Just How Good Are the 2013-14 Rangers?

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

They may not be bad, but mediocre comes to mind.

Ehh, I think they're better than half the league. OK to good is what comes to mind.

They certainly aren't a great team

 

[Jersey Girl]

I think that removing "bad stretches" would be unfair if it was a long one. I think that if you remove the Boston/Philly game, and the first 10 games (that's 12 games - not a lot) - and consider what Pittsburgh has done in the same time period, they have 5 more points than us in that stretch.

We had a very tough start to the season, 9 games on the road, and began 3-6 in those games (3-7 overall to start). We are now 18-11 on the road - which means we have gone 15-5 on the road since then. We are .500 at home - which is concerning. But overall, I think this team is somewhere between the folks who say "WE ARE DOOMED" and the ones who think we are a legitimate contender.

Ultimately, year after year, the "legitimate contenders" have issues in the postseason. If we can start to score some goals and Hank comes around, both entire plausible scenarios, we can compete with any team in the league. And that's all that's really required to have a decent chance at winning the Cup. We don't have to be the big bad Rangers - the best team in the NHL - to win the Cup. We just have to be able to hang in a 7 game series and score some timely goals while playing sound defense. I see no reason why we shouldn't be excited about our prospects of 1. getting into the middle seeds in the East and 2. going very deep into the postseason.

A lot of our team has gained experience as well, playing 5 rounds in the last 2 seasons. Reasonable to expect some growth and maturity as such.

And against the top teams, we would still be longshots in a seven game series.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

He's saying in a seven game series we would be extreme longshots against those teams, and he's right.

He didn't say that. He said "the way they PLAY against teams in the West". Against the top teams in the west after their awful start that I think even their biggest detractors don't think is representative of this team's ability, they're 2-2 against the top 3 teams in the West, losing two 1 goal games that we arguably outplayed the other team. Also if you want to go a tier lower, we demolished Colorado.

 

[Crease]

Regular season 5-on-5 Goal Differential and Goals Per Game appear to have decent predictive power on playoff success. These are the league-wide ranks of the two stats for the conference finalists each season since 2005. Bolded are the eventual Cup winners.

2006 | 5-on-5 Goal Diff | GPG
Carolina Hurricanes | 12 | 3
Buffalo Sabres | 13 | 5
Edmonton Oilers | 23 | 15
Anaheim Ducks | 5 | 13

2007 | 5-on-5 Goal Diff | GPG
Anaheim Ducks | 7 | 8
Detroit Red Wings | 1 | 10
Ottawa Senators | 3 | 2
Buffalo Sabres | 2 | 1

2008 | 5-on-5 Goal Diff | GPG
Detroit Red Wings | 1 | 3
Dallas Stars | 6 | 9
Pittsburgh Penguins | 3 | 7
Philadelphia Flyers | 23 | 6

2009 | 5-on-5 Goal Diff | GPG
Pittsburgh Penguins | 6 | 6
Carolina Hurricanes | 16 | 16
Detroit Red Wings | 4 | 1
Chicago Blackhawks | 5 | 4

2010 | 5-on-5 Goal Diff | GPG
Chicago Blackhawks | 4 | 3
San Jose Sharks | 3 | 4
Philadelphia Flyers | 17 | 8
Montreal Canadiens | 22 | 25

2011 | 5-on-5 Goal Diff | GPG
Boston Bruins | 1 | 5
Tampa Bay Lightning | 18 | 7
Vancouver Canucks | 2 | 1
San Jose Sharks | 5 | 6

2012 | 5-on-5 Goal Diff | GPG
Los Angeles Kings | 17 | 29
Phoenix Coyotes | 8 | 19
New Jersey Devils | 19 | 15
New York Rangers | 6 | 11

2013 | 5-on-5 Goal Diff | GPG
Chicago Blackhawks | 1 | 2
Los Angeles Kings | 8 | 10
Boston Bruins | 4 | 13
Pittsburgh Penguins | 2 | 1

A few outliers like the 2012 LA Kings, the 2009 Carolina Hurricanes and the 2006 Edmonton Oilers. LA was a very different team after the trading deadline. The other two went on Cinderella runs.

Median rankings for the two stats are 5.5 and 6.5 respectively. The 2014 Rangers are 16 and 19.

 

[AHB*]

Nope. Pretenders, maybe.

Top end centers are horrible, especially with the way Stepan is playing this year.

 

[irishlaxburger2]

On paper, I think we have one of the better rosters in the league. Are we Boston, Chicago, etc? No, but we're not far off. On paper.

In reality, we have guys under-performing. Lundqvist, Nash, Stepan, Girardi, Moore, etc having underwhelming seasons. That's holding us back. Plus we're still going thru the growing pains of the new system. I think that's the main narrative to this season thus far. 1 step back. 2 steps forward. All season long. If Lundqvist plus one or two more come to life, we can be dangerous.

I'm not overly impressed with the East outside of Boston. Pittsburgh has major injury concerns and are perennial chokers at this point. Not built on the back-end for playoff success. Nobody else stands out to me, at least compared to our team. Especially a Rangers team with Lundqvist in form.

Do I think we're legit contenders at this point? No. But a lot can happen in 2 months. Do I think we can get hot and surprise people? Yes. Do I think we can come out of nowhere and make a run like the '10 Flyers or '12 Kings? It's possible. I wouldn't predict it, but it's a realistic possibility if things go right. We have the talent.

We're probably a 2nd round team again, but nothing above that would shock me. We have potential for a lot more.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

On paper, I think we have one of the better rosters in the league. Are we Boston, Chicago, etc? No, but we're not far off. On paper.

In reality, we have guys under-performing. Lundqvist, Nash, Stepan, Girardi, Moore, etc having underwhelming seasons. That's holding us back. Plus we're still going thru the growing pains of the new system. I think that's the main narrative to this season thus far. 1 step back. 2 steps forward. All season long. If Lundqvist plus one or two more come to life, we can be dangerous.

I'm not overly impressed with the East outside of Boston. Pittsburgh has major injury concerns and are perennial chokers at this point. Not built on the back-end for playoff success. Nobody else stands out to me, at least compared to our team. Especially a Rangers team with Lundqvist in form.

Do I think we're legit contenders at this point? No. But a lot can happen in 2 months. Do I think we can get hot and surprise people? Yes. Do I think we can come out of nowhere and make a run like the '10 Flyers or '12 Kings? It's possible. I wouldn't predict it, but it's a realistic possibility if things go right. We have the talent.

We're probably a 2nd round team again, but nothing above that would shock me. We have potential for a lot more.

I see the bolded posted every single friggin' season. Are we ever going to address why this happens, instead of using it as a poor excuse?

 

[irishlaxburger2]

I see the bolded posted every single friggin' season. Are we ever going to address why this happens, instead of using it as a poor excuse?

Fact is, every team has it. Even the best ones. The statistical probability of everyone on a team playing to form is extremely low. Some teams overcome it. We haven't.

Just so happens to be some of our best players. And at times, that seems like a trend. Maybe we're overrating them. I don't know.

It's AV's job to figure it out. Torts had it figured out for one year. Maybe AV can too during this 3-4 year window Slats gave us before the wheels fall off.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Fact is, every team has it. Even the best ones. The statistical probability of everyone on a team playing to form is extremely low. Some teams overcome it. We haven't.

Just so happens to be some of our best players. And at times, that seems like a trend. Maybe we're overrating them. I don't know.

It's AV's job to figure it out. Torts had it figured out for one year. Maybe AV can too during this 3-4 year window Slats gave us before the wheels fall off.

I think it comes down to not having a ton of versatile players, and having a GM that changes his mind about how his team should play the game every single season.

Very difficult for good players to repeat past performances under those conditions.

 

[Todd Harvey]

Yesterday's events (and non-events) are difficult to process, especially in the context of the question this thread poses.

As I see others rightly point out, if you want a shorthand version of events, then the Rangers got the best player hands down (though not the grittiest), and they got future flexibility not committing to Callahan long term.

That said, I know myself & many others worry about this team's toughness (and its baffling they didnt address it, though that may have been easier said than done) and some other deficiencies.

So, I suppose to really judge where this team is going to almost require some type of contest LOL; get all the teams together in brackets, let them have at it, and see whats what.

 

[Jersey Girl]

He didn't say that. He said "the way they PLAY against teams in the West". Against the top teams in the west after their awful start that I think even their biggest detractors don't think is representative of this team's ability, they're 2-2 against the top 3 teams in the West, losing two 1 goal games that we arguably outplayed the other team. Also if you want to go a tier lower, we demolished Colorado.

Whether he said it or not, it's still true. You can spin our games against those teams any way you like, but the bottom line is we would be longshots against them in a seven game series.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Whether he said it or not, it's still true. You can spin our games against those teams any way you like, but the bottom line is we would be longshots against them in a seven game series.

I'm not spinning anything and you said "he's saying". I think you're the one that's spinning. We probably would be, so let's give up now.

 

[Jersey Girl]

He didn't say that. He said "the way they PLAY against teams in the West". Against the top teams in the west after their awful start that I think even their biggest detractors don't think is representative of this team's ability, they're 2-2 against the top 3 teams in the West, losing two 1 goal games that we arguably outplayed the other team. Also if you want to go a tier lower, we demolished Colorado.

This is the part that is spin.

And the bottom line is, going back over a small sample of regular season results does not predict the playoffs. We would still be a longshot against those top teams in a seven game series.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Yesterday's events (and non-events) are difficult to process, especially in the context of the question this thread poses.

As I see others rightly point out, if you want a shorthand version of events, then the Rangers got the best player hands down (though not the grittiest), and they got future flexibility not committing to Callahan long term.

That said, I know myself & many others worry about this team's toughness (and its baffling they didnt address it, though that may have been easier said than done) and some other deficiencies.

So, I suppose to really judge where this team is going to almost require some type of contest LOL; get all the teams together in brackets, let them have at it, and see whats what.

Problem is, the Rangers always get the "best player" in a deal and people rejoice.

The fact hes usually older, that hes being added to a flawed roster, and that the Rangers a coughing up pieces for the future usually get overlooked.

Why is that? It makes no sense.

 

[Miamipuck]

Sather should have hung it up 10 years ago...never should have let Neil Smith go...

Two words for Neil Smith, Sergei Zubov. Forget him too

 

[poeman]

Two words for Neil Smith, Sergei Zubov. Forget him too

You just punched me in the gut man

 

[Miamipuck]

You just punched me in the gut man

Go a little lower and that's how I felt the day of that trade.

 

[irishlaxburger2]

Problem is, the Rangers always get the "best player" in a deal and people rejoice.

The fact hes usually older, that hes being added to a flawed roster, and that the Rangers a coughing up pieces for the future usually get overlooked.

Why is that? It makes no sense.

Because Dolan wants the team in the playoffs every year for revenue's sake, even at the expense of long-term success.

It's not gonna end with Sather's departure.

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

Two words for Neil Smith, Sergei Zubov. Forget him too

Two words for Neil Smith: Stanley Cup. Look, he made some bad moves. But at least he won a Cup.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

This is the part that is spin.

And the bottom line is, going back over a small sample of regular season results does not predict the playoffs. We would still be a longshot against those top teams in a seven game series.

But I was responding to him saying "the way we played against the west". You then decided to put your 2 cents in and say that "he's saying we'll be a long shot". When I tell you he's not saying that, you say "whether he's saying it or not, we'll be a long shot". You just said he said it! I never said a small sample of the regular season predicted the playoffs, I was responding to his claim about the regular season. You're arguing about God knows what, he never said any of that and I never said anything that you said. You're a friggin master of "strawman arguments". You're not going to fool me into thinking at any point that I was wrong, by constantly changing arguments. Try that on someone else.

 

[jerseyjinx94]

We have no prospects in the org. Miller really the only one. I will believe it when is see it when some of the others make the jump but I don't here anyone outside of NYR talk about how we have a boatload of prospects ready for the NHL. As for centers. If you feel an aging Richards , who will be bought out this summer, and Stepan who is a #2 center at best is great, then good luck with that. As for our LW. Haglin is nice. Pouliot is ok but played above himself and has disappeared again and might be gone soon. Good luck with the rest.

You really didn't say much here - not sure what your point is? We suck? We have no prospects? Oh, thanks for contributing.

And Stepan is clearly a #2 Center - "at best"? Give me a break. Some people are just so blindly frustrated with certain players that they can't analyze them objectively.

 

[Miamipuck]

Two words for Neil Smith: Stanley Cup. Look, he made some bad moves. But at least he won a Cup.

Had he quit in 1994 I would agree. By some bad moves you mean literally everything he did after 1994.

Back on topic, there are literally 6, but possibly 8 teams that would be huge favorites to the Rangers in a 7 game series (Pitt, Boston, Anaheim, San Jose, St. Louis, Chicago maybe Colorado and LA) , so no they're not legitimate contenders.

 

[jerseyjinx94]

And against the top teams, we would still be longshots in a seven game series.

That's fair - I wouldn't say "longshots," but we would definitely be underdogs.

 

[Thirty One]

Well obviously no team is flawless, but some have more and bigger holes than other. Can MSL cover up ours? We'll see. Having Center be your weakest position is...not good.

Anaheim, San Jose, St. Louis, Boston...what are their weaknesses? I know Chicago needs a #2 , but what was their weakness last season? Not having a #2C is much less of an issue than not having a #1C. We're 2 points ahead of the Devils FFS. Idk...I'd love to be proven wrong. May be somewhat of a copout to say "Every team has flaws".

Have you seen Boston's defense lately? Anaheim? I'll put the Rangers centers up against St. Louis' any day of the week...

And if you take OT out of the picture, New Jersey is quite a bit further:
http://www.hockeystandings.info/?page=afterreg

Ehh, I think they're better than half the league.

How much of the East?

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

Had he quit in 1994 I would agree. By some bad moves you mean literally everything he did after 1994.

Uh...yeah. But he did win a Cup.

Sather has been GM longer than Smith was.

Smith got fired after missing the playoffs three years in a row.

Sather then went four years of not making the playoffs.

At least Smith won a Cup.