I think it's time to talk about the Rangers

[Sam Spade]

Again they are not gonna sustain 5-7 goals a game but 3-4 seems realistic . Will come down to their goaltending and defense

Not in the playoffs.

Pylons like Glass are gone and speedsters like Grabner, hungry, smart players like Buchnevich, Pirri and Vesey have been added. Every line has been greatly energized.

I do agree though, the roster overhaul has been amazing.

 

[AD1066]

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.

Seems like we see some variation of this thread every year.

Fans of a team with abnormally high SH% or PDO offer a list of reasons why they're the exception to established statistical trends, before, unsurprisingly, falling back to earth a few months later. Not that the Rangers are a bad team or anything.

Saw it with with the Avalanche, saw it with the Flames.

"But, my team is different."

 

[Sam Spade]

Seems like we see some variation of this thread every year.

Fans of a team with abnormally high SH% or PDO offer a list of reasons why they're the exception to established statistical trends, before, unsurprisingly, falling back to earth a few months later. Not that the Rangers are a bad team or anything.

Saw it with with the Avalanche, saw it with the Flames.

"But, my team is different."

Agreed.

Caps last season were 14th in CF% and 3rd in PDO, they were never going to win anything.

And the "well then why do you watch if you know the outcome?" argument is simple, because I was hoping against hope they would be the team to get past those numbers.

 

[Kaapo Cabana]

Seems like we see some variation of this thread every year.

Fans of a team with abnormally high SH% or PDO offer a list of reasons why they're the exception to established statistical trends, before, unsurprisingly, falling back to earth a few months later. Not that the Rangers are a bad team or anything.

Saw it with with the Avalanche, saw it with the Flames.

"But, my team is different."

Keep in mind that our margins of victory during this stretch have consistently been 2-4 goals. Its not like were barely beating teams. We will probably regress, but even a regression will still leave us as one of the better, if not the best offensive team in the NHL.

Not saying we definitely will keep this up, but citing dumpster fires like the Avalanche and Flames is just not an accurate comparison

 

[TheLowKreider]

Rangers fan in agreement with FMASC.

They're gonna make the playoffs for sure, they're most likely going to be a very high seed, they're a good team.

But that's not the main goal.



AV has learned ****ing nothing from last year.

Gorton needs to make some moves on defense.

 

[Section32]

Seems like we see some variation of this thread every year.

Fans of a team with abnormally high SH% or PDO offer a list of reasons why they're the exception to established statistical trends, before, unsurprisingly, falling back to earth a few months later. Not that the Rangers are a bad team or anything.

Saw it with with the Avalanche, saw it with the Flames.

"But, my team is different."

Neither the Avalanche nor the Flames have/had close to the offensive depth and talent the Rangers have today.

You may be right (and probably are) that they will come crashing down to Earth, but you are looking at numbers and stats. How many games have you watched them play?

They've played like utter crap the past 3 games on a West Coast trip and still walked away with 14 goals and a+10 goal differential.

Sometimes weird things happen...

 

[2Leetch_94]

Even removing 16 goals from the Rangers still leaves them just one goal behind the Flyers as the highest scoring team in the league. I don't think it's much of a stretch to think they won't continue at their current 4+ GPG pace.

The defense worries me far more than their shooting percentage normalizing. I'll simply enjoy this offensive show while it roars on.

 

[bl02]

Not in the playoffs.



I do agree though, the roster overhaul has been amazing.

Of course the playoffs are a different animal but I thought we were talking regular season but what will make a difference is rolling 4 lines who can score vs 1-2 lines that can.

 

[Call me betty*]

Rangers remind me of what Pens did last year. Got rid of old crappy slow bottom sixers like glass, moore etc..and added youth and speed in it and now the whole lineup is re-energized because of it. Same thing happened to the pens, when pens added guys like Rust Sheary, the speed factor is a huge thing as long as your bottom six has it.

 

[NickLidstrom]

Bad example. Despite the Vikings great start not a single expert picked them to win the Stanley Cup.

Well, if they won the Stanley Cup they would probably be the greatest sports franchise in the world. If you mean the Superbowl, after they started off 5-0 MULTIPLE experts and fans said that they were the team to go through in the NFC.

 

[will1066]

Neither the Avalanche nor the Flames have/had close to the offensive depth and talent the Rangers have today.

You may be right (and probably are) that they will come crashing down to Earth, but you are looking at numbers and stats. How many games have you watched them play?

They've played like utter crap the past 3 games on the West Coast trip and still walked away with 14 goals and a+10 goal differential.

Sometimes weird things happen...

Calgary and Edmonton were back-to-backs, and with Kreider obviously not performing at 100% and the line shuffling that has taken place, the overall play on the trip did dip.

This is a textbook quick-strike team. It should be expected that teams will look at video and figure out ways to disrupt their speed game. But they've been very good opportunistically and wearing down the opponent using four lines into making mistakes.

 

[patnyrnyg]

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.

Exactly. Before the season, if anyone said that after 17 games, Stepan would only have 2 goals, Zibanejad 3, and Lundqvist would have a SV% under .900 in October, most Rangers fans would have said they would be off to a terrible start.

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.

I never thought Grabner would be this good. Thought he would be like Hagelin. Great on the PK, but even worse when it comes to finishing. Glad I was wrong. And, no I do not expect him to score 48 goals, which is his current pace.

 

[patnyrnyg]

Rangers fan in agreement with FMASC.

They're gonna make the playoffs for sure, they're most likely going to be a very high seed, they're a good team.

But that's not the main goal.



AV has learned ****ing nothing from last year.

Gorton needs to make some moves on defense.

My only problem with you saying he hasn't learned anything is I'd like to see numbers for all pairings. If McD-Girardi, Klein-Holden, Skjei-Staal (just throwing out pairs for the other 4 regular Dmen) is the best set of 3, then that is what he should be doing. If he went McD-Staal, or McD-Klein, I am sure their CF% would be higher than McD-G. However, will the other pairs then be even worse?

 

[patnyrnyg]

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.

So, should they just start firing away from all angles just to increase their attempted shots numbers? On a side, is there a site that has the historical info as related to the play-off series?

 

[Levitate]

Seems like we see some variation of this thread every year.

Fans of a team with abnormally high SH% or PDO offer a list of reasons why they're the exception to established statistical trends, before, unsurprisingly, falling back to earth a few months later. Not that the Rangers are a bad team or anything.

Saw it with with the Avalanche, saw it with the Flames.

"But, my team is different."

I mean, the Rangers went to the finals and then the ECF playing this same type of game (albeit without the huge scoring burst we're seeing at the moment, but they were still a top offensive team) and people kept saying "yes but it's not sustainable"

FOr whatever reason, it is sustainable for the Rangers to a certain degree. They have a high shot percentage, they have a high goaltending percentage, they have a high PDO because they're a good team that outperforms the league average in several areas.

Their shot percentage isn't going to stay insanely high but they're also not going to crater through the floor and be terrible either.

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

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.

1) No you shouldn't.

2. 21st in the league on Jan 1 and Feb 1. They were 26th on Dec 1st. On this date last year, they were 17th.

#factchecking

 

[BroadwayStorm]

The way they play and the talent they have I just don't see them slowing down. I saw their schedule for the next 2 weeks and they should trounce everyone not named the Penguins and quite frankly I think they will beat them too. Even when they play like **** they score in bunches. All it takes is that little lapse of concentration for a team and the Rangers explode. And its always different guys. The entire offense in every line is solid.

 

[patnyrnyg]

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.

Even if their scoring slows down. The opponent has scored 2 goals or less in 11 of their 17 games and only 3 times in the past 14 has the opponent scored 3 or more. The opponent has scored more than 3 only twice. One of those games was the game against Vancouver last week, where Lundqvist had to go in cold because the NHL spotter said Raanta had to come out of the game. Lundqvist came in for a few minutes and gave up 2 goals, and then Vancouver added an empty-netter. The league is actually contemplating changing the rule to allow goalies some warm-up time in that situation. If they were winning 5-4, 6-4, 4-3 every game, then I would be worried. But, it is not the case. Their average margin of victory is 3 goals. They have won one 1-goal game, three 1-goal+EN, and one 1-goal+2 EN. They have won 8 games by 3 goals or more and 7 did not include any empty-net goals.

 

[The Gloaming]

What is McDonagh's number with Girardi?

The same as Girardi with McDonagh. They spend every second in that stat on the ice together, and everyone on the ice gets the same corsi events counted for or against them.

 

[patnyrnyg]

[NHL][/NHL]

The same as Girardi with McDonagh. They spend every second in that stat on the ice together, and everyone on the ice gets the same corsi events counted for or against them.

Oh right, duh. That was dumb of me. Was near the end of a 10-hour workday.

 

[AD1066]

Keep in mind that our margins of victory during this stretch have consistently been 2-4 goals. Its not like were barely beating teams. We will probably regress, but even a regression will still leave us as one of the better, if not the best offensive team in the NHL.

Not saying we definitely will keep this up, but citing dumpster fires like the Avalanche and Flames is just not an accurate comparison

My comparison to the Avalanche and Flames only extends as far as all teams were able to defy statistical trends for a period of time and me remembering specific threads about each.

Sorry if that was not clear. In the Rangers' case, regression will still end with a very good team. The other two were never playoff caliber.

 

[Sam Spade]

So, should they just start firing away from all angles just to increase their attempted shots numbers? On a side, is there a site that has the historical info as related to the play-off series?

I did this last year one day when I was bored, but didn't save anything.

https://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/

 

[Section32]

My comparison to the Avalanche and Flames only extends as far as all teams were able to defy statistical trends for a period of time and me remembering specific threads about each.

Sorry if that was not clear. In the Rangers' case, regression will still end with a very good team. The other two were never playoff caliber.

That makes more sense.

Thank you for clarifying....

 

[BlaqICE]

My comparison to the Avalanche and Flames only extends as far as all teams were able to defy statistical trends for a period of time and me remembering specific threads about each.

Sorry if that was not clear. In the Rangers' case, regression will still end with a very good team. The other two were never playoff caliber.

You do realize that PDO means that as the number of games played approaches infinity all teams will regress towards 1000. 82 games is hardly close to infinity. It's a small enough sample size that a team could be high for the whole season. Rangers were #1 in PDO in 2014-2015 for the whole year, and all they did was win the President's Trophy and were one win away from going back to the Finals.

 

[bob27]

You do realize that PDO means that as the number of games played approaches infinity all teams will regress towards 1000. 82 games is hardly close to infinity. It's a small enough sample size that a team could be high for the whole season. Rangers were #1 in PDO in 2014-2015 for the whole year, and all they did was win the President's Trophy and were one win away from going back to the Finals.

102 is attainable PDO for a single season. 107 is not. For a team to shoot at around 15% is absurd. I'm not saying that Rangers will start to suck any moment now, but a crash from the heavens is due.