Toggle sidebar

Just How Good Are the 2013-14 Rangers?

  • 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
Not open for further replies.
aufheben said:
All this stuff about great possession, bad puck luck, shot differentials, it's the same stuff Devils' fans were proclaiming all last season.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but that team had awful goaltending and not as skilled or fast as this team offensively. They were great at getting the puck deep and cycling it, but they didn't get AS many great opportunities as this team.

Also, we have a good PP. That team didn't. They didn't have a very good PK, either, and I'd say ours is pretty good.
 
BrianBoyle said:
Yeah, but that team had awful goaltending and not as skilled or fast as this team offensively. They were great at getting the puck deep and cycling it, but they didn't get AS many great opportunities as this team.

Also, we have a good PP. That team didn't. They didn't have a very good PK, either, and I'd say ours is pretty good.
Click to expand...

St. Louis should help the lack of finishing, obviously. Both PP/PK are 10th which I'm happy with, but he should help the PP as well. It makes me jello when teams like the Leafs can basically score at will. I constantly ripped Devils fans for all that stuff though. :laugh:
 
aufheben said:
All this stuff about great possession, bad puck luck, shot differentials, it's the same stuff Devils' fans were proclaiming all last season.
Click to expand...

Well they're a great possession team again this year but it's different, they play a passive low shot game, where they do the hockey equivalent of take the air out of the ball. They play an uber defensive style. The Rangers are a pretty dynamic team offensively. They get 30 shots practically every game and often get 40. They also get good chances. That's different from the Devils that play a system where they get barely any shots but don't give up any shots. In systems like that when you have Johan Hedberg as your goalie you will suck balls. Even without that, that team doesn't create too many great offensive opportunities. They just play keep away with the puck and make sure the opposition doesn't get many chances. Looks like they've been playing differently lately though.
 
Just noticed that NJ actually were 18th in shots per game last season, not as bad as I thought. Either way, that team had horrible goaltending. When that happens being a team that doesn't allow many shots against doesn't matter.
 
It's also hard for us to admit, but maybe the Devils weren't as bad as we liked to believe. Their personnel has left something to be desired the last two years but despite what the delusional Devils fans think, Pete Deboer is getting the most out of his roster, IMO.
 
aufheben said:
St. Louis should help the lack of finishing, obviously. Both PP/PK are 10th which I'm happy with, but he should help the PP as well. It makes me jello when teams like the Leafs can basically score at will. I constantly ripped Devils fans for all that stuff though. :laugh:
Click to expand...

We need to get Zucc and MSL on the PP at the same time. Brassard, too. Don't know why Zucc wasn't on the 5 on 3 last night. Or Brassard, either. I mean, it worked, so I can't ***** about it too much, but Brassard/Zuccarello are better PP players than Stepan and Nash, IMO. Have Richards and McD at the point.
 
BrianBoyle said:
We need to get Zucc and MSL on the PP at the same time. Brassard, too. Don't know why Zucc wasn't on the 5 on 3 last night. Or Brassard, either. I mean, it worked, so I can't ***** about it too much, but Brassard/Zuccarello are better PP players than Stepan and Nash, IMO. Have Richards and McD at the point.
Click to expand...

I can sort of understanding spreading the wealth. Zucc and MSL are 2 of the best PP guys in the league they'll be good no matter what, having them on separate units is a luxury very few teams have. On the 5 on 3 I agree though.
 
BrianBoyle said:
We need to get Zucc and MSL on the PP at the same time. Brassard, too. Don't know why Zucc wasn't on the 5 on 3 last night. Or Brassard, either. I mean, it worked, so I can't ***** about it too much, but Brassard/Zuccarello are better PP players than Stepan and Nash, IMO. Have Richards and McD at the point.
Click to expand...
Stepan is a right-handed shot on the left side and Nash is the man in front of the net. Can't see Zuccarello or Brassard filling either of those roles.
 
-31- said:
Stepan is a right-handed shot on the left side and Nash is the man in front of the net. Can't see Zuccarello or Brassard filling either of those roles.
Click to expand...

Also a fair point, although those two aren't exactly great in those roles.

Well, that's a bit unfair to Stepan. He's a pretty solid PP guy, IMO. I'd like to see him shoot more.
 
BrianBoyle said:
Also a fair point, although those two aren't exactly great in those roles.

Well, that's a bit unfair to Stepan. He's a pretty solid PP guy, IMO. I'd like to see him shoot more.
Click to expand...
I don't think we've seen Nash in front of the net on the PP as a Ranger. That's always been Cally's spot on PP1. A Columbus blogger did a study that suggested that's where he's best on the PP.

On a 5-on-3 you definitely need at least one RH shot.
 
31, how was that 07-08 team in terms of puck possession? I recently saw that that team had an even bigger shot differential than this team, though they had fewer shots for but a lot less against. I guess any of our Jagr teams had to be at least decent in that area.
 
SnowblindNYR said:
31, how was that 07-08 team in terms of puck possession? I recently saw that that team had an even bigger shot differential than this team, though they had fewer shots for but a lot less against. I guess any of our Jagr teams had to be at least decent in that area.
Click to expand...
The 2007-08 team had a 54.8 FF-close % (4th in the league). A 7.4 differential per 20 minutes. Post Jagr, they were 52.4 in 2008-09. Never understood the old guard on this board wanted to hand the proverbial reigns to Gomez/Drury.

The 2013-14 team has a 53.9 FF-close % (5th in the league) and a 6.7 differential per 20 minutes.

2007-08 was the earliest season that these stats go back, but I'd guess the 2005-06 team was below average at 5-on-5, with 2006-07 slighly better. I'd really be curious to see Malik's with-or-without Jagr numbers in 2005-06.
 
-31- said:
The 2007-08 team had a 54.8 FF-close % (4th in the league). A 7.4 differential per 20 minutes. Post Jagr, they were 52.4 in 2008-09. Never understood the old guard on this board wanted to hand the proverbial reigns to Gomez/Drury.

The 2013-14 team has a 53.9 FF-close % (5th in the league) and a 6.7 differential per 20 minutes.

2007-08 was the earliest season that these stats go back, but I'd guess the 2005-06 team was below average at 5-on-5, with 2006-07 slighly better. I'd really be curious to see Malik's with-or-without Jagr numbers in 2005-06.
Click to expand...

Interesting, I didn't really appreciate that 07-08 team's puck possession. Maybe I was younger and didn't notice it as much. So you'd say they were a better puck possession team than this current team? I wonder if this team seems like a better puck possession team because that team was mostly Jagr in that sense. I remember that team having a devil of a time scoring for some reason.
 
Last edited:
SnowblindNYR said:
Interesting, I didn't really appreciate that 07-08 team's puck possession. Maybe I was younger and didn't notice it as much. So you'd say they were a better puck possession team than this current team? I wonder if this team seems like a better puck possession team because that team was mostly Jagr in that sense. I remember that team haven't a devil of a time scoring for some reason.
Click to expand...
Teams CF% with Jagr on the ice: 57.8%
CF% without Jagr on the ice: 51.3%

:cry:

Real brilliant to let him go...
 
-31- said:
Teams CF% with Jagr on the ice: 57.8%
CF% without Jagr on the ice: 51.3%

:cry:

Real brilliant to let him go...
Click to expand...

That's probably why I never thought of that team as a puck possession team. They were a puck possession line. Oh and grit, leadership, and little league world series. Or something like that.
 
-31- said:
Meh, the 2011-12 Rangers shot 8.4% 5-on-5, compared to 6.3% this season. Did that team have more finishing skill?

If all the Rangers shot at their career shooting percentage, they would have 18 more goals. That would take them from 19th to 8th in GF.
Click to expand...

I'd like to get back to this.

The 2011-12 Rangers were a high PDO team (top 5 in basically every situation). It was mainly Sv%-driven (top-5 across the board), but Sh% contributed a lot as well (lower end of the top-10 range). But the 11-12 Rangers were not just a top PDO team, they had their best PDO in the situation that has the highest impact: 5v5 tied. Despite being outshot in that situation, the Rangers scored the tiebreaker more often than not. Considering the non-repeatability of PDO, that is a quite a lot of things bouncing the way of the Rangers. Not only did they get above-expectation PDO (a team with Lundqvist should expect an above 1.000 PDO, but not to the extent the 11-12 Rangers got), they got it at the best possible moments as well.

Now by raw PDO the 13-14 Rangers aren't getting THAT rough of a deal, a .994 in all situations puts them 21st in the league. I'd say that the Rangers should be in the 10-15 range if we go by player talent, but 21st isn't that far behind. The problem is that the closer the game is, the worse the Rangers' PDO gets. When the games are out of hand the Rangers' PDO is high, but when the games are tied we can't score to save our lives and our goaltending is at it's worst.

If the 13-14 Rangers got the 5v5 tied PDO of the 11-12 Rangers (1.016), they would score 60.8% of the goals in that situation (1st in the league, current leader Chicago: 59.6%) instead of the current 44.3% (26th).

If the 11-12 Rangers got the 5v5 tied PDO of the 13-14 Rangers (0.971), they would score 38.7% (30th, actual 30th Edmonton: 42.2%) instead of their actual 55.2% (5th).

Given "normal" PDO's of 1.000 (let's say 7.5% Sh% and 92.5% Sv%), the 13-14 Rangers would have a 5v5 tied GF% of 55.5% (6th in 13-14) and the 11-12 Rangers would have a 5v5 tied GF% of 49.6% (13th in 11-12).

I'm not saying it is impossible that some of the things that the 11-12 Rangers did led to a higher PDO. But considering the proven non-repeatability of the stat, it is highly likely that the biggest driver is luck. The 11-12 Rangers were a lucky team (though not nearly as lucky as some teams *cough* Toronto *cough*), and the 13-14 Rangers are an extremely unlucky team. Not really because of raw PDO data, but rather the situational timing of the peaks and valleys of the stat.
 
Blue Blooded said:
I'd like to get back to this.

The 2011-12 Rangers were a high PDO team (top 5 in basically every situation). It was mainly Sv%-driven (top-5 across the board), but Sh% contributed a lot as well (lower end of the top-10 range). But the 11-12 Rangers were not just a top PDO team, they had their best PDO in the situation that has the highest impact: 5v5 tied. Despite being outshot in that situation, the Rangers scored the tiebreaker more often than not. Considering the non-repeatability of PDO, that is a quite a lot of things bouncing the way of the Rangers. Not only did they get above-expectation PDO (a team with Lundqvist should expect an above 1.000 PDO, but not to the extent the 11-12 Rangers got), they got it at the best possible moments as well.

Now by raw PDO the 13-14 Rangers aren't getting THAT rough of a deal, a .994 in all situations puts them 21st in the league. I'd say that the Rangers should be in the 10-15 range if we go by player talent, but 21st isn't that far behind. The problem is that the closer the game is, the worse the Rangers' PDO gets. When the games are out of hand the Rangers' PDO is high, but when the games are tied we can't score to save our lives and our goaltending is at it's worst.

If the 13-14 Rangers got the 5v5 tied PDO of the 11-12 Rangers (1.016), they would score 60.8% of the goals in that situation (1st in the league, current leader Chicago: 59.6%) instead of the current 44.3% (26th).

If the 11-12 Rangers got the 5v5 tied PDO of the 13-14 Rangers (0.971), they would score 38.7% (30th, actual 30th Edmonton: 42.2%) instead of their actual 55.2% (5th).

Given "normal" PDO's of 1.000 (let's say 7.5% Sh% and 92.5% Sv%), the 13-14 Rangers would have a 5v5 tied GF% of 55.5% (6th in 13-14) and the 11-12 Rangers would have a 5v5 tied GF% of 49.6% (13th in 11-12).

I'm not saying it is impossible that some of the things that the 11-12 Rangers did led to a higher PDO. But considering the proven non-repeatability of the stat, it is highly likely that the biggest driver is luck. The 11-12 Rangers were a lucky team (though not nearly as lucky as some teams *cough* Toronto *cough*), and the 13-14 Rangers are an extremely unlucky team. Not really because of raw PDO data, but rather the situational timing of the peaks and valleys of the stat.
Click to expand...

So my and a lot of people's observation that that team got historic goaltending and timely goals is pretty much correct. It seemed like everything just came together for that team. They had no business being 12th in the league in scoring that year and IMO we have no business being 19th this year. I remember a long stretch that season our stars stopped scoring completely and then we had the John Mitchells of the world score to stay afloat. You can argue that's depth, I argue that's timely and lucky. Previous teams would just go dry, somehow we had guys that never scored score at that exact time.
 
The scary part of this team as opposed to Tortorellas teams were the Torts teams were all about the best players being the best players and getting the most ice time. Torts' team would play Gaborik or Nash over 20 min a game and Girardi would play almost 28 minutes with McD. By the time the playoffs came, they were wiped out.

AV had a plan for this team. At any given point, the 1st line can be any of the Step-Brass-Rich lines. And now, the 4th line is scoring every now and then. But what makes this team even better is the D. They hav 2 pairs that can play 25 min a game with the 3rd playing 15 if you needed them too. He only team that had that was Boston, but with seidenberg out that's a huge loss to their D core.

The Pens have the best high end offense in the east. The Bruins have the toughest team and depth in the east. But the Rangers have I personally think a balanced team. Our biggest problem this year has been Henrik, but maybe that's a blessing in disguise. Hopefully, the playoffs is where he will get his money.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom