Just How Good Are the 2013-14 Rangers?

[aufheben]

Because Pietrangelo has 10 more points than McDonagh and Shattenkirk has 5 more points.

They count as a PMD. McDonagh does not.

They have more checks on the contender checklist. Can't win without checks.

Unless you're a gritty Torts team. Throwing checks > having checks, so to speak.

So that's 2 defensemen to 1...

The Blues have 3 defensemen who can be relied on to score, 2 of which are outscoring McDonagh.

 

[Ail]

Sporting News: Even before Martin St. Louis trade, the Rangers were on the rise

Good article and I would agree if they can actually start scoring. You would think with these 3 lines they will. We'll see.

 

[aufheben]

I know. PMD? Check. 3 PMD? Two additional bonus checks.

I don't get it, is your only criteria for a puck-moving defensemen scoring points?

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

The Blues, despite their issues at center, are a much more versatile team than the Rangers.

 

[Thirty One]

The Blues, despite their issues at center, are a much more versatile team than the Rangers.

It seems the rules keep changing to whatever allows the conclusion that the Rangers are not a contender.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

So that's 2 defensemen to 1...

The Blues have 3 defensemen who can be relied on to score, 2 of which are outscoring McDonagh.

So PMDs make up for centers? Assuming that's true, despite one not having to do with another, it's possible to make up a weakness in one area with a strength in another? Does that work for the Rangers though?

 

[aufheben]

So PMDs make up for centers? Assuming that's true, despite one not having to do with another, it's possible to make up a weakness in one area with a strength in another? Does that work for the Rangers though?

Who said that?

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

It seems the rules keep changing to whatever allows the conclusion that the Rangers are not a contender.

I mean, you've admitted you think the Blues are a better team than the Rangers.

As for these "rules," nothings set in stone. But if you are weak at center but can play a tough, gritty game, its better than having none of those things -- like the Rangers.

 

[Thirty One]

I mean, you've admitted you think the Blues are a better team than the Rangers.

This is a fact for which I offer no refutation.

As for these "rules," nothings set in stone. But if you are weak at center but can play a tough, gritty game, its better than having none of those things -- like the Rangers.

What about having strong wingers or a great goaltender? Will that earn any credit towards the hole created at center or TOFFNUSS?

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Who said that?

Well you responded to 31 questioning STL's depth with this stuff about PMDs.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

I wouldn't agree that we're ahead of Pittsburgh but some props here:

http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=708207&cmpid=nhl-fb

 

[SnowblindNYR]

This is a fact for which I offer no refutation.


What about having strong wingers or a great goaltender? Will that earn any credit towards the hole created at center or TOFFNUSS?

The only things that earn credit are the things the Rangers are lacking in.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

This is a fact for which I offer no refutation.


What about having strong wingers or a great goaltender? Will that earn any credit towards the hole created at center or TOFFNUSS?

To some degree. Do you think Lundqvist has been great this season?

 

[Thirty One]

To some degree. Do you think Lundqvist has been great this season?

No. All the more reason I think the Rangers can contend. They're right in there in the East with Lundqvist sporting a league average SV%. I have positive feelings of what they would be if he was 0.921-0.930 goalie like in recent years.

 

[JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK]

I'd consider this team a "secondary" contender. Not quite on the level of most of the great Western teams or Pittsburgh/Boston, but closer to them than any other team and good enough to beat any of them in a 7 game series, IMO. We're not a favorite, but we're not a dark horse, either.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

No. All the more reason I think the Rangers can contend. They're right in there in the East with Lundqvist sporting a league average SV%. I have positive feelings of what they would be if he was 0.921-0.930 goalie like in recent years.

1 comment and 1 question:

1) I'm just worried that we've seen the best of Lundqvist, he's 32 who knows what his career arc looks like.

2) Why do you think our D has been so inconsistent this year? Or is it just that Lundqvist isn't anywhere near as good this year and it looks like that? Because it seems like we had plenty of breakdowns in 11-12 but Lundqvist was God. One month he wasn't great and they allowed over 3 GAA for the last month and a half of the season.

 

[Thirty One]

1 comment and 1 question:

1) I'm just worried that we've seen the best of Lundqvist, he's 32 who knows what his career arc looks like.

2) Why do you think our D has been so inconsistent this year? Or is it just that Lundqvist isn't anywhere near as good this year and it looks like that? Because it seems like we had plenty of breakdowns in 11-12 but Lundqvist was God. One month he wasn't great and they allowed over 3 GAA for the last month and a half of the season.

I'm not sure it has been too inconsistent. They were horrible for the first chunk of the season and again were bad for the last two games, but I think most teams have short stretches of poor defensive play.

Yes, I think when your goalie is stopping a low percentage of pucks it will make the defense look bad. Here's a piece I wrote a while back on how Lundqvist was making Girardi look bad early this season.

Goalies don't age like skaters, so I'm not too concerned that's he's aged 6 years in the offseason.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

No. All the more reason I think the Rangers can contend. They're right in there in the East with Lundqvist sporting a league average SV%. I have positive feelings of what they would be if he was 0.921-0.930 goalie like in recent years.

Im not sure he'll be able to get back to that point considering the defense reverts to swiss cheese every few games.

 

[Thirty One]

Im not sure he'll be able to get back to that point considering the defense reverts to swiss cheese every few games.

Well they're playing at a level that's allowed Cam Talbot to play at a .938 level through 18 games so...

 

[SnowblindNYR]

I'm not sure it has been too inconsistent. They were horrible for the first chunk of the season and again were bad for the last two games, but I think most teams have short stretches of poor defensive play.

Yes, I think when your goalie is stopping a low percentage of pucks it will make the defense look bad. Here's a piece I wrote a while back on how Lundqvist was making Girardi look bad early this season.

Goalies don't age like skaters, so I'm not too concerned that's he's aged 6 years in the offseason.

The thing that I don't get about shot quality not being affected by a D-man, are you telling me that playing defense inside their own zone no D-man is better than any other D-man, unless they prevent the O from getting shots at all? I don't get it, it's common sense that the best D-men will force guys to the outside and force difficult chances. How is McDonagh not forcing a tougher shot than Bickel?

 

[Waivers]

How good do the 2013-2014 New York Rangers look? Not nearly as intimidating as the 2011-2012 New York Rangers (not from a physical stand point, either).

We found an identity who we wanted to be.
We tried for several seasons to be that identity.
2011-2012 was the year where our identity was perfectly implemented and showcased.

Now, we have regressed from that stand point, and I'm fine with that due to new personnel (coaches, players, trainers) and we're trying to find our identity again. And, I can see, without a shadow of a doubt, AV's theories are starting to transition on the ice. We're more offensively minded, every single player, and we're about speed. Give us another season or two, with the right moves, and I would say the New York Rangers look extremely scary.

My gripe is that we need at least one speedy center, with offensive talent, to compliment our fast wingers...

 

[Thirty One]

The thing that I don't get about shot quality not being affected by a D-man, are you telling me that playing defense inside their own zone no D-man is better than any other D-man, unless they prevent the O from getting shots at all? I don't get it, it's common sense that the best D-men will force guys to the outside and force difficult chances. How is McDonagh not forcing a tougher shot than Bickel?

It goes against intuition, we've had +/- crammed into our brains so much, but no, I don't think any single player can noticeably affect the shot quality on their net.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

It goes against intuition, we've had +/- crammed into our brains so much, but no, I don't think any single player can noticeably affect the shot quality on their net.

So a a great defenseman can't keep an opposing player to the outside better than a terrible defenseman? Also what's good defensive play then? Having the puck? Isn't that more offensive play? So is there no such thing as good defense? Just good offense?

 

[Thirty One]

So a a great defenseman can't keep an opposing player to the outside better than a terrible defenseman? Also what's good defensive play then? Having the puck? Isn't that more offensive play? So is there no such thing as good defense? Just good offense?

If they can, there's a lot of data that doesn't make sense.

I define good defensive play as keeping shots from getting in on your goalie. Whether you do that while in the offensive zone, or they suppress shots in their own zone. (That's why I consider Dustin Byfuglien a good defenseman.)

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

If they can, there's a lot of data that doesn't make sense.

Theoretical physics can also prove that an elephant can hang off a cliff with its tail tied to a daisy! But use your eyes, your common sense.