Just How Good Are the 2013-14 Rangers?

[aufheben]

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.

Who cares whether they were overachievers or underachievers or whatever the ****? Ya know? I'll take the team that wins the most games.

 

[True Blue]

Who cares whether they were overachievers or underachievers or whatever the ****? Ya know? I'll take the team that wins the most games.

The style points argument really baffles me. Since when do we, as Rangers fans, get the luxury of style points? Either you are successful or you are not. Period. I will take the most "boring" team in the world if it means more wins.

 

[Thirty One]

The style points argument really baffles me. Since when do we, as Rangers fans, get the luxury of style points? Either you are successful or you are not. Period. I will take the most "boring" team in the world if it means more wins.

It just so happens that the area where the 2013-14 Rangers thrives in comparison to the 2011-12 Rangers has been shown to be more predictive of future winning than past winning percentage. So in this case, I think style points do matter.

 

[McRanger]

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.

Putting aside the stupidity of judging a season before its over, I believe the narrative was "this is a bad hockey team".

 

[Off Sides]

I am just wondering, does anyone have any complaints about how the team has been playing style wise, lines, ice times or other, or for that matter how the coaching is handling them?

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

I am just wondering, does anyone have any complaints about how the team has been playing style wise, lines, ice times or other, or for that matter how the coaching is handling them?

I havent blamed a coach for anything since Ron Lowe.

 

[Thirty One]

I havent blamed a coach for anything since Ron Lowe.

Really? So Torts hitting a lady in the stands with a water bottle the very game he benched Avery for discipline reasons was cool with you?

I know I'm nitpicking, but I always like to bring that up.

 

[Off Sides]

I havent blamed a coach for anything since Ron Lowe.

Not blaming, just seems like most are pretty happy with what they have been doing. I don't see many threads about, these should be the lines, why is X player getting so much ice time.

Other than Pyatt and Del Zotto who have both gone elsewhere, and the earlier, why are they playing man on man, I have not seen anyone really saying anything about... well anything.

Then again they have been winning and healthy for the most part.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

The style points argument really baffles me. Since when do we, as Rangers fans, get the luxury of style points? Either you are successful or you are not. Period. I will take the most "boring" team in the world if it means more wins.

What baffles my mind is the venom Rangers fans have about those unsuccessful teams and Sather as Satin personified for having a team that just gets eliminated in the 2nd round. Meanwhile that team that lost one round later to the worst SC finalist in the last 7 years is amazing? Is that all it takes for people to go from hating a team to loving it?

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Really? So Torts hitting a lady in the stands with a water bottle the very game he benched Avery for discipline reasons was cool with you?

I know I'm nitpicking, but I always like to bring that up.

Alright, you got me, I was pissed at that and I think my post history would bare that out. So yea, when Torts blew his gasket for 30 seconds, I thought that was a stupid move by the coach.

That said, since the lockout, I don't think you could ask for much more from the coaches in terms of performance they got out of the rosters.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

What baffles my mind is the venom Rangers fans have about those unsuccessful teams and Sather as Satin personified for having a team that just gets eliminated in the 2nd round. Meanwhile that team that lost one round later to the worst SC finalist in the last 7 years is amazing? Is that all it takes for people to go from hating a team to loving it?

You're taking 2 very different things and trying to make 1 point out of them. As usual, its absurd.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

You're taking 2 very different things and trying to make 1 point out of them. As usual, its absurd.

Instead of starting with your favorite words with me such as "silly", "absurd", and "joke", you may want to have an actual discussion in a discussion board and explain your problem with my post like a mature person that's not looking to antagonize me with every post. Please elaborate. I keep reading how great that team was, and people talking about success. Then when it comes to this team or previous teams "this team might win 1 round, the goal is to win the cup!" Two different things that contradict each other, but both said by largely the same people. Those 2 beliefs are mutually exclusive. You can't think that team was the bees knees and use words such as "success" and then **** on other teams because they will lose in the 2nd round. Unless you think that losing in the 3rd round is infinitely better. But continue with your little insults instead of having a discussion. Your first instinct is not to discuss things like an adult but to antagonize me and show much how smart you are.

 

[True Blue]

What baffles my mind is the venom Rangers fans have about those unsuccessful teams and Sather as Satin personified for having a team that just gets eliminated in the 2nd round.

Which second round exits under Sather have had vitriol spewed at?

Meanwhile that team that lost one round later to the worst SC finalist in the last 7 years is amazing?

How many Ranger teams have you seen make a similar run as the 11-12 team?

Is that all it takes for people to go from hating a team to loving it?

Not really sure what you are talking about. 1) Jackass is (rightfully) vilified on these boards. 2) Which team since he has been caretaker that got eliminated in the second round is hated? I am pretty sure the answer is none. So I am not really certain as to what you are getting at

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Which second round exits under Sather have had vitriol spewed at?

How many Ranger teams have you seen make a similar run as the 11-12 team?

Not really sure what you are talking about. 1) Jackass is (rightfully) vilified on these boards. 2) Which team since he has been caretaker that got eliminated in the second round is hated? I am pretty sure the answer is none. So I am not really certain as to what you are getting at

Not so much particular teams as the vitriol towards the idea that a team would just lose in the 2nd round. I've read people say that Sather is so terrible, and he'll have another team that will lose in the 2nd round, but we want an SC champion. Yet the team that lost in the 3rd round is so amazing. I'd say that last year's team is constantly looked down upon while the 11-12 team was lifted to God-like status. The difference was a round. That 11-12 team didn't play one team that was anywhere near as good as those 13 Bruins. If they had, they'd likely lost too.

BTW, the one argument you can make is that these teams are only capable of winning one round, while the 11-12 team could have gone all the way. I don't understand that line of thinking either. It took them 14 games to beat the 7 and 8 seed and they lost to the worst SC finalist since Edmonton in the ECF. That team wasn't a contender either.

 

[True Blue]

Not so much particular teams as the vitriol towards the idea that a team would just lose in the 2nd round.

Where have you seen this? I have seen no vitriol to the teams that have recently exited in the 2nd round.

I've read people say that Sather is so terrible, and he'll have another team that will lose in the 2nd round, but we want an SC champion.

You have read that people have said that Sather is terrible. However, I do not see comments that you are alluding to in the second part of your statement.

Yet the team that lost in the 3rd round is so amazing.

Again, as a Ranger fan, how many times have you seen them be in the 3rd round? Now take that as a context of their entire existence.

I'd say that last year's team is constantly looked down upon while the 11-12 team was lifted to God-like status.

Not sure where you are getting your facts from. Last year's team was lamented as not having the benefit of a full camp and having 1/4 of the team change. Meanwhile, it is praised for the work that it did to make the playoffs and how far it got when there.

That 11-12 team didn't play one team that was anywhere near as good as those 13 Bruins.

And?
[QUOTEB]TW, the one argument you can make is that these teams are only capable of winning one round, while the 11-12 team could have gone all the way. I don't understand that line of thinking either.[/QUOTE]
Still not sure as to where you are getting your facts from about those teams. Which teams are "those" and which are "these"?

It took them 14 games to beat the 7 and 8 seed and they lost to the worst SC finalist since Edmonton in the ECF.

Big friggin' deal. What team gets style points in the playoffs? I recall many, many FAR superior to the Rangers teams that struggled to get past lower seeded teams. So what? Who cares? Bottom line: Did they or did they not advance?

That team wasn't a contender either.

So a team in the conference finals is NOT a contender? How is that even remotely possible? That is simply being obtuse. When you are within 4 wins of getting the opportunity to play for the Grail, you have done more than all but 3 other teams. That makes you a contender and praise-worthy.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Instead of starting with your favorite words with me such as "silly", "absurd", and "joke", you may want to have an actual discussion in a discussion board and explain your problem with my post like a mature person that's not looking to antagonize me with every post. Please elaborate. I keep reading how great that team was, and people talking about success. Then when it comes to this team or previous teams "this team might win 1 round, the goal is to win the cup!" Two different things that contradict each other, but both said by largely the same people. Those 2 beliefs are mutually exclusive. You can't think that team was the bees knees and use words such as "success" and then **** on other teams because they will lose in the 2nd round. Unless you think that losing in the 3rd round is infinitely better. But continue with your little insults instead of having a discussion. Your first instinct is not to discuss things like an adult but to antagonize me and show much how smart you are.

Most people realize that 51 regular season wins and a trip to the conference finals is one of the best seasons in Rangers history. They realize when you win that many games and advance to the 3rd round, you have a better shot at the Cup then those run of the mill Ranger teams that finish 4-8th and maybe win a round. I want a team that can consistently provide results like the '11-12 team year after year to enhance the shot at the cup.

You cant accept anything about that team because you dont like the way they played - its a notion that long suffering Ranger fans just cant understand. You are aloof and ignorant on the subject and if you wonder why I respond to you like that, its because I dont respect your opinion one iota.

 

[Thirty One]

What if the 2011-12 Rangers had faced the Penguins in the second round and lost in 5 games? Are they still great?

I just think it's so odd that we're discounting the 2013-14 Rangers chances as near nil because of existence of Pittsburgh and Boston, yet the 2011-12 team is applauded in part because they got to the Conference Finals without facing a team remotely close to that caliber.

 

[McRanger]

What if the 2011-12 Rangers had faced the Penguins in the second round and lost in 5 games? Are they still great?

I just think it's so odd that we're discounting the 2013-14 Rangers chances as near nil because of existence of Pittsburgh and Boston, yet the 2011-12 team is applauded in part because they got to the Conference Finals without facing a team remotely close to that caliber.

Or Crosby doesn't miss 60 games, the Rangers don't win the east and get booted in the first round.

Somehow I feel like that same season would still be used by those same posters, to argue some point or another, just from a different angle.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Where have you seen this? I have seen no vitriol to the teams that have recently exited in the 2nd round.

You have read that people have said that Sather is terrible. However, I do not see comments that you are alluding to in the second part of your statement.

Again, as a Ranger fan, how many times have you seen them be in the 3rd round? Now take that as a context of their entire existence.

Not sure where you are getting your facts from. Last year's team was lamented as not having the benefit of a full camp and having 1/4 of the team change. Meanwhile, it is praised for the work that it did to make the playoffs and how far it got when there.

And?
[QUOTEB]TW, the one argument you can make is that these teams are only capable of winning one round, while the 11-12 team could have gone all the way. I don't understand that line of thinking either.

Still not sure as to where you are getting your facts from about those teams. Which teams are "those" and which are "these"?

Big friggin' deal. What team gets style points in the playoffs? I recall many, many FAR superior to the Rangers teams that struggled to get past lower seeded teams. So what? Who cares? Bottom line: Did they or did they not advance?

So a team in the conference finals is NOT a contender? How is that even remotely possible? That is simply being obtuse. When you are within 4 wins of getting the opportunity to play for the Grail, you have done more than all but 3 other teams. That makes you a contender and praise-worthy.[/QUOTE]

I guess we must be reading different boards then.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Most people realize that 51 regular season wins and a trip to the conference finals is one of the best seasons in Rangers history. They realize when you win that many games and advance to the 3rd round, you have a better shot at the Cup then those run of the mill Ranger teams that finish 4-8th and maybe win a round. I want a team that can consistently provide results like the '11-12 team year after year to enhance the shot at the cup.

You cant accept anything about that team because you dont like the way they played - its a notion that long suffering Ranger fans just cant understand. You are aloof and ignorant on the subject and if you wonder why I respond to you like that, its because I dont respect your opinion one iota.

Well I guess we have something in common then. Not only is your opinion worthless, you carry yourself like you're some sort of authority and talk down to anyone you disagree with. Ignorant and arrogant. I don't give a **** how many wins that team had in the regular season. They got outplayed for 3 straight series against mediocre teams. They got flat out embarrassed by the mediocre Devils. I don't not think they're a contender because they were boring, I don't think they're a contender because no team can win the cup by playing in their own zone for 55 minutes and scoring 2 goals at most. The team got the easiest draw in NHL history to a cup. 6, 7, 8 seeds and another 8 seed and still only made it halfway. I don't give a **** if that team won 82 games in the regular season. Their style of play wasn't conducive to winning 4 series. They were lucky to win 1. You're able to read the number under the W column and your argument was that they were a contender based on it. Then you strut around like you discovered the meaning of life. Get off your high horse.

 

[Fataldogg]

Well I guess we have something in common then. Not only is your opinion worthless, you carry yourself like you're some sort of authority and talk down to anyone you disagree with. Ignorant and arrogant. I don't give a **** how many wins that team had in the regular season. They got outplayed for 3 straight series against mediocre teams. They got flat out embarrassed by the mediocre Devils. I don't not think they're a contender because they were boring, I don't think they're a contender because no team can win the cup by plaging in their own zone for 55 minutes and during 2 goals at most. The team got the easiest draw in NHL history to a cup. 6, 7, 8 seeds and another 8 seed and still only made it halfway. I doubt give a **** if that team won 82 games in the regular season. Their style of play wasn't conducive to winning 4 series. They were lucky to win 1. You're able to read the number under the W column and your argument was that they were a contender based on it. Then you strut around like you discovered the meaning of life. Get off your high horse.

Agree 100%. I have been saying this for a while now. It was a team that overachieved in the regular season and it was evident when they reached the post season. When I said they werent true Cup contenders (similar to a team like Chicago or Boston) people looked at me like I was crazy. 11-12 was a solid team that overachieved in the regular season, and barely got past the 8th and 7th seed teams.

 

[True Blue]

Or Crosby doesn't miss 60 games, the Rangers don't win the east and get booted in the first round.

There are facts and there is conjecture. Fact: They got further than the great majority of Rangers teams every have. Conjecture: They MAY not have gotten that far if the ifs and buts were cherries and nuts.

 

[True Blue]

Agree 100%. I have been saying this for a while now. It was a team that overachieved in the regular season and it was evident when they reached the post season.

How many Rangers teams do you know that got further than that lacking team?

When I said they werent true Cup contenders (similar to a team like Chicago or Boston) people looked at me like I was crazy. 11-12 was a solid team that overachieved in the regular season, and barely got past the 8th and 7th seed teams.

Style points for being victorious is a very poor argument. Especially for Rangers fans.

 

[Fataldogg]

How many Rangers teams do you know that got further than that lacking team?

Style points for being victorious is a very poor argument. Especially for Rangers fans.

I said nothing about style points. I said SnowBlind has a point. Because we won the Conference, people acted as if we were going to go all the way.

Were they a contender by # of wins and seeding? Absolutely. Statically, they were a contender. You can't take that away from them.

Was the on ice performance conducive to the #1 team in the NHL? Absolutely not.

They were a one trick pony that relied far too much on goaltending and defense to win.

The 11-12 Rangers team never had the offensive prowess to go all the way, regardless of their position heading into the post season.

And their offensive woes were relevant when Lundqvist had to bail the team out against the Senators and Capitals. True contenders excel in all areas of play, they just don't rely on their goaltender and defense to win 2-1 or 1-0 games the entire playoff tournament.

 

[Thirty One]

There are facts and there is conjecture. Fact: They got further than the great majority of Rangers teams every have. Conjecture: They MAY not have gotten that far if the ifs and buts were cherries and nuts.

Fact: They were average in the measure that's been shown to be better at predicting future wins and losses than past winning percentage.

Fact: This team is top-5 in that measure.