Just How Good Are the 2013-14 Rangers?

[NYR Viper]

I think it's unlikely that the path to the Finals runs through both Pittsburgh and Boston. It's possible, but it's silly to state it like it's the undisputed facts of the case.

I would be surprised if the path to the Cup doesn't run through both teams. Remember the seedings are different this year. They would play Philly and then the winner of Pitt and the wildcard team and then the winner of the other pool (most likely Boston).

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Yes, of course the Rangers could be knocked off by a lesser team. All in all, the Rangers have a only small chance at winning the Cup. Boston, Pittsburgh, Chicago, Anaheim, etc. have only a small chance too.

But if you think you might be the 3rd best team in the Conference (which I think the Rangers are) then you should be taking your playoff potential seriously.

Seriously enough to punt some major decisions until the summer, leaving the longterm state of the roster in flux?

 

[Tawnos]

Seriously enough to punt some major decisions until the summer, leaving the longterm state of the roster in flux?

Short answer? Yes.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

I think it's unlikely that the path to the Finals runs through both Pittsburgh and Boston. It's possible, but it's silly to state it like it's the undisputed facts of the case.

Well its a darn good thing that the point of the post is that the likelihood of winning the cup is so small it shouldnt give management a 'let it ride' mentality.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Short answer? Yes.

I dont agree.

Although I suppose its better to take that line of thinking now vs. when the team is fighting life and death for the 8th seed.

 

[Thirty One]

Seriously enough to punt some major decisions until the summer, leaving the longterm state of the roster in flux?

I don't know what punting major decisions until the summer means in this scenario. Specific to Callahan and Girardi?

I think they can move Callahan while still keeping their competitive level. Girardi is one I would consider punting till the summer if he's unsigned at the deadline, because of the difficulty in replacing him.

I would be surprised if the path to the Cup doesn't run through both teams. Remember the seedings are different this year. They would play Philly and then the winner of Pitt and the wildcard team and then the winner of the other pool (most likely Boston).

Still, that scenario requires Boston and Pittsburgh to win 3 playoff series. Even if they are a heavy 80% favorites in each of the series, that's still a coinflip that they would win all three.

 

[Tawnos]

I would be surprised if the path to the Cup doesn't run through both teams. Remember the seedings are different this year. They would play Philly and then the winner of Pitt and the wildcard team and then the winner of the other pool (most likely Boston).

Of course you would be "surprised" because those are the two favorites in their respective divisions. Any time there is an upset, it's a "surprise." For me, I would be surprised if one of the two wasn't upset and I think Boston is the more likely of the two. Last years ECF was a pretty big aberration where you had both teams rolling as favorites from day 1 of the playoffs.

 

[NYR Viper]

Of course you would be "surprised" because those are the two favorites in their respective divisions. Any time there is an upset, it's a "surprise." For me, I would be surprised if one of the two wasn't upset and I think Boston is the more likely of the two. Last years ECF was a pretty big aberration where you had both teams rolling as favorites from day 1 of the playoffs.

I don't know what punting major decisions until the summer means in this scenario. Specific to Callahan and Girardi?

I think they can move Callahan while still keeping their competitive level. Girardi is one I would consider punting till the summer if he's unsigned at the deadline, because of the difficulty in replacing him.


Still, that scenario requires Boston and Pittsburgh to win 3 playoff series. Even if they are a heavy 80% favorites in each of the series, that's still a coinflip that they would win all three.

We're talking percentages. The highest percentage would say the best teams would make it. So most likely, or the most likely scenario is that the Rangers would have to go through both.

 

[True Blue]

Until the playoffs last year the Rangers pretty much owned the Bruins. BTW, this year we lost 2 1 goal games, one of which we dominated (granted the Bs were playing with 5 D and on the 2nd night of back to backs). My point is if Toronto can almost beat them, if Washington can beat them, hell going back to Montreal, than so can we and it wouldn't take a miracle.

The anyone can beat anyone argument rings hollow. Yes, it is true that anything can happen. Hmm....how can I summarize it? In football, there is the "looking good when you get off the bus" view. The Bruins look impressive off of the bus.

It need not be a divine intervention, but you have to admit the vast difference between the two teams.

 

[Thirty One]

We're talking percentages. The highest percentage would say the best teams would make it. So most likely, or the most likely scenario is that the Rangers would have to go through both.

It's the most likely scenario out of a large number of scenarios, though.

The most likely number to come up on a roll of two dice is a 7, but I'm still surprised when it happens. Most likely does not mean it's likely.

And I'm not picking on you, it seems most people here think that a trip to the final definitely means beating both Pittsburgh and Boston.

 

[Thirty One]

The anyone can beat anyone argument rings hollow. Yes, it is true that anything can happen. Hmm....how can I summarize it? In football, there is the "looking good when you get off the bus" view. The Bruins look impressive off of the bus.

It need not be a divine intervention, but you have to admit the vast difference between the two teams.

Good thing hockey isn't played on buses, then.

 

[True Blue]

Boston, Pittsburgh, Chicago, Anaheim, etc. have only a small chance too.

Those teams have a much greater chance than the Rangers.

 

[True Blue]

Good thing hockey isn't played on buses, then.

Do you think that the Rangers are close to either team?

 

[SnowblindNYR]

The anyone can beat anyone argument rings hollow. Yes, it is true that anything can happen. Hmm....how can I summarize it? In football, there is the "looking good when you get off the bus" view. The Bruins look impressive off of the bus.

It need not be a divine intervention, but you have to admit the vast difference between the two teams.

You want to get a room with the Bruins players? It sounds like this has transcended from a hockey conversation to you telling us about your fantasies. But in all seriousness, that is such a weak argument, just because they're big doesn't mean ****.

 

[Thirty One]

Do you think that the Rangers are close to either team?

Close-ish. I think those two are a step above the rest of the East. I think the Rangers could absolutely beat them in a seven game series, though.

 

[Off Sides]

I am stuck on the coin flip thing, how far away from a coin flip are the Rangers to even win the first round if they finish 3rd in the East?

 

[Thirty One]

I am stuck on the coin flip thing, how far away from a coin flip are the Rangers to even win the first round if they finish 3rd in the East?

It depends. What chances would you give them to win a single game against the Metro's 3rd seed?

 

[Off Sides]

It depends. What chances would you give them to win a single game against the Metro's 3rd seed?

50/50

 

[Thirty One]

50/50

Well, there's your answer then.

I think I'd have them at about a 55/45 favorite against Philly/Columbus, making them a ~60% favorite to win a seven game series.

 

[True Blue]

You want to get a room with the Bruins players?

Clearly

It sounds like this has transcended from a hockey conversation to you telling us about your fantasies.

Astute analogies.

But in all seriousness, that is such a weak argument, just because they're big doesn't mean ****.

It is not an argument. It is putting an analogy in writing akin to what I see on the ice.

You are right. Just because they are big it does not mean anything. Name the last team that lacked size that won. Then also tell me how the Bruins have fared in the playoffs recently and how the Rangers have.

 

[True Blue]

Close-ish. I think those two are a step above the rest of the East. I think the Rangers could absolutely beat them in a seven game series, though.

Fair. I guess I just do not see the Rangers as being that close to them. The reality is that if a series goes to 7 games, then the last game is a complete toss up and should be determined by the goaltenders. If that was to be the case, then I am with you and would give the Rangers the edge. Let's put it this way. I think that it would be quite an accomplishment for this team to take either of those teams to a Game 7.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Clearly

Astute analogies.

It is not an argument. It is putting an analogy in writing akin to what I see on the ice.

You are right. Just because they are big it does not mean anything. Name the last team that lacked size that won. Then also tell me how the Bruins have fared in the playoffs recently and how the Rangers have.

The Hawks aren't small, but they're not a big and imposing team. The Bruins fared well in the playoffs some series and poorly in others. The last 2 years the Rangers won 3 series, the Bruins won 3. Yeah they won a cup 3 seasons ago, whatever, that was 3 seasons ago. Besides having a different coach than John "Neanderthal" Tortorella means that we don't know how the Rangers will fare.

 

[Thirty One]

Fair. I guess I just do not see the Rangers as being that close to them. The reality is that if a series goes to 7 games, then the last game is a complete toss up and should be determined by the goaltenders. If that was to be the case, then I am with you and would give the Rangers the edge. Let's put it this way. I think that it would be quite an accomplishment for this team to take either of those teams to a Game 7.

Meh. The Leafs took the Bruins to 7 games last year. The Islanders were an OT goal from taking the Penguins to 7.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Clearly

Astute analogies.

It is not an argument. It is putting an analogy in writing akin to what I see on the ice.

You are right. Just because they are big it does not mean anything. Name the last team that lacked size that won. Then also tell me how the Bruins have fared in the playoffs recently and how the Rangers have.

Dont pay to much attention to that poster. This is the guy that consistently slammed a 50+ win 109 point team because he didnt like the way they were playing hockey. Its part of the reason he thinks this team, lower in the standings, is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

 

[Off Sides]

Meh. The Leafs took the Bruins to 7 games last year. The Islanders were an OT goal from taking the Penguins to 7.

So you are saying anything didn't happen

I do at least agree that the Rangers are not a bad team, I think anything could happen, but I still see the odds as pretty low even if each series were considered a separate event. As one event, the playoffs as a whole,... I would put them as just shy of contention in my abstract definition.

If I were betting on the Rangers to win it all or even make it out of the East, I think I would be making an emotional based bet.