TheWrongWay
Registered User
Still don't think it was a penalty on Staal
I didn't either. Then again, I felt the same about the PP Carolina scored on earlier in the game. Let that weak nonsense go in the playoffs and let the kids play.
Still don't think it was a penalty on Staal
Unless you have access to additional paid models where you can provide hard examples you are absolutely making assumptions.I don't think it's a stretch at all.
Unless you have access to additional paid models where you can provide hard examples you are absolutely making assumptions.
The last bastion of charlatans, don't have a response so you just laugh.
Because you can't give more examples and your whole premise relies on "trust me, bro."
Sorry bud, I'm not interested in having this conversation with you at this point.
Every series there is a fan that says this. EmbarrassingDon’t think NYR has a great chance against Florida. They were exposed at 5v5 again, their PP cooled off as the series went along, and they will be facing a much better goaltender. Shesterkin was very beatable all series.
Their fans were chanting we want Boston after the game because they know they don’t have much of a chance against Florida too.
Yeah I thought that call on Kreider was weak...it as a little push that happens all the time. Carolina benefited from a soft call and so did the Rangers. So it goes in the NHL and playoffsI didn't either. Then again, I felt the same about the PP Carolina scored on earlier in the game. Let that weak nonsense go in the playoffs and let the kids play.
They were chanting we want Boston because of the general Boston vs NYC sports rivalry. Would not have mattered if the Boston Panthers were playing the Florida Bruins.Don’t think NYR has a great chance against Florida. They were exposed at 5v5 again, their PP cooled off as the series went along, and they will be facing a much better goaltender. Shesterkin was very beatable all series.
Their fans were chanting we want Boston after the game because they know they don’t have much of a chance against Florida too.
Who knows, Panthers are a good team though. Boston might be more stout defensively than the Rangers too.A bit puzzling why people are saying that Panthers will destroy Rangers when Panthers are struggling vs Bruins who are a far worse team than Rangers in just about every aspect.
It's important, and one of my "Perks" that makes us all S.P.E.C.I.A.L. within hockey's wasteland.Bro, why do you keep putting Cup in quotes?
Who knows, Panthers are a good team though. Boston might be more stout defensively than the Rangers too.
Rangers just kinda...find ways to get things done, and it's not always pretty. I think they will have to clean up some of their defensive miscues no matter who they end up playing though
I really don't understand what happened to their net front coverage over the last 3 games.
Oh look, another private analytics model that shows the Rangers getting the better of the quality.
There are now 3 different models posted in this thread that show the Rangers having more inner slot and high danger chances. It’s not as cut and dry as you think it is. How many models do you have the other way. Because you are asking people to keep providing more and more proof while you provide nothing.Because you can't give more examples and your whole premise relies on "trust me, bro."
If you're going to claim the public models are objectively wrong you're going to need to give me more than just what another Rangers fan provides.
I mean, Carolina does look like they control games handily. They kinda do it to most other teams though not just the Rangers. It's certainly harder to disassociate your analysis from the eye test when your eye test says "wow that team looks like the more aggressive team that's always getting the puck and putting it on net". What most people have also been conditioned to believe over the past several years is that surface level possession metrics = better chance at winning =therefor to win you must have good surface level possession metrics. Digging deeper into shot/chance quality is still evolving and not as intuitive to see versus watching a team dominate the traditional possession game like Carolina does. Having to go back and grade the shot chances to see who's really making the best chances and capitalizing on them is more involved.There are now 3 different models posted in this thread that show the Rangers having more inner slot and high danger chances. It’s not as cut and dry as you think it is. How many models do you have the other way. Because you are asking people to keep providing more and more proof while you provide nothing.
It's a great testament to how tight and controlled game both teams were playing by the game 6 when these iffies were pretty much the only penalties called. Staying out the box was imperative to both.Yeah I thought that call on Kreider was weak...it as a little push that happens all the time. Carolina benefited from a soft call and so did the Rangers. So it goes in the NHL and playoffs
Talking about players but keep trying. It's funThe Rangers have bad numbers in xgf% too if you want to talk about quality of chances.
I’d rather face Dallas than Colorado. Col is too fastRangers really need COL/BOS to advance, if that happens I think they go 8-1 or 8-2 rest of way. Its a way different story if they have to go through FLA and DAL though. I'd still lean towards them winning it all but it might be more like an 8-6 or 8-7 type thing
Agree. Shot quality vs Shot total is a large part.I mean, Carolina does look like they control games handily. They kinda do it to most other teams though not just the Rangers. It's certainly harder to disassociate your analysis from the eye test when your eye test says "wow that team looks like the more aggressive team that's always getting the puck and putting it on net". What most people have also been conditioned to believe over the past several years is that surface level possession metrics = better chance at winning =therefor to win you must have good surface level possession metrics. Digging deeper into shot/chance quality is still evolving and not as intuitive to see versus watching a team dominate the traditional possession game like Carolina does. Having to go back and grade the shot chances to see who's really making the best chances and capitalizing on them is more involved.
Great postMetro always gets hype because big market NYR, and then the duo of Pitt/Crosby and Wash/OV. And Carolina's big regular season and balanced team approach always makes them a cup favourite too.
Dallas is a solid team for years and you have hardly any media people ever talking about them.
For those of you who arent Canadian, TSN and Sportsnet pecking order of hockey playoff coverage hype-o-meter is this:
- Canadian teams by far (especially Leafs and Edmonton McDavid gravy train)
- Pitt and Crosby.... from Cole Harbour NS for the millionth time
- Colorado and MacKinnon
- Washington and OV
- Boston and whatever funny stuff Marchand does
- NYR
- Everyone else gets as little coverage as possible aside from standard game highlights. Nashville can go 82-0 and Forberg has 150 pts and they still wouldnt show them often.
I’m saying add Marner to Aho.Marner and Aho stats during playoffs are not that far away from each other if i remember correctly, but Marner just does not have it what it takes for playoffs. Just watch him play during playoffs. If you wanna switch Aho there is zero f***ing reason to switch him to Marner. Things would only get worse
Their top scorer is tied for 12th in playoff scoring. That’s not going to get the job done.I would agree with this if their top line wasn't amazing this series, Svech-Aho-Guentzel were elite. Re-sign Guentzel and let some of their UFA's walk, hope that Jarvis/Necas take bridges and you can go in one last time within a window with this core. They're also adding Nishikin very soon who could become a top 5 PP QB in the league at his ceiling
I really don't understand what happened to their net front coverage over the last 3 games.
Oh look, another private analytics model that shows the Rangers getting the better of the quality.