Lol at these people ^. The denial is strong. We ARE the hockey team everyone WISHES their team was
You will learn
I think it's time to talk about the Rangers
- Thread starter GOAT AINEC
- Start date
Lol at these people ^. The denial is strong. We ARE the hockey team everyone WISHES their team was
You will learn
- Nov 2, 2011
- 7,692
- 8,763
Also makes it a lot easier to search for stats, angles, and information that support a bias. They call it confirmation bias for a reason. Objective analysis is one of the hardest things for someone to do, especially in sports.
Raspewtin
Stay at home defenseman hater
- May 30, 2013
- 42,581
- 22,406
- Nov 2, 2011
- 7,692
- 8,763
And you think Ranger fans are experts at this?
Not at all, it swings both ways. Some Ranger fans enjoy being a cynic than anything and probably overcompensate their actual fandom with simply looking for faults and plights.
- Nov 2, 2011
- 7,692
- 8,763
And you think Ranger fans are experts at this
But this is also such a straw man comment. My comment was directed at his particular use of statistics.
ScottyK
Hi, I'm mat.
Have you seen the Rangers play?
I agree that their percentage will drop, but this scoring is all over the lineup and is mostly the result of amazing passing plays.
I have been watching hockey for 35+ years, and lived in Philly during the Lindros era and Boston in the early-mid 90's. I also get to watch the Islanders and Devils pretty often. I can't remember a team with slicker passing than this group.
As such, their percentage just may end up being among the best over the past 10+ years.
My argument carries just as much weight as yours, and as you live in Boston, I highly doubt you watch the Rangers on a nightly basis.
His statistics seem pretty objective and straightforward here. And most Rangers fans have conceded as much.
- Nov 2, 2011
- 7,692
- 8,763
He literally adjusted shooting percentage for all circumstance and said flatly that that is what it would be. It is the easiest way to say the team will regress without looking for any counterargument or a way to go against that. Other Rangers fans, myself included, offered alternative angles and reasoning. Adjusting one statistic based on what you believe will happen and then not accounting for anything else can surely be objective, but it is certainly not encompassing.
Agreed, but what those that watch the Rangers play, are trying to explain that these goals aren't just the result of screens, and bad/good bounces.
The point is that the PASSING is off the chart. They aren't 3 lines deep with snipers. They are 3, sometimes 4 lines deep with amazing passers. Many of their goals are literally open nets, after 3-4-5 crisp passes in a row.
Hard to put that into a graph.
Gardner McKay
RIP, Jimmy.
I think it is the opposite. Respectfully, I think you are the one in denial. Sure, I believe that the Rangers will maintain a higher than average shooting % due to the chances created by their speed. But it will come down. Last year, the Rangers and Montreal were the hockey teams everyone wished their team was... until 15-20 games.
We still have holes on defense that need to be fixed. Yes, we are giving up less high danger scoring chances as compared to last year. We still need to improve though. I believe we will still be one of the top teams at the end of the year but I believe by that time we will be winning in a much different fashion then we are right now.
Glen Sathers Cigar
Sather 4 Ever
IMO xGF% and SCF% are better indicators of a good team than straight up CF% is. CF% is a very good stat at tracking trends but it has its flaws. Too many people on here and on twitter use CF% as the be all end all without providing context.
Mike Sullivan had that great quote that circulated a few days ago where he gave a nice long answer to a question about shot attempts and scoring chances. He basically said that scoring chances are the most important thing.
It makes sense if you boil it down. If your team is far out chancing the other team, why would the amount of shots attempts outweigh that? If the point of determining a chance is to separate a puck that could go in from simply a statistically harmless shot, shouldn't we value that stat (xGF% and SCF%) more?
It's why when people cite PDO (which might be the most flawed and least telling of all the advanced stats) and straight up CF% without looking at other numbers for context I get annoyed.
Last year's Rangers team had bad CF%, high PDO, very low SCF% and xGF% and very bad SCA%. That team got by on unsustainable goaltending (even for Hank) and crazy high shooting %. I don't see it as a comparable to this year's team mainly because of the scoring chance numbers. Last year's team would generate very low amount of chances but convert a bunch of them and then clench their butts while Hank put on a show. Obviously the bottom fell out there as we all could see coming.
This year's team is different. I'm not saying they're going to win the cup or anything, but it's different. The eye test is much improved, the systemplay has been better. Younger players like Miller and Hayes have taken the next step. Rolling 4 skill lines has been a revelation. Then looking at the numbers, generating top 5 in the league amount of chances.
People keep citing SH% as a reason for the bottom falling out eventually, I'm not so sure. While I do think the SH% will drop, I don't think that when it does that spells the end for the Rangers being good. There has to be some correlation between SCF% and SH% right? It's not like the Rangers are bottom of the league in SCF% and top of the league in SH%.
Also, do you take into account that their % will stay where it is or rise when they get Kreider and a healthy Buchnevich back in the lineup?
Both have been hurting for weeks- even though Buchnevich looked great recently (maybe a Cortison shot that is no longer helping.)
2 top 6 forwards that have been in/out of lineup.
Both have been hurting for weeks- even though Buchnevich looked great recently (maybe a Cortison shot that is no longer helping.)
2 top 6 forwards that have been in/out of lineup.
Off Sides
Registered User
- Sep 8, 2008
- 9,755
- 5,585
It's a long season.
Can they maintain that passing? I mean we have seen if fall apart in only two or three games. Yet in those games, they look bad.
The D has some issues.
Coaching, who knows, I mean for the most part it's good, but there is still lots of loyalty and trust stuff there that seems antiquated to me.
Injuries, slumps, stuff will happen.
I think they will be good, they have the capacity to be very good, we'll see.
Can they maintain that passing? I mean we have seen if fall apart in only two or three games. Yet in those games, they look bad.
The D has some issues.
Coaching, who knows, I mean for the most part it's good, but there is still lots of loyalty and trust stuff there that seems antiquated to me.
Injuries, slumps, stuff will happen.
I think they will be good, they have the capacity to be very good, we'll see.
Feed Me A Stray Cat
Registered User
Because a true talent 13% shooting percentage team hasn't existed since the 1980s Oilers, and will probably never exist again in the NHL.
Even if I'm no fan of the Rangers, this scoring explosion by them is quite extraordinary to see, no doubt about it!
Machinehead
The Olli react should add points!
1) I should have a school
2) They were a top team in corsi close last year until like January also. Then it came crashing down when they didn't spend literally the majority of the time leading, which is not sustainable. The Rangers have spent twice as much time this year leading as tied. That's ridiculous and renders their close numbers a pretty lousy sample.
Feed Me A Stray Cat
Registered User
And it seems like you are really struggling to be objective. All I'm doing is pointing to how NHL teams have performed since the lockout in regards to shooting percentage. 13.0% ES shooting percentage hasn't existed in the NHL since the 1980s. It is clear that the Rangers are getting a great deal of luck on converting their scoring chances and that they will regress closer to the 8-10% that top teams typically average.
There is nothing biased or crazy about that.
Anyway, I'll bookmark this thread and come back in 2-3 three months time.
Because history shows that those numbers will determine who wins. All the other stuff is irrelevant when you are trying to determine who wins series (unless you have a "hot goalie" scenario ala Halak or Thomas).
Maybe the Rangers will defy the trend, but if I was a fan I would feel much better if over the course of the season they got that CF% into the top five. And since the season is brand new really they have plenty of time to do it.
WesMcCauley
Registered User
- Apr 24, 2015
- 8,616
- 2,601
Pretty much this but the eye test and all advanced stats also tells us that Girardi is completely useless. Need to get him out of the lineup for us to be a legit contender
Feed Me A Stray Cat
Registered User
How many times does this need to be repeated? NHL teams DO NOT shoot at 13% at even strength over the long haul. Say all you want about injuries, changes in tactics, new players, old players. It just doesn't happen.
The best shooting team in the NHL since the lockout was the 09-10 Capitals, who were absolutely stacked and still only averaged 10.4%.
Most fans want to craft a narrative about things - eg, the Rangers are shooting so well because of great passing and team chemistry. Then, when their luck inevitably subsides, people will start talking about how the team lost confidence and this injury or that injury screwed up team chemistry. Except, all along, they were an 8.5 - 9.5% true talent shooting team, who just happened to experience some variance, for whatever reason or another, at different points in the season.
High shooting percentage could also be attributed to the amazing passing which has led to many open net goals or giving the goaltender fits having to move laterally to make a tough save. If I'm correct only two goals have come from defense (and one was deflection off of Girardi skate in front of the net) so it's not like they are just throwing pucks from blue line that have been going in.
They've also been creating tons of chances with their speed leading to breakaways and odd man rushes. Again they are not gonna sustain 5-7 goals a game but 3-4 seems realistic . Will come down to their goaltending and defense
They've also been creating tons of chances with their speed leading to breakaways and odd man rushes. Again they are not gonna sustain 5-7 goals a game but 3-4 seems realistic . Will come down to their goaltending and defense
Machinehead
The Olli react should add points!
They're averaging 4.24 goals per game. If they hit that 30% reduction in goals that still puts them around 3 which is going to be probably top 2 in the league.
The defense is the issue.
The defense is the issue.
Chimpradamus
Registered User
A huge part of the success is the speed and the depth. All three lines are legitimate scoring threats and you cannot even ignore the 4th line. It's a huge problem defensively for other teams, who are you going to focus on with your best defense?
Also, when the scoring is so evened out, slumps from specific players aren't so important. The shooting percentage will obviously drop, but the team has been extremely effective at creating prime scoring chances, with both their speed and passing.
Pylons like Glass are gone and speedsters like Grabner, hungry, smart players like Buchnevich, Pirri and Vesley(?) have been added. Every line has been greatly energized.
The offense is divine, the defense is really shaky (it would've been solid with smarter management decisions) and the goaltending is Lundqvist and Raanta, really, really good.
Also, when the scoring is so evened out, slumps from specific players aren't so important. The shooting percentage will obviously drop, but the team has been extremely effective at creating prime scoring chances, with both their speed and passing.
Pylons like Glass are gone and speedsters like Grabner, hungry, smart players like Buchnevich, Pirri and Vesley(?) have been added. Every line has been greatly energized.
The offense is divine, the defense is really shaky (it would've been solid with smarter management decisions) and the goaltending is Lundqvist and Raanta, really, really good.
Users who are viewing this thread
Latest posts
-
League News: NHL Talk - (News n' Scores n' Stuff) | 2024-25 Playoffs (19 Viewers)- Latest: notDkristich
-
-
