Player Discussion Michael Grabner

[NickyFotiu]

Grabner really is a third liner but quite possibly is the best third liner in the NHL. It's hard to explain but it's not like he moves the puck around to his linemates all that great. It's more how the Rangers look to spring him because he is lightning fast. A lot of his goals as well comes from him pressuring a point man off the puck and just taking off. I really don't know if we who would be as effective on another team. It's like he's tailor made for this team. The Rangers even if they were to trade him should absolutely try to re-sign him and if they re-sign before the end of this year I wouldn't be trading him at all. With him on our team--we're pretty much guaranteed to have scoring and good defense from our third line. That's a valuable thing.

He has been huge for us the last 2 seasons in ways that show up on the scoreboard and some that do not. You are right that he will not set up a lot of teammates but his goal scoring and speed do make him a great 3rd liner for us. He may be the best move we have made in the last 3-4 seasons.

 

[Mac n Gs]

This doesn’t seem real, yet here we are:

 

[nyr2k2]

This doesn’t seem real, yet here we are:

Does an ENG count as ES? It's not a SHG, so I wonder. Even then it's still terrific.

 

[Mac n Gs]

Does an ENG count as ES? It's not a SHG, so I wonder. Even then it's still terrific.

Looks like they're cheating a bit, since on corsica it has Grabner at 32 ES goals over the last two years. That's still 9th behind (in order): Matthews, Kucherov, Tarasenko, Anders Lee, Skinner, Kane, Rakell, and Saad.

But seriously, let's let this sink in for a second. Since the start of last year at ES, Michael Grabner has more even strength goals than Connor McDavid, Sidney Crosby, and Alex Ovechkin.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

Does an ENG count as ES? It's not a SHG, so I wonder. Even then it's still terrific.

It's even strength. 6 vs 6. One team subbing a goalie for a skater, yes. But still 6 vs 6

 

[Chaels Arms]

I don't know why we keep ending up at the same place with everybody being stunned about Grabner doing Grabner things. He's one of the fastest players in the NHL playing on a team that loves the stretch pass. He's a beast defensively which means he can actually be on the ice in almost every situation other than the PP apparently. I remember seeing an interview with John Tavares where he said Grabner is a good bet for a breakaway every game. That's still true.

Oh and by the way Oscar Lindberg has six points this season. And don't tell me stuff and things because Grabner is every bit as valuable in the stuff and things area of the game as Lindberg is.

 

[The Lunatic Fridge]

Ah yes, we also saw that speed on display when he played one season for us, but he only potted 9 and looked mostly disinterested other than his obvious PK skill.

Glad to see him kicking ass for you guys now, just amazed that he's been able to sustain this production to-date - not sure what his shooting % is, but it has to be due for a regression.

That goal last night was cringe-worthy, but you gotta be good to be lucky.

He injury riddled and coming off surgery i believe when playing for you guys and now he's actually healthy when he signed with us. is that really surprising?

Besides, if he plays like a monster for you, you guys don't get austin matthews, you're welcome

 

[FIRE DRURY]

Looks like they're cheating a bit, since on corsica it has Grabner at 32 ES goals over the last two years. That's still 9th behind (in order): Matthews, Kucherov, Tarasenko, Anders Lee, Skinner, Kane, Rakell, and Saad.

But seriously, let's let this sink in for a second. Since the start of last year at ES, Michael Grabner has more even strength goals than Connor McDavid, Sidney Crosby, and Alex Ovechkin.

 

[BobMarleyNYR]

And somehow, he's always in trade proposals here... a guy that contributes on any line and might not cost way over 4.5M? It's along the lines of trading a healthy Zibanejad right now, even if he's 30... he'll probably not sign anywhere for more than 4 years. I'd take Grabner at 4x4 in a heartbeat.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

Looks like they're cheating a bit, since on corsica it has Grabner at 32 ES goals over the last two years. That's still 9th behind (in order): Matthews, Kucherov, Tarasenko, Anders Lee, Skinner, Kane, Rakell, and Saad.

But seriously, let's let this sink in for a second. Since the start of last year at ES, Michael Grabner has more even strength goals than Connor McDavid, Sidney Crosby, and Alex Ovechkin.

Cheating? Here are the stats on the official NHL website:

Corsica probably doesn't count the EN goals but those are still ES

 

[SA16]

Yea that's why you look at 5v5 not ES.

4v4, 3v3, and EN situations skews it from what you're really trying to look at which is how do they perform during the most common game state (5 skaters and a goalie for each team).

 

[Leonardo87]

EN goals are sometimes harder to get than regular goals. I think a goal is a goal. I see players get robbed all game from a goalie, have like 6 SOG, and then get awarded with an EN goal.

Only thing that annoys me with EN goals is when a player makes a bonehead play by causing an icing trying to shoot for the EN and misses. This, when your team is up by only one goal, with plenty of time left on the clock for the other team to even things up.

I think what impresses me the most with Grabner is he is scoring these goals with no PP time. Granted not everyone can succeed on a PP, where as a lot of players actually do depend on them to score.

 

[Mac n Gs]

Cheating? Here are the stats on the official NHL website:

View attachment 88535

Corsica probably doesn't count the EN goals but those are still ES

Cheating in that they’re using his empty netters to prop up his numbers a bit. His 5v5 scoring numbers are still phenomenal, so we’re just arguing semantics here

 

[NickyFotiu]

EN goals are sometimes harder to get than regular goals. I think a goal is a goal. I see players get robbed all game from a goalie, have like 6 SOG, and then get awarded with an EN goal.

Only thing that annoys me with EN goals is when a player makes a bonehead play by causing an icing trying to shoot for the EN and misses. This, when your team is up by only one goal, with plenty of time left on the clock for the other team to even things up.

I think what impresses me the most with Grabner is he is scoring these goals with no PP time. Granted not everyone can succeed on a PP, where as a lot of players actually do depend on them to score.

Hayes has shot for the EN in the past and caused an icing. I think he learned his lesson. Grabs did that around a week ago as well but made a smarter play later in the game. Coaches see who gambles for the EN and who make sure they cross the red line first or make a safe clear.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

Cheating in that they’re using his empty netters to prop up his numbers a bit. His 5v5 scoring numbers are still phenomenal, so we’re just arguing semantics here

They were talking about even strength though, not 5on5. Stats are always a bit of a reach with the parameters used to make it seem more impressive.

 

[eco's bones]

Empty net goals are very important--they almost always mean the other team isn't going to tie the game and your team is going to come away with 2 points. I don't know about other people but I prefer not having the other team crashing our crease area again and again in the last minute of a game which if they still have hope of tying can go on until the last final second. Having someone adept at getting empty net goals is a great thing.

I'm also betting that Grabner's TOI is a lot lower than Kucherov, Matthews, Ovechkin and Tarasenko.

The Rangers need to sign him.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

And somehow, he's always in trade proposals here... a guy that contributes on any line and might not cost way over 4.5M? It's along the lines of trading a healthy Zibanejad right now, even if he's 30... he'll probably not sign anywhere for more than 4 years. I'd take Grabner at 4x4 in a heartbeat.

I think it's just a vocal minority like our resident superstar scout that thinks he's a 4th liner.

 

[slovakia18]

He has to say "sorry" for every EN Goal?
Sounds like that.

 

[Chimpradamus]

While I don't think EN goals are as impressive as when a goalie tries to stop the shot, they're still important to seal the win, especially in the playoffs. I sure don't mind having Grabner in an eventual playoff to help seal wins.

A win with Grabner's seal of approval, as to speak.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

While I don't think EN goals are as impressive as when a goalie tries to stop the shot, they're still important to seal the win, especially in the playoffs. I sure don't mind having Grabner in an eventual playoff to help seal wins.

A win with Grabner's seal of approval, as to speak.

An empty net goal in the Ottawa series would have been nice.

 

[Leonardo87]

I think EN goals are clutch goals. Basically seals the win and lets the exhale begin, and Yeah those would of been welcoming in the Ottawa series lol.

 

[Made Dan]

What a great signing this turned out to be. Shame we'll probably have to let him walk. Kinda reminds me of the BP67 situation in a way. Though he'll still be useful, you just know if we pay him the big bucks (maybe $3.5x3?) that he'll stop producing like he's been. I'd have no problem giving him 3x3 but I think he'll be able to get more. Gonna be tough to replace what he brings.

 

[FJB]

I love Grabner. I don't care if he scores 40 EN goals this year. The fact that he's out protecting leads AND still scores EN says a lot. They need him... unless the team needs to go into a firesale and stock up on picks lol

 

[sousuffer]

Only thing that annoys me with EN goals is when a player makes a bonehead play by causing an icing trying to shoot for the EN and misses. This, when your team is up by only one goal, with plenty of time left on the clock for the other team to even things up.

I think this way of thinking is becoming obsolete.

I have a hunch that the benefit of shooting for the ENG with an NHL caliber shooter outweighs the cost of missing and being called for icing. I've noticed (especially this year) that it's becoming less taboo to go for the ENG even if you haven't gained the red line. AV seems to have encouraged several of the Rangers to just shoot for the empty net regardless of location on the ice (which is different from when he first arrived). I can recall one or two of Grabner's goals that would have been icings had they missed.

Just spitballing - say a player hits the empty net (guaranteeing the win) 40% of the time on attempts from beyond center ice, we could determine the odds of giving up a goal after an icing on the same play. Obviously the times it backfires truly stand out and are memorable (hence the "tisk-tisk" approach from broadcasters towards players who try it), but I'd be willing to wager that it happens infrequently and the risk is minimal - especially compared to the risk of a defender trying to reach the red line before going for the ENG, turning the puck over, and allowing the opposing team to enter your zone quickly with possession anyway.

I imagine the best way to look at it is by aggregating all offensive zone face-offs at 6 vs. 5 and determining how many of them end up with the losing team scoring a game-tying goal (without the puck leaving the zone and forcing a regroup by the losing team). My hunch (without any factual evidence) would be the odds of this kind of goal - one directly off an offensive zone face-off that ends up in a game tying goal in a 6 vs. 5 situation - is probably around 5%.

Let's say that the Rangers win ~45 games in regulation every year and have 25 one goal leads to protect in a 6 vs. 5 situation (perhaps a high estimate). Let's assume that they average one opportunity in each of these 25 games to shoot for an empty net goal from beyond the red line. With a conversion rate of 40%, this guarantees the Rangers 10 wins automatically. The risk of giving up a game tying goal off the offensive zone draw would lead to 1-2 game tying goals per season in this situation. Of course, this still almost always guarantee them a point with a chance in OT to play for the second point anyhow. This also doesn't account for problems caused when a player cannot reach center ice to shoot/dump-in and turns the puck over leading to a rush by the trailing team.

In an absolute worst case scenario, shooting for the empty net can cost you four points in the regular season - and this would only happen if you ice the puck, give up the tying goal AND the game-losing goal in regulation in the two games per season where the losing team converts off of the ensuing draw to tie the game. This -4 point effect would also require we assume that the losing team would have lost all 10 games where the ENG occurred. This scenario probably has never happened.

More likely, the Rangers would lose one or two points in the games they choke, but the 10 ENG's probably prevent a few instances where the game would have been tied/lost had the ENG not been scored. In most scenarios, I would venture a guess that shooting for the ENG from anywhere is the best way to go.

 

[will1066]

I like Grabner and hope he stays.