Just How Good Are the 2013-14 Rangers?

[Thirty One]

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.

Which team would you bet on if you had to bet on one:

Pittsburgh Penguins 6/1
Boston Bruins 9/1
Tampa Bay Lightning 20/1
New York Rangers 25/1
Montreal Canadiens 28/1
Toronto Maple Leafs 28/1
Detroit Red Wings 33/1
Philadelphia Flyers 33/1
Columbus Blue Jackets 40/1
Ottawa Senators 40/1
Washington Capitals 40/1
Carolina Hurricanes 50/1
New Jersey Devils 50/1

 

[Slick Rick 61]

I think this team, despite lacking the same edge the 11-12 Rangers had, have a far better chance of taking the Bruins than the Penguins in a 7 game series.

As we know, the Rangers of the Torts era were a nightmare matchup for the Bruins. They had significant regular season success against them. Then the Quarterfinals matchup happened. The Rangers had some terrible luck in that series, and honestly didn't play as poorly as the 5 game result would indicate on the surface.

They finally have built a sturdy 4th line that can match with the Paille-Campbell-Thornton line, a trio that has given the Rangers headaches in the past. In the past, NYR 4th lines were often a struggling player miscast with a conglomerate of the bottom of the roster. Now it's not.

Then there's the goaltending both ways. Lundqvist and Rask can both steal a series on their back. Had Lundqvist not been as godly as he was in the 2nd half of the Ottawa series, that 11-12 Rangers team doesn't get out of the 1st round.

The Bruins have always been balanced, but now the difference is they're an elite scoring team, popping them in at a 3.07 PG clip. If you take away the 10 game outlier at the beginning of the season, the Rangers, while still scoring less than Boston, are a lot closer in the GF department. I can't find the exact figures, but it's over 2.8 GPG. Add in the improved power-play, which makes all the difference in a playoff series, and you have a team that has a shot.

Building off that last point: secondary scoring. When you have two elite goaltenders facing off in a series, depth scoring in those 2-1 games matter. The Rangers, much like the Bruins, seem to be a team that has a hot line at all times. Then when they cool off, another picks up the slack. The ability to look down the bench and fine a trio rolling at all times gives you a chance.

That's why I think they have a better chance of matching up with the Bruins if they get there. Of course that likely will require going through Pittsburgh, who I still think would finish the Rangers off handily, unless Fleury has another playoff meltdown.

 

[Slick Rick 61]

Which team would you bet on if you had to bet on one:

Pittsburgh Penguins 6/1
Boston Bruins 9/1
Tampa Bay Lightning 20/1
New York Rangers 25/1
Montreal Canadiens 28/1
Toronto Maple Leafs 28/1
Detroit Red Wings 33/1
Philadelphia Flyers 33/1
Columbus Blue Jackets 40/1
Ottawa Senators 40/1
Washington Capitals 40/1
Carolina Hurricanes 50/1
New Jersey Devils 50/1

If I have to take one, I'll take the Bruins. Their route to the ECF will be less physically demanding, plus they have elite goaltending. If they draw Tampa in the 2nd round, they'll mop the floor with them. I'm still waiting for them to regress. If Bishop tails off, it's coming. Even with Stamkos' return on the horizon.

 

[3rdlineglory]

I know the Penguins are the historical bane of existence for the Rangers for like the last ~25 years, but the Rangers have been faring pretty well against them for the last couple seasons and actually a couple times beat them pretty handily too. This isn't 2009 anymore.

As for the Bruins, they have size and grit, but it often gets overrated just like the Rangers' size and grit gets underrated. Oh and their not exactly the fastest team in the league. If the Rangers stick to their game and continually keep them on their heels (something that should have been strived for last year) they can give them a hard time similar to how the Leafs did.

 

[Off Sides]

Which team would you bet on if you had to bet on one:

Pittsburgh Penguins 6/1
Boston Bruins 9/1
Tampa Bay Lightning 20/1
New York Rangers 25/1
Montreal Canadiens 28/1
Toronto Maple Leafs 28/1
Detroit Red Wings 33/1
Philadelphia Flyers 33/1
Columbus Blue Jackets 40/1
Ottawa Senators 40/1
Washington Capitals 40/1
Carolina Hurricanes 50/1
New Jersey Devils 50/1

#1 Boston
#2 Pitt



Rangers/Tampa

 

[True Blue]

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.

Ahh....that explains much

 

[McRanger]

The Rangers road to the ECF likely goes through Washington/Philly/Columbus in the 1st round and then Pitt in the 2nd round.

Assuming Pitt doesn't get knocked out in the 1st round as it did in '11 and '12, then we would play whatever wild card team beat them.

I've been thinking about two questions:
1) How have the Rangers stacked up against the rest of the east/league?
2) How do the Rangers compare to the '11-'12 team?

Since their 3-7 start (the last 49 games, about 85% of the season) the Rangers are:

6th in the league in points, 3rd in the east.
7th in the league in goals for, 4th in the east.
5th in the league in goals against, 4th in the east.
6th in the league in goal differential, 3rd in the east.

that stretch compared to the '11-'12 rangers:

'11-'12 points per game: 1.329 (109 points over an 82 game season)
'13-'14 points per game: 1.245 (102 points over an 82 game season)

'11-'12 goals per game: 2.756
'13-'14 goals per game: 2.857

'11-'12 goals against per game: 2.280
'13-'14 goals against per game: 2.265

I think this team is at least as good as the '11-'12 team. But how good was the '11-'12 team?

 

[3rdlineglory]

Ahh....that explains much

No it doesn't, maybe give this team a chance to make up for all the struggles related to system adjustment. Tortorella's teams didn't exactly have great records when he started coaching here.

 

[aufheben]

Ahh....that explains much

The downplaying of the '11-12 on this site is ridiculous.

 

[3rdlineglory]

The Rangers road to the ECF likely goes through Washington/Philly/Columbus in the 1st round and then Pitt in the 2nd round.

Assuming Pitt doesn't get knocked out in the 1st round as it did in '11 and '12, then we would play whatever wild card team beat them.

I've been thinking about two questions:
1) How have the Rangers stacked up against the rest of the east/league?
2) How do the Rangers compare to the '11-'12 team?

Since their 3-7 start (the last 49 games, about 85% of the season) the Rangers are:

6th in the league in points, 3rd in the east.
7th in the league in goals for, 4th in the east.
5th in the league in goals against, 4th in the east.
6th in the league in goal differential, 3rd in the east.

that stretch compared to the '11-'12 rangers:

'11-'12 points per game: 1.329 (109 points over an 82 game season)
'13-'14 points per game: 1.245 (102 points over an 82 game season)

'11-'12 goals per game: 2.756
'13-'14 goals per game: 2.857

'11-'12 goals against per game: 2.280
'13-'14 goals against per game: 2.265

I think this team is at least as good as the '11-'12 team. But how good was the '11-'12 team?

This team doesn't rely as heavily on Nash and Lundqvist like it did with Gaborik and Lundqvist back in 11-12. Those two guys are what made the difference in a lot of those 3-2 games. Newsflash: Fedetenko and Mitchell weren't the reason why that team was successful.

 

[3rdlineglory]

The downplaying of the '11-12 on this site is ridiculous.

More like misinterpreting.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Ahh....that explains much

Yeah, don't pay attention to that poster. That team was a very good regular season team that overachieved something fierce due mostly to the best goalie of the generation having his best season. Then they looked like you'd expect in the playoffs against the 8th and 7th seed when they barely won and frankly should have to lost in each series. But yeah, that team was great. I don't care what their record was, it was an anomaly. This team is a lot more talented and their style of play is more conducive to success. No team that lives in its zone will ever win a cup. That team had all the breaks go their way in the playoffs and still couldn't beat the worst cup finalist since 06. Oh and God forbid I actually watch hockey to enjoy it. Hated how that team played. It was not a sustainable winning formula and boring as all hell to watch. I don't care how great their record was. I bet if these Rangers played those Rangers in a playoff series they'd win. Hell they seriously should have lost 3 times and finally did in the 3rd round to a mediocre (relative to how far they advanced) Devils team.

Edit: But listen to BRB, yeah it's all because they were boring, nothing to do with how their style wasn't conducive to winning. (Though yes I hated how boring they were).

 

[Raspewtin]

The downplaying of the '11-12 on this site is ridiculous.

The only gripe I have about that season was it wasn't sustainable. We weren't going to win anything playing that way.

Some of my best hockey moments of all time come from that season.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

The downplaying of the '11-12 on this site is ridiculous.

As is the overrating of that team. Honestly, people think this team has no way in chance of doing anything but thought that a less talented team that actually had worse defensemen (McDonagh and Stralman are much better this year, John Moore is infinitely better than Bickel) and played a style that no cup champion plays (stop drop and block) could have won the whole thing. If this this was season 3 and a half under AV, I bet this team would be on pace right now for a similar amount of points.

 

[Thirty One]

The only gripe I have about that season was it wasn't sustainable. We weren't going to win anything playing that way.

Some of my best hockey moments of all time come from that season.

That's a pretty sizable gripe, no?

 

[SnowblindNYR]

The only gripe I have about that season was it wasn't sustainable. We weren't going to win anything playing that way.

Some of my best hockey moments of all time come from that season.

Bingo. I loved it when it was going on. I will also say that we didn't play most of the regular season like we played in the playoffs. The playoff team took it to a new ridiculous level. Still, I can't think of 1 team in recent memory that wasn't at least somewhat decent at the possession game that didn't win it all.

 

[Raspewtin]

That's a pretty sizable gripe, no?

Going forward, yeah I guess.

I had real faith in that team, though.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

As is the overrating of that team. Honestly, people think this team has no way in chance of doing anything but thought that a less talented team that actually had worse defensemen (McDonagh and Stralman are much better this year, John Moore is infinitely better than Bickel) and played a style that no cup champion plays (stop drop and block) could have won the whole thing. If this this was season 3 and a half under AV, I bet this team would be on pace right now for a similar amount of points.

I know I am looking forward to your continued gibberish and excuses if/when this team doesn't advance to the conference finals.

 

[Thirty One]

I know I am looking forward to your continued gibberish and excuses if/when this team doesn't advance to the conference finals.

Has he said the Rangers will get to the Conference Finals? Honest question.

I think this Ranger team is better than the 2011-12 team, but I won't feel the need to provide any justification/excuses if they don't get as far. A playoff series is a very small sample to base such absolute labels on. I think the 2011-12 Bruins and Penguins were better than the Rangers too.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Has he said the Rangers will get to the Conference Finals? Honest question.

I think this Ranger team is better than the 2011-12 team, but I won't feel the need to provide any justification/excuses if they don't get as far. A playoff series is a very small sample to base such absolute labels on. I think the 2011-12 Bruins and Penguins were better than the Rangers too.

Bingo.

So why, I ask, is "almost losing to Ottawa and Washington" given so much stock into an argument about the '11-12 team? A team that won 51 regular season games - 2nd most in franchise history.

 

[aufheben]

As is the overrating of that team. Honestly, people think this team has no way in chance of doing anything but thought that a less talented team that actually had worse defensemen (McDonagh and Stralman are much better this year, John Moore is infinitely better than Bickel) and played a style that no cup champion plays (stop drop and block) could have won the whole thing. If this this was season 3 and a half under AV, I bet this team would be on pace right now for a similar amount of points.

What overrating? That team won over 50 games and made the Conference Finals. They were a good ****ing team. There was a feeling every night that team was going to win, and it was usually right.

If people want to say they were lucky, fine. I'm of the "make your own luck" school.

 

[Thirty One]

Bingo.

So why, I ask, is "almost losing to Ottawa and Washington" given so much stock into an argument about the '11-12 team? A team that won 51 regular season games - 2nd most in franchise history.

It probably shouldn't be given as much stock as it is. But there's other reasons to suggest that a lot of luck went into that 51 win number.

Also there's probably a real conversation to be had about how their style of play lead to fatigue and a dip was likely inevitable.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

It probably shouldn't be given as much stock as it is. But there's other reasons to suggest that a lot of luck went into that 51 win number.

Also there's probably a real conversation to be had about how their style of play lead to fatigue and a dip was likely inevitable.

You wont really convince me of any luck - maybe its old fashioned not to have advanced stats behind it, but I think that team made their own luck with their tough as nails mentality.

Sustainability is a real issue...but I feel like a jerk complaining about that as a Ranger fan who doesnt get to see many 51 win seasons.

 

[HatTrick Swayze]

Who cares about playoff wins? I just want to watch pretty things.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

What overrating? That team won over 50 games and made the Conference Finals. They were a good ****ing team. There was a feeling every night that team was going to win, and it was usually right.

If people want to say they were lucky, fine. I'm of the "make your own luck" school.

People seem to think that when we made our moves we got rid of a perennial cup contender. Except that team couldn't even win the cup with the easiest road to the cup I've ever seen. That team couldn't even win the cup against the 6, 7, 8, 8 seeds. People like to say how this is a middle of the road team yet wax poetic about the 11-12 team. This team is definitely more talented and once they got used to the new coach and especially lately are playing like the more talented team.