winning the Cup is a possibility. Saying they will is optimistic. Saying they can is realistic.

It is also possible that men, women and children link hands across the world and pray for Rangers success and it happens. It is also possible for Captain Kirk to beam the Rangers into spots from which they can score goals.

Most people here are optimists or pessimists. I try to be an optimist, but I get pessimistic sometimes, especially with certain players.

Excellent. I have been a Rangers fan long enough to feel as thought "anything can happen" does not usually constitute a road for success. A long term game plan and vision and building a proper organization usually does.

 

[True Blue]

I'm always willing to discuss the downfalls of statistics. If you want to give me examples of which stats specifically and how they are meaningless, that would be super.

I find that 90% of all statistics are incorrect.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Bodog gives the Rangers a 25-1 chance of winning the Stanley Cup. What odds do they give for the plane crashing on the way to Calgary?

Though I give you props for recognizing the difference between probable and possible.

I do think that the Rangers dying in a physical series against Boston is far more likely, however.


OK, I will bite.

I'm always willing to discuss the downfalls of statistics. If you want to give me examples of which stats specifically and how they are meaningless, that would be super. I'm not expecting it though. I've found that you embrace a stat based on whether it fits into your pre-assumed position or not, instead of its merits.

Thats probably fair. I find some of the stuff you put forth to be enlightening, but at the same time, I feel like advanced statistics in hockey carry less weight compared to other sports, like baseball. I think theres just too many variables involved any given night.

 

[Thirty One]

I find that 90% of all statistics are incorrect.

Incorrect meaning they don't agree with you, or you can point out specific flaws?

 

[SnowblindNYR]

HF Boards, where realist basically is synonymous with "my opinion". It's SO arrogant to say "I'm a realist" like you have in your hands some objective truth.

 

[jerseyjinx94]

I'm sorry, I do not get it. I am taking an arrogant position by asking that the franchise learns how to build for lasting success? That is arrogant? And yet you also say that you agree with me.

The arrogance is not in the argument, but in the way it was made. "One would think" implies that your position is the only correct one. It demeans other arguments. Just because I generally agree that a long term vision of team building is more proficient than "anything is possible," doesn't mean I would make the argument as you do.

Ok, then tell me this. In the last 73 years, how many times has the organization been able to point to "anything is possible".

I don't get it. You're doing this retrospectively? Okay, well not many. But how many times have sports teams in general been able to do that in the past 73 years?

It is also possible that men, women and children link hands across the world and pray for Rangers success and it happens. It is also possible for Captain Kirk to beam the Rangers into spots from which they can score goals.

You guys are making absurd examples. Are you using this hyperbolic argument to compare the odds of people around the world holding hands rooting for the Rangers and the Rangers winning the Cup? That's ridiculous. Sure, it is possible. But again, being a realist means you look at things that are possible and consider them. It doesn't mean you have to believe it will happen. You can think the Rangers won't win the Cup, but to deny the possibility of it happening is pessimistic, not realistic.

Excellent. I have been a Rangers fan long enough to feel as thought "anything can happen" does not usually constitute a road for success. A long term game plan and vision and building a proper organization usually does.

I tend to agree with that point, I would prefer a long-term vision to a short-sighted one.

 

[jerseyjinx94]

HF Boards, where realist basically is synonymous with "my opinion". It's SO arrogant to say "I'm a realist" like you have in your hands some objective truth.

This is my point.

Most people are optimists or pessimists, I tend to be an optimist in regards to my teams (except the Mets).

 

[Thirty One]

Thats probably fair. I find some of the stuff you put forth to be enlightening, but at the same time, I feel like advanced statistics in hockey carry less weight compared to other sports, like baseball. I think theres just too many variables involved any given night.

Yes, of course hockey doesn't lend itself to the analytics to the extent that baseball is.