Size, lack of mean streak, over reliance on skill to conquer all. Unwillingness to go to dirty areas of ice.
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
The "toughness" argument is being brought up over and over again. What do you see as the definition of it? Am I demanding the gloves being dropped? Where are people clamoring for the type that you seem to define? Asking a team to do more than waive a feeble poke check at an incoming player has nothing to do with toughness. Being willing to take a hit to make a play has nothing to do with toughness. Winning a battle in the corner, or anywhere along the board, has nothing to do with toughness.
Summarized my opinion. I believe that a series between the two teams would be more lopsided than last year.
Throwing out percentages, trying to tilt stats in your corner by ignoring a portion of the season, claiming that Henke is sub par and Rask simply stood on top of his head, is just fine. Sometimes all one needs to do is watch a game. And in watching, my view is that the Rangers are not built to compete with Boston. Or any team that makes the playoffs a 7 game war of attrition.
aufheben
#Norris4Fox
- Jul 20, 2005
- 4,924
- 2,330
Gaborik, Stepan, Anisimov, Dubinsky, Richards, Callahan
Nash, Stepan, Hagelin, Kreider, Richards, Callahan
Boyle, Fedotenko, Prust, Rupp, Mitchell, Hagelin
Boyle, Moore, Carcillo/Dorsett, Pouliot, Brassard, Zuccarello
McDonagh, Girarid, Staal, Stralman, Del Zotto, Bickell
McDonagh, Girarid, Staal, Stralman, Moore, Klein
Using '11-'12 as a measuring stick I see very little size or grit difference in our top 2 lines or our defense.
I see very little size difference on the bottom 6, and aside from Prust being inadequately replaced on the 3rd/4th line the team isn't much less grittier.
That is just the personnel, though. The game they play now certainly requires less grinding. That is part of being able to move the puck out of the zone without board battles and into the oppositions zone without dumping it.
Do you think with Torts gone they've gone soft, mentally that is?
And the Rangers are what? 7th in the league? Are those the best advanced stats the Rangers have had since Renney was coach?
Thirty One
Safe is safe.
- Dec 28, 2003
- 28,981
- 24,357
I've said nothing about you demanding gloves be dropped, but you seem intent on arguing that point.
Being willing to take a hit to make a play, being able to separate a player from the puck and win a battle in the corners are all skills that will help a team win a hockey game.
What I'm wondering though, is why those skills won't show up in the shot differential. And if they don't, please explain how exactly do they manifest in winning or losing, because I haven't seen an attempt to explain it yet.
Yeah I oughta try that some time.
SO this team is every bit as gritty as the 11-12 one? Is that what you are saying? This team is willing to get their nose dirty in every way, just like the 11-12 one? Is that what you are saying?
Being able to fire off a shot from beyond the circle may be quite a bit different digging a puck out of the corner, making a play and shooting form there. If I fire 100 shots from beyond the blue line, and you fire 30 from inside the circles, the skills you mention may really not make that much of a difference.
I did not state that you did not. All I said is that sometimes one just needs eyes to tell him what is going on the ice. Your perception of what you see is quite a bit different than mine. Your eyes say that the Rangers are basically every bit as good as the Bruins. Mine say that the difference between the two is vast. What I see on the ice is different than what you see. And no amount of shot percentages or blaming it on a hot Rask or a bad Henke is going to change what I ultimately perceived.Yeah I oughta try that some time.
Thirty One
Safe is safe.
- Dec 28, 2003
- 28,981
- 24,357
I wouldn't say so.
I think this team is comparable in grittiness to the 11-12 Caps team that knocked off the Bruins, though.
Thirty One
Safe is safe.
- Dec 28, 2003
- 28,981
- 24,357
OK, but in this case the Rangers' average shot was significantly closer than the Bruins' was.
I did not say that.
- Jul 20, 2005
- 4,924
- 2,330
Did you read my post?
I said there is negligible difference in personnel in regards to both size and grit. Especially in the top 6 and on defense.
Further I said that the game they play requires less grinding. This is likely a byproduct of not having to fight the puck out of their zone or playing dump/chase all game.
In fact I would say that most of the Rangers successes and failures have come from plays that involve speed and skill. They've moved the puck wonderfully at times, both through the neutral zone and around the offensive zone. And they've frequently and woefully lost their men on rushes and give-and-goes which have led to defensive foul ups and ugly goals.
In short, I think our current roster is more than physically capable of successfully playing that grind-it-out style. But I am grateful they do not have to.
Thirty One
Safe is safe.
- Dec 28, 2003
- 28,981
- 24,357
If someone fact reconcile these facts for me, I would be very grateful:
- The Rangers outshot Boston 103-81 in three games this season.
- The Rangers average shot distance was 31.3ft, 10% closer than the Bruins' 34.7 ft
- The Rangers lost the 3 games because the Bruins are bigger and more physical than the Rangers are.
- The Rangers outshot Boston 103-81 in three games this season.
- The Rangers average shot distance was 31.3ft, 10% closer than the Bruins' 34.7 ft
- The Rangers lost the 3 games because the Bruins are bigger and more physical than the Rangers are.
aufheben
#Norris4Fox
Is there a quantifiable approach to shot quality? Distance doesn't necessarily mean anything.
Thirty One
Safe is safe.
- Dec 28, 2003
- 28,981
- 24,357
So argument would be that the Bruins size and physicality would lead to higher quality shots, even if they are from a greater distance?
aufheben
#Norris4Fox
No, I'm just wondering.
The Bruins are ranked 8th in Shooting %, whereas the Rangers are ranked 27th.
http://www.sportingcharts.com/nhl/stats/team-shooting-percentage/2013/
Also, here is the shots chart for the game.
http://scores.espn.go.com/nhl/gamecast?gameId=400485159
Hits chart:
Last edited:
- Jul 20, 2005
- 4,924
- 2,330
No, I'm just wondering.
The Bruins are ranked 8th in Shooting %, whereas the Rangers are ranked 27th.
http://www.sportingcharts.com/nhl/stats/team-shooting-percentage/2013/
Also, here is the shots chart for the game.
http://scores.espn.go.com/nhl/gamecast?gameId=400485159
So either we can't score, they have a better goaltender or a combo of the two. Either way they are a better skilled hockey club.
Thirty One
Safe is safe.
- Dec 28, 2003
- 28,981
- 24,357
Oh, the Bruins are definitely more skilled shooters than the Rangers. Is that because they are more physical than the Rangers though? Logically, I can't make that fit.No, I'm just wondering.
The Bruins are ranked 8th in Shooting %, whereas the Rangers are ranked 27th.
http://www.sportingcharts.com/nhl/stats/team-shooting-percentage/2013/
Also, here is the shots chart for the game.
http://scores.espn.go.com/nhl/gamecast?gameId=400485159
And yes, shot distance is a big component of shot quality, but it's obviously not the Alpha and Omega on the topic.
aufheben
#Norris4Fox
Thirty One
Safe is safe.
- Dec 28, 2003
- 28,981
- 24,357
I did.
Doesn't that mean that the your view is that the team is just as gritty? I say that because you also said this:
So if there is a neglible difference in terms of grit on the top-6 forwards and all of the defense and if the bottom 6 forwards are not much less grittier, then apparently yes, you do view the current team essentially being just as gritty as the '11-12 team.
That is far, far from what my eyes tell me.
No, but it certainly helps being able to dig the puck out of corners and shooting from the dirty areas of the ice. The Bruins drive straight forward and the Rangers do not make an effort to separate the player from the puck, rather they wave the stick and try a poke check. That helps the Bruins take a better shot.
The Bruins are more apt to get better quality shots because they are willing to engage in the battles that lead them there.
Thirty One
Safe is safe.
- Dec 28, 2003
- 28,981
- 24,357
Please elaborate on how the Bruins' physicality leads to them taking higher quality, perimeter shots.
- Jul 20, 2005
- 4,924
- 2,330
In terms of personnel? Nearly. Like I said the bottom lines are a bit grittier on the '11-'12 team. And this team uses its "checking" line 4th instead of 3rd.
Anisimov-Stepan-Gaborik
Kreider-Stepan-Nash
Dubinsky-Richards-Callahan
Hagelin-Richards-Callahan
Rupp-Mitchell-Hagelin
Pouliot-Brassard-MZA/Miller
Prust-Boyle-Fedotenko
Moore/Dorsett-Boyle-Carcillo/Dorsett
McDonagh-Girardi
McDonagh-Girardi
Staal-Stralman
Staal-Stralman
Del Zotto-Bickel
Moore-Klein
Perhaps you can point out where there is a significant difference?
Again, this team could play Torts "gritty" style if they wanted or needed to. Assuming Torts was here to beat it in to them. But, as I said, this coach doesn't have them playing that way. It should be plain to see, right or wrong, the emphasis on speed and skill over "grit".
I am not surprised the team looks less gritty. There is significantly less diving in front of pucks, they rarely dump the puck and they've not had to battle along the boards in their own end nearly as much. They also do not seem to have Boyle's line out there every other shift.
Obviously that bothers you. I consider it an improvement.
aufheben
#Norris4Fox
- Status
