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.
Here's the GF, GA and Differential breakdown (stats per game)

By Month:
In October:-----GF: 29th --GA: 23rd---- DIF: 30th
In November: --GF: 14th --GA: 3rd----- DIF: 4th
In December: --GF: 23rd --GA: 21st ----DIF: 24th
In January: ----GF: 7th ----GA: 2nd -----DIF: 2nd
In Feb/March: -GF: 12th ---GA: 11th ----DIF: 12th


Season Totals: -----------GF: 19th --GA: 12th---- DIF: 10th
Since November 1st: ----GF: 11th --GA: 4rd----- DIF: 6th
Since December 1st:---- GF: 11th --GA: 7th------ DIF: 7th
Since January 1st:------- GF: 7th ---GA: 4th------ DIF: 2nd
Since February 1st:------ GF: 12th --GA: 10th---- DIF: 12th

Overall they've been outside the top 10 teams, somewhere between 10-15.

They had a horrendous stretch in December (where Hank briefly lost his job) but they've still been one of the better teams since late October, probably top 8.

That two game stretch last week was ugly but they've been one of the best teams, probably top 5, in 2014.

They need to have a strong finish to the season. Consistency. Avoid stretches like the one in December. Hank is going to have to be Hank. The defense is going to have to avoid losing its man. And the offense has to be in the top 10.

They do that and they should finish strong. And they should go into the playoffs with some confidence.
 
mschmidt64 said:
Well.... we're clearly behind Pittsburgh and Boston.

But I think we're much better than an 8 seed.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Though in our games against Pittsburgh this season, we have mostly outplayed them. In a 7 game series, if Hank is on his game I think we have a good chance of winning.

Boston is the only team in the east that really scares me.
 
True Blue said:
As have been the case all year. In the end, you are what your record says you are. Period.
Click to expand...
Their record still has them as the 3rd best team in the East in regulation after 4 regulation losses in their last 7 (unless you think 4-on-4 and S/O play is suggestive of playoff success....).
 
What's so infuriating about this team is that I can see them getting to the 2nd round and possibly even winning it.

Or they can easily miss the playoffs.

If we were to make it to the ECF, no way were beating Boston...
 
-31- said:
Their record still has them as the 3rd best team in the East in regulation after 4 regulation losses in their last 7 (unless you think 4-on-4 and S/O play is suggestive of playoff success....).
Click to expand...
You can choose to look at it any way you want to. Like the crowd that tries to pretend that the measure of a team can be determined if you ignore portions of the season.

You see the 3rd best team in the East. I see a team that has the 6th most points, but the same amount of points as the Columbus friggin' Blue Jackets, one point more than Philly and 3 more than the Detroit.

So the team is tied for 7th overall and are one point out of 8th. So under playoff formats that we have been used to, it appears that they are very close to being the last team that makes it into the playoffs. That appears to be pretty mediocre to me. Which is exactly what their record indicates.
 
True Blue said:
You can choose to look at it any way you want to. Like the crowd that tries to pretend that the measure of a team can be determined if you ignore portions of the season.

You see the 3rd best team in the East. I see a team that has the 6th most points, but the same amount of points as the Columbus friggin' Blue Jackets, one point more than Philly and 3 more than the Detroit.

So the team is tied for 7th overall and are one point out of 8th. So under playoff formats that we have been used to, it appears that they are very close to being the last team that makes it into the playoffs. That appears to be pretty mediocre to me. Which is exactly what their record indicates.
Click to expand...

Well, overall, we're 15th. Literally mediocre. :laugh:
 
For me, its not even a question of how good they are as opposed to how vanilla this team is. Theres zero urgency lately. They are just out there waiting for something to happen instead of making it happen. Who is going to step up and make a play? Make a big hit? Do something to change the momentum of a game?

People complained about the Torts teams being boring, at least they punched the opposition in the mouth every once in a while. This team, the last few games, is as boring as it comes.
 
Off Sides said:
Philly and Detroit have games in hand as well. If they win them I think that pushes the Rangers out of the playoffs, Right?
Click to expand...

Yep. Also, Ottawa has 3 games in hand, and would be tied with us in points if they win all 3, AND 1 of those games is against us.
 
True Blue said:
You can choose to look at it any way you want to. Like the crowd that tries to pretend that the measure of a team can be determined if you ignore portions of the season.
Click to expand...

I am assuming this is directed at me as well as -31-

If you are talking about "judging" what has already transpired in a season then you are right. You are your record.

If you are talking about predicting what will happen next, which is really the only thing that matters, then ignoring statistical breakdowns and trends is moronic.

It's not exactly an uncommon process, creating a trend estimation using different time series "since the start of x month", "in the new year", "since the All-star break", "since the team traded (for) x player", "since the goalie/captain/leading scorer returned from injury"etc.

Only on this board would using a sample size of the most reason 90% of the season be statistical manipulation.

And somehow I feel that if the team starts to rapidly trend downward we will magically find "since we traded Callahan" or "since the Olympics" as PERFECTLY acceptable sample sizes.
 
McRanger said:
I am assuming this is directed at me as well as -31-

If you are talking about "judging" what has already transpired in a season then you are right. You are your record.

If you are talking about predicting what will happen next, which is really the only thing that matters, then ignoring statistical breakdowns and trends is moronic.

It's not exactly an uncommon process, creating a trend estimation using different time series "since the start of x month", "in the new year", "since the All-star break", "since the team traded (for) x player", "since the goalie/captain/leading scorer returned from injury"etc.

Only on this board would using a sample size of the most reason 90% of the season be statistical manipulation.

And somehow I feel that if the team starts to rapidly trend downward we will magically find "since we traded Callahan" or "since the Olympics" as PERFECTLY acceptable sample sizes.
Click to expand...

If they start? I don't get it, is EVERYTHING a statistical aberration? Are there no reasons for anything?
 
McRanger said:
I am assuming this is directed at me as well as -31-

If you are talking about "judging" what has already transpired in a season then you are right. You are your record.

If you are talking about predicting what will happen next, which is really the only thing that matters, then ignoring statistical breakdowns and trends is moronic.

It's not exactly an uncommon process, creating a trend estimation using different time series "since the start of x month", "in the new year", "since the All-star break", "since the team traded (for) x player", "since the goalie/captain/leading scorer returned from injury"etc.

Only on this board would using a sample size of the most reason 90% of the season be statistical manipulation.

And somehow I feel that if the team starts to rapidly trend downward we will magically find "since we traded Callahan" or "since the Olympics" as PERFECTLY acceptable sample sizes.
Click to expand...

Whatever fits the persons agenda regarding the team determines what is or is not an acceptable sample size. Especially the smaller ones. You'll notice that those are already acceptable sample sizes for people who want to say the Callahan trade was bad.
 
Ail said:
Whatever fits the persons agenda regarding the team determines what is or is not an acceptable sample size. Especially the smaller ones. You'll notice that those are already acceptable sample sizes for people who want to say the Callahan trade was bad.
Click to expand...

I dont need to delve into sample sizes to recognize that this team has performed at an alarming bad month, good month, bad month, good month inconsistent trend.

So, while you guys keep searching for answers through stats regarding what will happen, this level of inconsistency actually is happening.
 
aufheben said:
If they start? I don't get it, is EVERYTHING a statistical aberration? Are there no reasons for anything?
Click to expand...

I am not sure I can decipher what you are asking, but I will guess.

Yes, if they start. The team is 3-4-1 since the Olympics and in the last two months. On Monday they were 3-2-1 since the Olympics and 2-0-1 in the last 3 games. I wouldn't have considered that starting a trend upwards anymore than we have started to trend downward.

That is my best guess at what you were asking. I have no idea what statistical aberrations you are referring to.
 
McRanger said:
I am not sure I can decipher what you are asking, but I will guess.

Yes, if they start. The team is 3-4-1 since the Olympics and in the last two months. On Monday they were 3-2-1 since the Olympics and 2-0-1 in the last 3 games. I wouldn't have considered that starting a trend upwards anymore than we have started to trend downward.

That is my best guess at what you were asking. I have no idea what statistical aberrations you are referring to.
Click to expand...

Looks like the beginning of a downward trend to me.
 
Our big guns aren't producing and our defence is having some mental lapses. I still think (hope and pray) that we can get out of this funk and be a more consistent team.

Maybe we can borrow some of the horseshoes and rabbits foots that the maple leafs have lodged up their butts lol
 
Bleed Ranger Blue said:
I dont need to delve into sample sizes to recognize that this team has performed at an alarming bad month, good month, bad month, good month inconsistent trend.

So, while you guys keep searching for answers through stats regarding what will happen, this level of inconsistency actually is happening.
Click to expand...

Then don't delve into them. There are other posters who find the data informative. Or at least interesting.

I could be wrong but I am pretty sure the Rangers will be either consistent or inconsistent regardless of any statistical analysis done on this board. It is likely going to "happen", regardless.

But to be fair, I do not have any statistics to back that up.
 
-31- said:
How can you tell the difference between the beginning of a downward trend and the end of a short slide?
Click to expand...

The Rangers outshot the Wild 5-0 in the last 2 minutes of the game.

I am pretty sure we are already trending upwards.
 
-31- said:
How can you tell the difference between the beginning of a downward trend and the end of a short slide?
Click to expand...

Call it whatever you want man, I'm tiring of arguing with you and others about the nature of statistics and philosophical differences.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom