Just How Good Are the 2013-14 Rangers?

[eco's bones]

We're going to be a lot less good until Zuccarello is back in the lineup and up to speed.

 

[aufheben]

Wasnt talking about you.

Although your willingness to not take a firm position is equal parts frustrating and commendable.

The bottom line is I think trying to tear down the '11-12 team's performance at the expense of making this team look good is a fool's errand.

'11-12 is the bar of success for this franchise in the cap era, regardless of their entertainment value. Whether or not people consider how far they made it in the playoffs an achievement is irrelevant, because no other NYR team has made it that far in a long time. That team played ~100 games that season, this team is around ~50. Much easier to have success in shorter time spans.

 

[Kakko]

'11-12 is the bar of success for this franchise in the cap era, regardless of their entertainment value. Whether or not people consider how far they made it in the playoffs an achievement is irrelevant, because no other NYR team has made it that far in a long time. That team played ~100 games that season, this team is around ~50. Much easier to have success in shorter time spans.

That team's game plan was also to throw yourself in front of everything, and hope you don't break anything. Followed by a lot of injuries that hurt us in the playoffs.

In 11-12, the team in game 100 was completely different and weaker than the one in game 50.

I think with this team, game 100 is gonna be no different from game 50, which is why I'm a lot more confident about them.

 

[aufheben]

Let's see if this team even get's past game 82 before we predict how they'll fare in the Conference Finals.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

'11-12 is the bar of success for this franchise in the cap era, regardless of their entertainment value. Whether or not people consider how far they made it in the playoffs an achievement is irrelevant, because no other NYR team has made it that far in a long time. That team played ~100 games that season, this team is around ~50. Much easier to have success in shorter time spans.

Except that team wasn't that great after game 50. They gave themselves a huge cushion early in the season and then benefited from it with an easy schedule in the playoffs.

 

[Ail]

u so funny

Which of these facts do you think could be used for decision-making/evaluation purposes?

• Smoking increases the risk of men developing lung cancer by 25 times.
• The Ford C-MAX Hybrid is the best fuel efficiency among gasoline operated vehicles at 43 MPG.
• The average rate of return on stocks over the past 5 years has been 16.73% greater than that of bonds.
• Fenwick-tied is more predictive of future winning percentage than past winning percentage.

And why?

All of the above, becuz math.

 

[Thirty One]

All of the above, becuz math.

Fair point.

 

[aufheben]

Except that team wasn't that great after game 50. They gave themselves a huge cushion early in the season and then benefited from it with an easy schedule in the playoffs.

I don't care how it happened, if this team makes it that far, I will give them equal credit. All I've seen is excuses for why this team should be better, and excuses why that team should have been worse.

 

[True Blue]

That team's game plan was also to throw yourself in front of everything, and hope you don't break anything. Followed by a lot of injuries that hurt us in the playoffs.

Who cares about methodology? Results are the ones that count.

In 11-12, the team in game 100 was completely different and weaker than the one in game 50.

Once again, did they or did they not make further than most teams in Rangers history?

I think with this team, game 100 is gonna be no different from game 50, which is why I'm a lot more confident about them.

And you can state that based on what exactly? The conversation on this viewpoint will be come fruitful if this team can manage to get to the same level of success.

 

[True Blue]

Except that team wasn't that great after game 50. They gave themselves a huge cushion early in the season and then benefited from it with an easy schedule in the playoffs.

You seem to have trouble answering questions. Did they or did they not have more success than most teams in Rangers history? Were they or were they not one of the top teams in the league? Were they or were they not one of the final 4 teams standing?

You are under 30, right? Pray tell, how many times have you cheered on the Rangers in the conference finals?

 

[Kakko]

Who cares about methodology? Results are the ones that count.

Once again, did they or did they not make further than most teams in Rangers history?

And you can state that based on what exactly? The conversation on this viewpoint will be come fruitful if this team can manage to get to the same level of success.

Of course I can't guarantee it. It's a prediction.

And it's based on the fact that our top players aren't playing 25-30 minutes a night, and not getting physically beaten down (leading to injury) every night.

 

[True Blue]

Of course I can't guarantee it. It's a prediction.

So you make a Game 50 prediction and extrapolate over entire season? What about what happened in the first 20 games?

And it's based on the fact that our top players aren't playing 25-30 minutes a night, and not getting physically beaten down (leading to injury) every night.

There are either very few top players or the games must be much longer than 60 minutes. How exactly were they physically beat down? By doing what?

 

[eco's bones]

At the end of the day I don't care all that much whether the Rangers score 2 goals or 6 goals in any given game as long as they score one more than the opposition. Wins are what counts in the regular season--wins are what count in the playoffs. How the players and coaches go about getting those results doesn't that matter that much--just so long as they get good results. The 11-12 team did that--last year not so much.

 

[Kakko]

So you make a Game 50 prediction and extrapolate over entire season? What about what happened in the first 20 games?

The team was adjusting to the new system. That's generally accepted around here.

There are either very few top players or the games must be much longer than 60 minutes. How exactly were they physically beat down? By doing what?

Really?

 

[SnowblindNYR]

You seem to have trouble answering questions. Did they or did they not have more success than most teams in Rangers history? Were they or were they not one of the top teams in the league? Were they or were they not one of the final 4 teams standing?

You are under 30, right? Pray tell, how many times have you cheered on the Rangers in the conference finals?

I haven't and I'm grateful to that team for that. However, I remember being more anxious than excited with that team. That doesn't have to do with how good they were. Actually it kinda does, every game was a firing squad on Hank where we might get 2 if we were lucky. Yep, more successful but at the end of the day I don't see that team as one that should have won the cup, more like a team that got lucky to get as far as they did. Therefore I'm not embarrassed to say that I'm glad that team changed. Thanks for the 109 points and some great moments in the playoffs, but they weren't winning anything.

 

[bigbuffalo313]

Does it really matter that they got farther than most Ranger teams? Unless you are one of Montreal, Toronto, or Detroit the conference finals is probably going to be farther than most in that teams history

 

[Mikos87]

The Zuc injury is a perfect time for guys to step up.

Pouliot and Brassard should be bringing it during the time Zucc is out, perfect time for them to earn a contract, as Zucc has been a catalyst on that line, and their PP minutes. The former two have been streaky, its about time they turn their streaks into consistent minutes.

Brassard in particular. Pouliot has been great since he simplified his game. Everyone can see the natural talent he has with the puck on his stick. Now that he's become a reliable net front presence, his talent has had a better chance to shine since he's getting chances in the slot area.

Brassard I remain displeased with. All he needs to do is keep his feet moving, yet even in a contract year he floats every game. Brassard can easily be worth his salary if he skated hard, and shot more.

Skate, shoot, pass. The guy has an amazing shot. If he was averaging 4-5 a game, Brassard is a lethal offensive player. I think AV needs to shorten his shifts, and ask him to go all out every shift.

Give him more shifts, and less time to float, and I think we will see a very potent center. Brassard shooting more means more pucks to the net, and that helps out Pouliot's hard work to get there. Benoit is a pretty slippery guy when it comes to contact, he'll bang in a lot of rebounds.

If this happens, and Zucc gets back as he was or better, the Rangers can distinguish themselves as the 3rd best team in the East going into the playoffs.

Barring Callahan/Girardi trade or a hell of a package of NHL players and prospects/picks coming back.

 

[True Blue]

The team was adjusting to the new system. That's generally accepted around here.

So you saw all effort in those games? The loss to the Sharks is nothing more than getting used to a new system?

Really?

Really

 

[True Blue]

Does it really matter that they got farther than most Ranger teams?

Yes, it does when the "true contender" argument breaks out. Or the "They were SOOOOO boring to watch" debate starts.

 

[True Blue]

I haven't and I'm grateful to that team for that.

So did they or did they not acheive more success than any other Ranger team that you have seen?

However, I remember being more anxious than excited with that team. That doesn't have to do with how good they were. Actually it kinda does, every game was a firing squad on Hank where we might get 2 if we were lucky.

Whether or not the team scores 1, 2, 3 or 8, the only thing that counts is if you score one more than the other team.

Yep, more successful but at the end of the day I don't see that team as one that should have won the cup, more like a team that got lucky to get as far as they did.

A straw man's conjecture. And a poor one at that.

Thanks for the 109 points and some great moments in the playoffs, but they weren't winning anything.

You are probably in the great minority who considers being one of the final 4 teams left standing as "nothing". Again, you admit that you have never had the priveledge to watch a Rangers team in the Conference Finals until that team. So how exactly does that count for "nothng"?

 

[True Blue]

I think AV needs to shorten his shifts, and ask him to go all out every shift.

Why does any player (on any team) need to be "asked" to go all out?

 

[Kakko]

You are probably in the great minority who considers being one of the final 4 teams left standing as "nothing". Again, you admit that you have never had the priveledge to watch a Rangers team in the Conference Finals until that team. So how exactly does that count for "nothng"?

You're putting words in his mouth. No where does he say that it's "nothing".

And actually, you'll find plenty of people here who think we should be rebuilding unless we won the cup

 

[Tawnos]

You are probably in the great minority who considers being one of the final 4 teams left standing as "nothing". Again, you admit that you have never had the priveledge to watch a Rangers team in the Conference Finals until that team. So how exactly does that count for "nothng"?

In much the opposite way, I'm in the great minority in that I think being one of the final 8 teams standing is an accomplishment. Not as great as 4 or 2 or 1, obviously, but still an accomplishment. I don't consider simply making the playoffs to be that though.

And there is my standard for a successful* season.

*the term "successful" is a distinct term from "ultimately successful"

 

[bigbuffalo313]

Yes, it does when the "true contender" argument breaks out. Or the "They were SOOOOO boring to watch" debate starts.

Did you even read the rest of my post where I tried to make a point about the the "they went farther than most teams in our history" argument?

Should Buffalo fans try to replicate the 1999 team since they went farther than any other Buffalo team? Should Edmonton try to replicate the 06 team?

 

[True Blue]

You're putting words in his mouth. No where does he say that it's "nothing".

You are right. The actual term was "not winning anything". Seems to me that a conference finals team has won plenty.

And actually, you'll find plenty of people here who think we should be rebuilding unless we won the cup

That is an entirely different debate.