Post-Game Talk: Rangers @ devils -- 4/18/21

[Edge]

Good god we have Edge on our side. Will be really interesting to see if the usual suspects have the balls to call you idiotic/imbecilic/etc. for daring to question the coaching.

I'm a subscriber to the yin-yang approach. There is good in the bad, and bad in the good.

I don't dislike DQ, but I don't always agree with him either.

I think there are things he does well, that he doesn't credit for. I think there are things he doesn't do well, that he should accountable for.

When I see Blackwell playing 1/3 of the game, Howden getting 13 mins, and Laf, Chytil, Kakko and Kravtov getting less time - yeah, that pisses me off.

Blackwell has exceeded any and all expectations. He deserves to play. But that has it's limits and there is no way on the planet he should playing nearly 20 minutes. That is unacceptable to me.

I will tell you that someone like Blackwell also concerns me a little bit. Here is a guy who never scored more than 6 goals or 19 points in college. Never scored more than 17 goals or 45 points in the AHL. Had 3 goals and 10 points in 33 NHL games coming into this season.

Now suddently he has 12 goals, 22 points in 36 games. Yes, there are late bloomers. But it's rare for late bloomers to completely blow away any production they've had at previous levels at the age of 28.

With Blackwell I worry that he's kind of like junk food for the Rangers. They're hungry, they don't feel like cooking, so they grab a bag of chips from the cupboard. It fills their stomach, but there's really no sustenance or nutrition pulled from the bag of chips.

Blackwell has a place on this team, but he's also not a long-term answer on this team, nor should he be used as a go-to guy. We're now at the point where we have not one, not two, not even three, but four young, skilled forwards who we aren't consistently giving more opportunities to.

And no, it's not about handing them opportunities. It's about putting them in different situations where we can see what they've got, maybe situations that play to their strengths and minimize their weaknesses, and when appropriate, reward them for results.

Last game was a prime example of what drove me nuts. Not one, but two of them score a goal, they show zip, and then I'm watching Blackwell taking a pass from Panarin while the kids sit on the bench, or watching the line rotations change up so that it kills any momentum they had, or doesn't allow them to rebuild and overcome a mistake.

I defend DQ, but I don't always agree with the takes. But I'm also objective, and that's the shit that drives me nuts.

 

[Chimpradamus]

If we have any gamblers here who could look up the money line of the Rangers winning 4 games in the row against Devils. Guessing it would've been a nice chunk o' change if someone actually did make this bet.

Then imagine the rage if they would've lost that 3-1 lead going into the third and lost it in OT.

 

[McRanger]

huh?

if a player shoots the puck but it missed the net, is it counted as a shot attempt?

all i am asking.

It didnt say in the article, and i didnt want to assume.

im not trying to invalidate, but rather trying to understand what actually is on the charts.

I was just point out that flubbed chances are counted. No that i expect them to be, and that is all subjective anyway. But it is an area that isnt encapsulated and does explain why numbers dont match to eye test to some degree.

Now i am just curious about shot attempts. How is it defined?

Simple question.

Yes. Shot attempts are the sum of "shots on goal", "shots that miss the net" and "shots that are blocked".

 

[Peltz]

I like Panarin & the others. Believe me, I do. But if this group of vets was so dominant, we would already be in the playoffs. We would have done better v Carolina last year.

Last year, prior to the break, this team had almost no secondary scoring. If Panarin and Zib didn't dominate a game, the team did not win.

Panarin was an MVP candidate, and Zib was the best two way player we had. Kreider dominated as well. Our issues last year were secondary scoring.

Let's take the games against Caroline out of the equation for a moment - they are hard to assess since it was under unusual circumstances. But other than Kakko, not a single player looked good on our team. It is what it is. And if you want to draw conclusions based on that I won't stop you. But take those games with some context - Rangers should have been ready for them but just weren't.

This year, we had other issues. Zib played but his former game-shape was a no show for over half the season due to COVID - right there, we probably lost a bunch of games just due to that. Panarin also missed 9 games and we lost 5 of those. Shesterkin missed a bunch of games too where Georgiev and Kincaid had a few highly subpar performances which cost us some games.

Yet we are still within a playoff hunt. So what can we conclude from this?

The vets, indeed, are good enough to win games and put the team in a playoff spot on their own. But the team isn't deep enough to step up when the vets (or Shesterkin) aren't around. Secondary scoring is still an issue, although it's improving every single game now. But if we don't see the playoffs this season, it isn't because the vets aren't genuinely good enough to be successful as a top 6. There's nothing here, other than Zib's struggles in the first half, to indicate that. And there's more than enough evidence to to believe that the after effects of COVID-19 were responsible for his poor play during that portion.

I think that anyone saying the top 6 on this team isn't good enough on this team has a really short term memory. Panarin missed a quarter of the season. Zibanejad effectively missed 50% of it. Shesterkin missed a quarter as well. Those were big pieces of the puzzle missing. It's not a top-end talent issue. But a depth issue. And as the youngsters get better and better, that issue will go away, and eventually they'll be the top 6. But not yet.

 

[Machinehead]

huh?

if a player shoots the puck but it missed the net, is it counted as a shot attempt?

all i am asking.

It didnt say in the article, and i didnt want to assume.

im not trying to invalidate, but rather trying to understand what actually is on the charts.

I was just point out that flubbed chances are counted. No that i expect them to be, and that is all subjective anyway. But it is an area that isnt encapsulated and does explain why numbers dont match to eye test to some degree.

Now i am just curious about shot attempts. How is it defined?

Simple question.

I told you, it's hard to define, and boils down to the fact that people who watch hockey have an idea of what an attempted shot is. It's not perfect but there aren't enough grey area shot attempts to move the needle, so no, that's not why the numbers don't match.

The numbers mostly don't match because 1) what I posted is a tiny sample and I've repeated this ad nauseum 2) people remember goals. I thought Miller and Trouba played poorly until I saw the numbers, but they were on the ice for a particularly ugly goal against where both of them blew it. That's probably what I remember, and I'm disregarding 20 minutes of play besides that.

The point is, analytics aren't perfect. If I say this one more time, I will have said it one million times. But you'll harp on that and then accept your eye test which is 100% subjective. Why don't we hold the two to the same scrutiny?

If somebody says, let's say, "Panarin made a nice play" nobody derails the thread saying "define a nice play." But if you post that he had a given number of shot attempts, you have to define shot attempts. It's not a fair shake.

 

[Ruggs225]

I told you, it's hard to define, and boils down to the fact that people who watch hockey have an idea of what an attempted shot is. It's not perfect but there aren't enough grey area shot attempts to move the needle, so no, that's not why the numbers don't match.

The numbers mostly don't match because 1) what I posted is a tiny sample and I've repeated this ad nauseum 2) people remember goals. I thought Miller and Trouba played poorly until I saw the numbers, but they were on the ice for a particularly ugly goal against where both of them blew it. That's probably what I remember, and I'm disregarding 20 minutes of play besides that.

The point is, analytics aren't perfect. If I say this one more time, I will have said it one million times. But you'll harp on that and then accept your eye test which is 100% subjective. Why don't we hold the two to the same scrutiny?

If somebody says, let's say, "Panarin made a nice play" nobody derails the thread saying "define a nice play." But if you post that he had a given number of shot attempts, you have to define shot attempts. It's not a fair shake.

im just trying to understand what that chart represents. In order to do that, i wanted to know how it was calculated.

i do believe analytics have a part in the game. I do think they arent nearly as good for hockey as baseball. And likely never will be.

And the fact that most charts dont have good titles or any definitions and are poorly titled adds to confusion.

And from your description, attempted shots include those thad dont hit the net. Thats all i needed to know.

i understand small sample sizes, but all these small sample sixes make a big trend that i still wouldnt understand unless i know how it was calculated. I would have the same questions over a larger dataset.

and funny u mention trouba, bc i thought he had an excellent game, but i completely forgot he blew coverage on a goal. So yes, nothing is perfect, and the eye test and analytics should go hand in hand. Im just struggling to see why there is a huge discrepancy sometimes. And how brendan smith can ever be rated the highest lol

that is why u need both quant and qual.

it also ia why when the kid line has dominated play, but did not get a shot can rate poorly. Which has been happening in the past. Though lately i just dont like their play much at all together.

 

[Profet]

I'm a subscriber to the yin-yang approach. There is good in the bad, and bad in the good.

I don't dislike DQ, but I don't always agree with him either.

I think there are things he does well, that he doesn't credit for. I think there are things he doesn't do well, that he should accountable for.

When I see Blackwell playing 1/3 of the game, Howden getting 13 mins, and Laf, Chytil, Kakko and Kravtov getting less time - yeah, that pisses me off.

Blackwell has exceeded any and all expectations. He deserves to play. But that has it's limits and there is no way on the planet he should playing nearly 20 minutes. That is unacceptable to me.

I will tell you that someone like Blackwell also concerns me a little bit. Here is a guy who never scored more than 6 goals or 19 points in college. Never scored more than 17 goals or 45 points in the AHL. Had 3 goals and 10 points in 33 NHL games coming into this season.

Now suddently he has 12 goals, 22 points in 36 games. Yes, there are late bloomers. But it's rare for late bloomers to completely blow away any production they've had at previous levels at the age of 28.

With Blackwell I worry that he's kind of like junk food for the Rangers. They're hungry, they don't feel like cooking, so they grab a bag of chips from the cupboard. It fills their stomach, but there's really no sustenance or nutrition pulled from the bag of chips.

Blackwell has a place on this team, but he's also not a long-term answer on this team, nor should he be used as a go-to guy. We're not at the point where we have not one, not two, not even three, but four young, skilled forwards who we aren't consistently giving more opportunities to.

And no, it's not about handing them opportunities. It's about putting them in different situations where we can see what they've got, maybe situations that play to their strengths and minimize their weaknesses, and when appropriate, reward them for results.

Last game was a prime example of what drove me nuts. Not one, but two of them score a goal, they show zip, and then I'm watching Blackwell taking a pass from Panarin while the kids sit on the bench, or watching the line rotations change up so that it kills any momentum they had, or doesn't allow them to rebuild and overcome a mistake.

I defend DQ, but I don't always agree with the takes. But I'm also objective, and that's the shit that drives me nuts.

So then I guess the question is...

Does management decide that Quinn needs to go to help the progress of the younger players... or does management decide to ship off Quinn's "crutches" to force him to play the kids?

Any idea which way they are leaning?

I guess there is always the option that management is fine with what is happening... but if that's the case...ugh...

 

[True Blue]

Good god we have Edge on our side. Will be really interesting to see if the usual suspects have the balls to call you idiotic/imbecilic/etc. for daring to question the coaching.

I mean clearly the answer is yes regarding the usual suspects. Just look at your takes.

 

[romba]

If somebody says, let's say, "Panarin made a nice play" nobody derails the thread saying "define a nice play." But if you post that he had a given number of shot attempts, you have to define shot attempts. It's not a fair shake.

To be fair, we do argue over what is a nice play and disagree bout the eye test. Ignoring advanced stats, ppl come on here and say they watched a different game based on how ppl react to watching it. Less so for Panarin (all his plays, even bad ones, are good!). For example, everyone is gushing over Laf's goal. I like the play, but Blackwood likely would and should consider it a softie. A pass in the shooters skates so he has to take a half second to gain possession, then a backhander along the ice from in deep? Yes it was quick and in tight, but sometimes in tight is easier saved based on angles, trajectory, limited options etc. Should have been stopped. Again, nice play by Laf to get control and a quick shot off, but I wasn't so wowed on the play as others, so we do disagree on the eye test.

 

[Rongomania]

To be fair, we do argue over what is a nice play and disagree bout the eye test. Ignoring advanced stats, ppl come on here and say they watched a different game based on how ppl react to watching it. Less so for Panarin (all his plays, even bad ones, are good!). For example, everyone is gushing over Laf's goal. I like the play, but Blackwood likely would and should consider it a softie. A pass in the shooters skates so he has to take a half second to gain possession, then a backhander along the ice from in deep? Yes it was quick and in tight, but sometimes in tight is easier saved based on angles, trajectory, limited options etc. Should have been stopped. Again, nice play by Laf to get control and a quick shot off, but I wasn't so wowed on the play as others, so we do disagree on the eye test.

If Laf doesn't get crushed the goal honestly looks even sexier. Skate to backhand to five hole in tight, guys closing in, come onnnn. Absolute filth for a 19yr old.

 

[Dr. Ogrodnick]

Sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeppppp.


That is all.

 

[Gardner McKay]

Kreider and Trouba might end up being be the worst contracts in Rangers history.

 

[FOD]

I agree, however my concern is the lack of development. You have a #1 overall pick on the f’ing bench over blackwell. You have the team’s leading goal scorer who can’t get PP time.

This isn’t the way.

Don't mean to let facts get in the way of your argument. But just to play Devil's advocate: Blackwell has played in 36 games and has an average ice time of 13.32 minutes for a total of 479 .52 minutes overall. Lafreniere has played 45 games with an average ice time of 13.36 minute for a total of 601.20. Don't think your argument makes much sense.

 

[Ruggs225]

I just dont get why miller or blackwell are on the PP.

I would run this.
Pp1
Panarin
Strome
Zib
Kakko
Fox

pp2
Chytil (unless krav shows he can play C)
Laf
Kreider
Buch
Trouba

 

[Profet]

Kreider and Trouba might end up being be the worst contracts in Rangers history.

Redden?
Holik?
Keane?
Skrudland?
Gomez?



Listen youngin'... you don't know pain or misery.

 

[mandiblesofdoom]

Last year, prior to the break, this team had almost no secondary scoring. If Panarin and Zib didn't dominate a game, the team did not win.

Panarin was an MVP candidate, and Zib was the best two way player we had. Kreider dominated as well. Our issues last year were secondary scoring.

Let's take the games against Caroline out of the equation for a moment - they are hard to assess since it was under unusual circumstances. But other than Kakko, not a single player looked good on our team. It is what it is. And if you want to draw conclusions based on that I won't stop you. But take those games with some context - Rangers should have been ready for them but just weren't.

This year, we had other issues. Zib played but his former game-shape was a no show for over half the season due to COVID - right there, we probably lost a bunch of games just due to that. Panarin also missed 9 games and we lost 5 of those. Shesterkin missed a bunch of games too where Georgiev and Kincaid had a few highly subpar performances which cost us some games.

Yet we are still within a playoff hunt. So what can we conclude from this?

The vets, indeed, are good enough to win games and put the team in a playoff spot on their own. But the team isn't deep enough to step up when the vets (or Shesterkin) aren't around. Secondary scoring is still an issue, although it's improving every single game now. But if we don't see the playoffs this season, it isn't because the vets aren't genuinely good enough to be successful as a top 6. There's nothing here, other than Zib's struggles in the first half, to indicate that. And there's more than enough evidence to to believe that the after effects of COVID-19 were responsible for his poor play during that portion.

I think that anyone saying the top 6 on this team isn't good enough on this team has a really short term memory. Panarin missed a quarter of the season. Zibanejad effectively missed 50% of it. Shesterkin missed a quarter as well. Those were big pieces of the puzzle missing. It's not a top-end talent issue. But a depth issue. And as the youngsters get better and better, that issue will go away, and eventually they'll be the top 6. But not yet.

Other teams have also had health challenges. Mika is great when he's on, which isn't always. Kreider is definitely not always on, but he always gets his playing time.

Question is, are we a rebuilding team or a win-now team? If it's win-now, yeah, play the vets, maybe trade the youths for that secondary scoring you think we lack. Put pieces around the vet core.

But if it's rebuilding, we're not doing it right.

 

[Rongomania]

Redden?
Holik?
Keane?
Skrudland?
Gomez?



Listen youngin'... you don't know pain or misery.

Next year after every loss can we post a picture of Wade with the Whale jersey and the weird mustache he had while making 6.5 mil in the AHL to remind everyone what a really bad signing is?

 

[The New Russian Five]

I'm a subscriber to the yin-yang approach. There is good in the bad, and bad in the good.

I don't dislike DQ, but I don't always agree with him either.

I think there are things he does well, that he doesn't credit for. I think there are things he doesn't do well, that he should accountable for.

When I see Blackwell playing 1/3 of the game, Howden getting 13 mins, and Laf, Chytil, Kakko and Kravtov getting less time - yeah, that pisses me off.

Blackwell has exceeded any and all expectations. He deserves to play. But that has it's limits and there is no way on the planet he should playing nearly 20 minutes. That is unacceptable to me.

I will tell you that someone like Blackwell also concerns me a little bit. Here is a guy who never scored more than 6 goals or 19 points in college. Never scored more than 17 goals or 45 points in the AHL. Had 3 goals and 10 points in 33 NHL games coming into this season.

Now suddently he has 12 goals, 22 points in 36 games. Yes, there are late bloomers. But it's rare for late bloomers to completely blow away any production they've had at previous levels at the age of 28.

With Blackwell I worry that he's kind of like junk food for the Rangers. They're hungry, they don't feel like cooking, so they grab a bag of chips from the cupboard. It fills their stomach, but there's really no sustenance or nutrition pulled from the bag of chips.

Blackwell has a place on this team, but he's also not a long-term answer on this team, nor should he be used as a go-to guy. We're not at the point where we have not one, not two, not even three, but four young, skilled forwards who we aren't consistently giving more opportunities to.

And no, it's not about handing them opportunities. It's about putting them in different situations where we can see what they've got, maybe situations that play to their strengths and minimize their weaknesses, and when appropriate, reward them for results.

Last game was a prime example of what drove me nuts. Not one, but two of them score a goal, they show zip, and then I'm watching Blackwell taking a pass from Panarin while the kids sit on the bench, or watching the line rotations change up so that it kills any momentum they had, or doesn't allow them to rebuild and overcome a mistake.

I defend DQ, but I don't always agree with the takes. But I'm also objective, and that's the shit that drives me nuts.

I can agree with this, but the other issue with Quinn is some of his game plan strategy. The team looks discombobulated on breakouts, and the forecheck is often a joke. We dump the puck in and are so slow to the forecheck that it's almost a guaranteed easy breakout. That can't possibly be all on the players. There is something up with the coaches instructions that is allowing this.

When Kravtsov (who hasn't been with us all season) comes in and suddenly looks like your best forechecker, there is clearly an issue with how players on this team are being prepped for games.

 

[jay from jersey]

Talking PP that has been more than red hot (or white hot, or as I prefer "blue hot") .

Don't know if it's a part of the new PP plan but noticed that lately either one of Panarin, Zibanejad or Strome find themselves at the top of the umbrella on the blue line taking one-timers.

The whole unit is putting more rubber on net. It’s creating more rebound chances, before they were over passing and the go to play was the Zibby one timer. The other players where rarely a threat to shoot. You could see other teams would game plan against our PP. they would shade where Panarin was or Zibby was and let the rest have more time and room. Zibby was also not top notch prior as we all know

 

[jay from jersey]

Thank you! Would Quinn get props for his team beating these odds? Nah...

Can’t bet on a 4 game sweep in regular season. The rangers were minus every game on the Moneyline which is very unusual playing the same team 4 times in a row

 

[aufheben]

Good god we have Edge on our side. Will be really interesting to see if the usual suspects have the balls to call you idiotic/imbecilic/etc. for daring to question the coaching.

Lirl people have been disagreeing with Edge all season. Like come on.

 

[romba]

Lirl people have been disagreeing with Edge all season. Like come on.

This was like when in elementary school we'd have an interschool rivalry/fight on the school bus (40% of the kids were from a diff school located near ours) and then one time our school's HS kids came on the same bus with us, we were like say your prayers other school, we got bad ass high schoolers on our side its OVER, and the HS kids couldn't give 2 shits

 

[kovazub94]

I'm a subscriber to the yin-yang approach. There is good in the bad, and bad in the good.

I don't dislike DQ, but I don't always agree with him either.

I think there are things he does well, that he doesn't credit for. I think there are things he doesn't do well, that he should accountable for.

When I see Blackwell playing 1/3 of the game, Howden getting 13 mins, and Laf, Chytil, Kakko and Kravtov getting less time - yeah, that pisses me off.

Blackwell has exceeded any and all expectations. He deserves to play. But that has it's limits and there is no way on the planet he should playing nearly 20 minutes. That is unacceptable to me.

I will tell you that someone like Blackwell also concerns me a little bit. Here is a guy who never scored more than 6 goals or 19 points in college. Never scored more than 17 goals or 45 points in the AHL. Had 3 goals and 10 points in 33 NHL games coming into this season.

Now suddently he has 12 goals, 22 points in 36 games. Yes, there are late bloomers. But it's rare for late bloomers to completely blow away any production they've had at previous levels at the age of 28.

With Blackwell I worry that he's kind of like junk food for the Rangers. They're hungry, they don't feel like cooking, so they grab a bag of chips from the cupboard. It fills their stomach, but there's really no sustenance or nutrition pulled from the bag of chips.

Blackwell has a place on this team, but he's also not a long-term answer on this team, nor should he be used as a go-to guy. We're not at the point where we have not one, not two, not even three, but four young, skilled forwards who we aren't consistently giving more opportunities to.

And no, it's not about handing them opportunities. It's about putting them in different situations where we can see what they've got, maybe situations that play to their strengths and minimize their weaknesses, and when appropriate, reward them for results.

Last game was a prime example of what drove me nuts. Not one, but two of them score a goal, they show zip, and then I'm watching Blackwell taking a pass from Panarin while the kids sit on the bench, or watching the line rotations change up so that it kills any momentum they had, or doesn't allow them to rebuild and overcome a mistake.

I defend DQ, but I don't always agree with the takes. But I'm also objective, and that's the shit that drives me nuts.

Disagree here. Blackwell is on the shortest possible leash but with that he's been producing at a very nice clip since put into top-6 role.
So is the sum total will be the same if he's flipped off Strome's line vs Kakko or Kravtsov (who singlehandedly made 4th line dangerous)? IMO I don't think Kakko will be able to produce this well with Panarin, and Blackwell will have a lesser impact on the 4th line than Kravtsov (even if Kravtsov matches Blackwell production in top-6).
If DQ thinks the same then he's going to ride his horses in the same order until their charge to get to playoffs is over, which is a big priority at this point to be able to maintain (and for kids to experience) this intensity level.

 

[kovazub94]

The whole unit is putting more rubber on net. It’s creating more rebound chances, before they were over passing and the go to play was the Zibby one timer. The other players where rarely a threat to shoot. You could see other teams would game plan against our PP. they would shade where Panarin was or Zibby was and let the rest have more time and room. Zibby was also not top notch prior as we all know

This is exactly what this move accomplished. Fox was never a thread to shoot from the blue line and now they are generating it by moving around.

 

[chosen]

hi, its me again. More questions about this chart.

how does this chart measure scoring chances? Is it based off SoG?

would a two on one where nonshot happened, or missed net count as a scoring chance?

Just trying to understand how the numbers behind this chart.

It's utterly useless except to Hulk Machinehead. He thinks it's more important than the scoreboard.