Just How Good Are the 2013-14 Rangers?

  • 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
Not open for further replies.
It's relatively common to see upsets in any of the first three rounds and exceedingly rare to see upsets in the Finals. The only one I can really think of is the Canadiens in 1993. Many point to the Devils in 1995, but forget that essentially the same team was an OT goal away from being the favorites in the Finals the year before. It was a shortened season, so there's no real telling where the Devils would have ended up in the standings in a normal year. As for Bruins/Canucks... that was a great Bruins team and just look at the record of the other teams in the Canucks division. It was like the old Southeast, but worse.

If your goal is to just get there and be competitive, anything can definitely happen. If you want to win it all, it requires having the same or more talent than the team from the other conference.

Eh. First of all, I doubt the Devils would not be underdogs against the Wings team even in a full season. Second, I think you're putting too much stock in an at most 7 game sample size. Too much luck involved to say that the likes of the Flames and Oilers lost by their one goal because they were less talented. And it's not a large leap from competitive to winning a series in the NHL in a 7 game series. So much luck involved and goaltending plays a huge role that if a team is competitive then likely with some luck they could have won the series. Even in series where I don't think a team would beat another team in a million years in a best of 7, you see wacky results. The Hurricanes were mediocrity personified faced perhaps the best team since the 80s Oilers (very arguable but they were great), won a game and played an OT and a 1 goal game in the cup clinching game. They didn't even allow more than 3 goals in any of the games. That has to be one of the biggest talent discrepancies in SC Finals history and it was ridiculously competitive. There are zero teams in the NHL IMO that are as much better than us than those Wings were over those Canes. The Canes weren't winning that series, but it's amazing how competitive that series was and the talent was almost comical.
 
I was talking about historical trends, not sample sizes. It's rare for the underdog to win in the SCF. You can't prove that wrong, so you go into how the series were actually played. In the end, one team wins and the other loses. History has shown that nearly all of the time, that is the favorite in the series.

The Canes still lost that series to Detroit in 5 games. As close as some of the games were, it was still a short series. Not one that could've gone either way. I mean, the Bruins/Rangers last year went 5 games and all but 1 were 1-goal games. It still wasn't an either way sort of series.

Also, at best, the Canes were the 3rd best team in the East in the 2006 playoffs and probably not that. They beat up a very, very bad SE division that year in the regular season. The two best teams in the conference played each other in the 2nd round and then the Canes upset the Sabres in a great 7 game series.
 
Rafalski was better than McDonagh, really?

Yeah, I don't think it was too outlandish to suggest. Rafalski was a great player who logged 25min+ for the Devils for years. He's accomplished what McDonagh hopes he can when his career is said and done.
 
I was talking about historical trends, not sample sizes. It's rare for the underdog to win in the SCF. You can't prove that wrong, so you go into how the series were actually played. In the end, one team wins and the other loses. History has shown that nearly all of the time, that is the favorite in the series.

The Canes still lost that series to Detroit in 5 games. As close as some of the games were, it was still a short series. Not one that could've gone either way. I mean, the Bruins/Rangers last year went 5 games and all but 1 were 1-goal games. It still wasn't an either way sort of series.

Also, at best, the Canes were the 3rd best team in the East in the 2006 playoffs and probably not that. They beat up a very, very bad SE division that year in the regular season. The two best teams in the conference played each other in the 2nd round and then the Canes upset the Sabres in a great 7 game series.

Well you need to look at context, sure the trend is against it but the point is that most of those series could have gone either way. There's a reason to bring in context, otherwise you're just looking at numbers. Yeah those Canes weren't great, but they were still the favorites and they still made the SC Final. Finally, usually underdogs beat at least one heavily favored team. I don't know what difference it really makes what round it is. It's not like they played a bunch of crap till they got to the finals.
 
Yeah, I don't think it was too outlandish to suggest. Rafalski was a great player who logged 25min+ for the Devils for years. He's accomplished what McDonagh hopes he can when his career is said and done.

Logging 25+ minutes really doesn't mean anything. McDonagh has logged as much too. I don't see your point.
 
How many Cups does Rafalski have?

Who cares? The reason McDonagh doesn't have cups is a) he's been in the league only 3 seasons (before this one) and b) the rest of the team wasn't good enough. He played in NJ and Detroit. This is bar none the worst argument in sports. How many team awards does a guy have? Such a lazy argument.
 
BTW, I may well be wrong here but another team to think about. They were clearly better, but I don't believe the Duck in 07 had an overwhelming amount of top end offensive skill. Don't forget that this was before Getzlaf and the rest of their top end talent hit their prime. They also didn't score much in the playoffs. That team was definitely more of a deep O/great D team. We are not that team. They were also very physical. But my point is I don't think every team needs to have a Crosby/Malkin on it. (Pronger and Niedermeyer don't hurt though).
 
When this team has a pair of HOF defenders, I'll take solace in it's lack of offensive talent going into the playoffs. This team's lack of offense from the defense and unreliability on FO's will potentially (probably) kill us. I just don't see it, and I'd like nothing more to be proven wrong, because it would truly be a magical run.
 
When this team has a pair of HOF defenders, I'll take solace in it's lack of offensive talent going into the playoffs. This team's lack of offense from the defense and unreliability on FO's will potentially (probably) kill us. I just don't see it, and I'd like nothing more to be proven wrong, because it would truly be a magical run.

Well I don't think they're as good as the 03 Devils or 07 Ducks. Just something to give us hope. The team is playing well enough where I think it's ok to be hopeful.
 
Logging 25+ minutes really doesn't mean anything. McDonagh has logged as much too. I don't see your point.

Sure it does. Especially when that's on a team with two HHOFer talent defensemen. Let's consider the integral role Rafalski's played on President Trophy winning Wings, Cup winning teams and being named the best defender at the Olympics. His career is quite underrated, especially since you seem to scoff that he's on par with McDonagh.
 
Sure it does. Especially when that's on a team with two HHOFer talent defensemen. Let's consider the integral role Rafalski's played on President Trophy winning Wings, Cup winning teams and being named the best defender at the Olympics. His career is quite underrated, especially since you seem to scoff that he's on par with McDonagh.

I don't see why McD wouldn't play 25 minutes on either of those teams if he was there instead of McD. Are you telling me that one of the best shutdown d-men in the game today wouldn't be able to get big minutes on those teams. Not saying Rafalski is not on par with McD, just that I doubt he's better than him.
 
When this team has a pair of HOF defenders, I'll take solace in it's lack of offensive talent going into the playoffs. This team's lack of offense from the defense and unreliability on FO's will potentially (probably) kill us. I just don't see it, and I'd like nothing more to be proven wrong, because it would truly be a magical run.

With all due respect Mr. Shrew :D , McDonagh is a All Star/Olympic defenseman and both Girardi/Staal were mentioned as names for possible defenders for team Canada in the olympics. While we don't have two HHOF defenders, 1 olympic defender with two other potential olympic defenders does show the strength of our defensive core as a whole.
 
Sometimes all people need is a fluke in order to completely ignore the reality of things.
Only one 7/8 seed winning the Cup since that system was put in place is the fluke here, not LA winning the Cup.

Six 7/8 seeds made the Finals over that stretch, all of them going 6 or 7 games.

lowseeds.png
 
Yes, and all but one of them lost in the end.

Only one 7/8 seed winning the Cup since that system was put in place is the fluke here, not LA winning the Cup.

Six 7/8 seeds made the Finals over that stretch, all of them going 6 or 7 games.

lowseeds.png
 
Yes, and all but one of them lost in the end.
Yeah, but I think it's more likely that's random variance than there being something ingrained in 7th/8th seeds that causes them to get to the Finals only to lose in the 7th game.
 
Yeah, but I think it's more likely that's random variance than there being something ingrained in 7th/8th seeds that causes them to get to the Finals only to lose in the 7th game.

Abso-****ing-lutely.

Let's say a team top team beats a 6-8 seed 70% of the time in a best of 7 series. 70% of the time is a really high probability. I mean a team that wins 70% of their games wins 57 games. So let's take 70%, and I'd say that's pushing it. So the likelihood that the underdog wins more than 1 game in 7 (like we've seen) is 67%. And as I said I think 70% is pushing it. This is the NHL and the 6-8 seed is obviously a good team, these are not the 13-14 Sabres these teams would be playing. If you take it down to 60%, which is probably more like it, the likelihood that you'd see more than 1 team in 7 win is 84%.
 
Are Pittsburgh and Boston fans calculating their odds to upset teams in the playoffs?
Not to my knowledge.

But I don't believe the Stanley Cup is awarded based on which team's fans are calculating their odds to upset teams in the playoffs.
 
Not to my knowledge.

But I don't believe the Stanley Cup is awarded based on which team's fans are calculating their odds to upset teams in the playoffs.

Source???

If the Rangers didn't have so many contractual issues coming up this summer, I'd be happy to subscribe to the "anything can happen, enjoy the ride" narrative. Im used to it. Im a Ranger fan.

But those decisions loom large, and a lot of people insist that selling off guys like Callahan is "throwing in the towel."

If you want to say the Rangers are the 3rd best team in the East, you have to admit 2 things:

1. The East stinks this year
2. They seem to be closer to the 4-9th bunch than the 1/2 teams.

Now, Im in the minority that thinks the Rangers can make some shrewd deals without jeopardizing their already slim chances of making a deep run, but who wants to subscribe to those impure thoughts when we could be talking in extreme absolutes?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad