Teams with better records have better records for reasons. Those reasons tend to win more.
Just How Good Are the 2013-14 Rangers?
- 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
aufheben
#Norris4Fox
The Rangers don't have as good of a chance of winning the cup as Boston and Pittsburgh, thanks for the enlightenment.
Do you really think this team has as good a shot at the Cup as Boston? lol
Edmonton has a chance too!
Thirty One
Safe is safe.
- Dec 28, 2003
- 28,981
- 24,357
You won't hear me say that Boston and Pittsburgh don't have better chances to reach the SCF than all the other teams in the East. But all the other teams are share whatever's left, and I would put the Rangers at the top of that heap.
Possibly. But even so, it means that they were 1 or 2 lucky games from urinating in the Stanley Cup.
I never said they did, I'm just saying that just like what you said about the fact that everyone has a chance this isn't exactly breaking news.
I feel like you might as well be talking about unicorns here. That's just a bunch of buzzwords that mean nothing.
BBKers
Registered User
More stats East vs West
8 East teams currently in PO position vs all West teams 2013/2014
161 GP - 91-58-12 = 194 points = 1,20 PPG
8 West teams currently in PO position vs all East teams 2013/2014
180 GP - 110-50-20 = 240 points = 1,33 PPG
Better teams in the West seem to have slight overhand vs East
8 East teams currently in PO position vs all West teams 2013/2014
161 GP - 91-58-12 = 194 points = 1,20 PPG
8 West teams currently in PO position vs all East teams 2013/2014
180 GP - 110-50-20 = 240 points = 1,33 PPG
Better teams in the West seem to have slight overhand vs East
One thing I'll say about the Pens is that the way we played in 11-12, I don't think we had much chance of beating them. They also couldn't take advantage of Fleury. Now, I don't think it's guaranteed that Fleury will suck again, but if he does I think this team has a better chance of taking advantage of him than that team. Hard to make a goalie look bad in your own zone.
The point is that the "anything can happen" view often losses to better teams.
And how is that? Did I miss it when this team suddenly became an offensive dynamo?
Two can play this game. Hard to stop the two best players in the league when you are caught up ice and give up odd man rushes.
We're not an offensive dynamo, but I think the style we play now is better suited against them. We are not the best at finishing, but if Fleury is the Fleury of the last 2 playoffs all you need is pressure on him, not finishing and he'll self destruct. That's different from the teams we've had in the past, who were not putting the pressure this team puts on goalies (it just doesn't always materialize in goals). Also we haven't been giving up that many odd man rushes lately. This isn't October or even early December anymore. We've been playing solid defensive hockey for a while. We just played the two best players in the world and gave them almost nothing 5 on 5. They scored one goal 5 on 5 (and I was just talking about even strength) and even that was on a massive **** up that anyone could have scored on. I'm sorry I'm dissing your beloved 11-12 team.
I can't figure out why criticizing that 11-12 to like 99% of this board is worse than criticizing their mothers. That was a good overachieving team, they weren't a juggernaut.
Last edited:
Off Sides
Registered User
- Sep 8, 2008
- 9,755
- 5,585
The biggest difference offensively I see besides they are actually carrying/passing the puck in the neutral zone is, they have 3 lines who can all score or at least provide offensive pressure by attacking the front of the net many times off the rush itself.
They are somewhat difficult to match up against, however they are not the only team in the league capable of doing that. Past couple playoffs we have seen the other teams 4th lines even come through in a pinch to provide some important goals. If not that, their D stepped up.
Rangers have some of that, it's promising but I really don't think that it's on the level of the best teams in the league just yet. Some of these other teams have that legit first line talent, two good secondary lines, and some D who can shoot or at least provide pressure from back there. Rangers are missing the full boat of legit top line talents, and unless McD continues to get better, which he probably will, I don't see much offense coming from the D.
They are somewhat difficult to match up against, however they are not the only team in the league capable of doing that. Past couple playoffs we have seen the other teams 4th lines even come through in a pinch to provide some important goals. If not that, their D stepped up.
Rangers have some of that, it's promising but I really don't think that it's on the level of the best teams in the league just yet. Some of these other teams have that legit first line talent, two good secondary lines, and some D who can shoot or at least provide pressure from back there. Rangers are missing the full boat of legit top line talents, and unless McD continues to get better, which he probably will, I don't see much offense coming from the D.
Blue Blooded
Most people rejected his message
That team was just so damn likeable so everyone wants them to be better than they really were. They were scrappy and feisty, and 24/7 allowed us to get very close to the team. But they overachieved massively and relied on an epic performance from Lundqvist.
I think even the 12-13 Rangers were better even though they got figured out big-time in the playoffs, and the 13-14 Rangers are a step above both.
Apart from that mystifying 10-game stretch in early December (and the first 5 games of the season of course), this has been a top-5 team in the league without a doubt in my mind.
13-14 Rangers: Underachieving elite team.
11-12 Rangers: Overachieving above average team. Like a better version of the 13-14 Avs.
Unlike the comical narratives that people are willing to die on a hill to defend the '11-12 team (who had a better record, by the way), the real issue is crap like this. Devaluing the '11-12 team in order to inflate the worth of this current team.
- Jul 20, 2005
- 4,924
- 2,330
Teams are suppose to overachieve.
I would see it as a compliment, especially to the coach.
It's not a comical narrative. All I see is how great that team was and what a contender they were. People are still raving about that team. What I don't get is how many people were *****ing about this team being a 2nd round out at best and how tired they are, but that team winning an extra round and losing to the mediocre Devils (relatively of course) in the ECF and looking terrible while doing so, accomplished some amazing feat. If you're such a hardcore winner that you're tired Sather's teams only winning a round, why are you ok with a team winning only 2 rounds when the goal is to win 4?
I wonder if youll post the same crap if THIS team loses in the 1st or 2nd round. For the last time, just because you didn't like the way the '11-12 team played, doesnt give you a license to make **** up about their performance, which was the best of any Ranger team in close to a generation.
Was that the narrative 2 years ago? If so, thats news to me.
I seem to remember a lot of folks complaining about the shackles placed on that team.
Wait, wait....THIS team is an elite team?
You are exactly what your record says you are. You cannot just delete certain parts of the season can call this a top-5 team. That logic conveniently leaves out other teams. You should also then go to their schedule and delete 15 bad games. If you do that, does this team still appear to be a top-5 team?
Thirty One
Safe is safe.
- Dec 28, 2003
- 28,981
- 24,357
Did they or did they not make the ECF? As only 4 teams make it to the conference finals, that is the marks of a rather remarkable season. How many such seasons have you been able to point to in your history of being a Rangers fan?
Because being a winner does not mean make it into the Finals each year.
Since when are there style points handed out in the playoffs?
Better teams with better records win more often than those that do not. So the better chances lie in the teams that are actually better rather than those that rely on "anything can happen".
aufheben
#Norris4Fox
- Status
Latest posts
-
Devils discussion (news, notes and speculation) - part III- Latest: Better Call Sal
-
-
-
