Rangers Team Stats
- Thread starter ecemleafs
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
Blue Blooded
Most people rejected his message
Yes they are. But to get even more sustainable stats you should look at 5v5, add missed shots as well, and adjust for score effects (teams sit back with big leads).
That leaves you with 5v5 Close Fenwick Differential, where the Rangers are 5th but are closing rapidly on the Bruins.
That leaves you with 5v5 Close Fenwick Differential, where the Rangers are 5th but are closing rapidly on the Bruins.
Blue Blooded
Most people rejected his message
Speaking of stats - everyone is freaking out about the first line. While they haven't been scoring they have totally dominated possession these past five games, the goals will come.
Nash has been on the ice for 97 5v5 shot attempts for in these five games - but not a single goal. That will correct itself.
Nash has been on the ice for 97 5v5 shot attempts for in these five games - but not a single goal. That will correct itself.
eco's bones
Registered User
Kreider and Nash have been getting opportunities--they just haven't been finishing. Nash's level of frustration seemed to be a little bit high last night. I thought Kreider looked really good though. As long as he plays more North-South than East-West--using his speed to drive defenses back and on the other hand makes sure he keeps track of his defense responsibilities I'm okay with what he's doing.
Considering the Bruins have been playing the same system for years and the Rangers were getting used to a new system for at least 10 games, being just slightly behind them speaks volumes.
Also the Rangers are 6th in Corsi which counts blocked shots. Which is a better stat? Wouldn't it be Corsi for puck possession? What "story" does Fenwick tell by taking out blocked shots? Quality of shots?
I honestly can't totally take these stats seriously with how high the Devils are. It's either entire too easy to be a good puck possession team or these stats are flawed.
I honestly can't totally take these stats seriously with how high the Devils are. It's either entire too easy to be a good puck possession team or these stats are flawed.
Blue Blooded
Most people rejected his message
Fenwick has been proven t correlate higher with winning, which makes sense as you could argue that getting your shots through/blocking shots against is a skill.
The "story" of Fenwick is that blocking shots is a skill to a large enough degree that blocked shots shouldn't count.
Though Corsi likely correlates better with actual puck possession.
Re: The Devils.
They've been a good possession team under DeBoer, but their PDO has sucked. While a big part of PDO (Sh% + Sv%) is luck it is likely that the Devils' system is conductive to a low PDO. Similarly, LA's system is seemingly conductive to a low Sh% - and perhaps the Rangers' as well. Though we had both high (2010-2012) and extremely low (2013) Sh% under Torts so maybe it is just random, our Sh% has been good lately.
Can you explain how a bunch of talentless hacks that are riding the play of a senior citizen can be a top team in both Corsi and Fenwick?
Edit: Devils.
Blue Blooded
Most people rejected his message
DeBoer's system. He seems to have figured out a way to dominate possession with mediocre players. The downside is that they struggle to create high-quality scoring chances and allow too many against.
Renney's system with the Rangers seemed to be similar - the Rangers dominated possession, but also struggled with low PDO.
But don't advanced stats proponents say that a low PDO is bad luck and not particular to a certain system?
Ok, next question. Even Fenwick gives missed shots and shots on goal an equal weight. Isn't getting shots on net an equal skill as getting shots not blocked? Isn't altering shots an equal skill to blocking them? A guy goes down, doesn't block the shot, but forces the shot wide. That's about an equal defensive play to a guy blocking the shot. I feel like a team that gets 40 shots on net and 10 wide is doing a better job than 20 shots on net and 30 wide. Yet Fenwick counts both as having an identical performance. I would sort of buy it if you didn't say that blocking shots and getting shots blocked was considered a skill and therefore taken out of Fenwick.
Blue Blooded
Most people rejected his message
It's mostly bad luck, then some of it is player quality, and a little bit could be the system. I mean under Renney we were very methodical up the ice which allowed the opposition D to "set" before we entered the zone - which obviously hidered chances in transition. SInce chances in transition are some of the highest quality chances there is - you could say our system likely hindered our Sh%.
I don't have any data to back up this system thing though, so don't quote me on this!
Next question:
There isn't a huge spread in percentage of missed shots. The team with the lowest percentage is Chicago with 24.36% of unblocked shot attempts missed and the highest is LA with 30.97%.
There is likely something there, but it isn't enough to be significant.
The reason Fenwick is considered the best metric is that it correlates better with future wins than Corsi or Shot differential (or anything else for that matter).
It's mostly bad luck, then some of it is player quality, and a little bit could be the system. I mean under Renney we were very methodical up the ice which allowed the opposition D to "set" before we entered the zone - which obviously hidered chances in transition. SInce chances in transition are some of the highest quality chances there is - you could say our system likely hindered our Sh%.
I don't have any data to back up this system thing though, so don't quote me on this!
Next question:
There isn't a huge spread in percentage of missed shots. The team with the lowest percentage is Chicago with 24.36% of unblocked shot attempts missed and the highest is LA with 30.97%.
There is likely something there, but it isn't enough to be significant.
The reason Fenwick is considered the best metric is that it correlates better with future wins than Corsi or Shot differential (or anything else for that matter).
I don't understand why blocking shots doesn't correlate highly with missed shots. Sometimes you block the shot, other times you alter the shots. Why is one such a better predictor than the other?
Blue Blooded
Most people rejected his message
Not sure about the correlation between missed shots and blocked shots, but it is not really relevant.
What is relevant is that Corsi, Fenwick, and Shot differentials have been proven to correlate far more with future wins than any other measurable statistic. Out of those three, Fenwick differential had the highest correlation. Therefore it is the most commonly used measure of underlying team ability, but not the only one that is used.
For example, PDO is only based on regular shots (i.e. on target). However, I am a proponent of using FPDO as a measure of luck instead of regular PDO as it would include such oddities as teams missing a suspiciously high percentage of their shots against Anaheim and Colorado.
To clarify a bit - the important thing is that they correlate with future wins. Wins naturally correlates higher with won games (100% even!), but less so with future wins which suggests that it is a worse measure of underlying skill. Sh% and Sv% also correlate very highly with wins, but not much at all with future wins (or future Sh% and Sv% for that matter) as they aren't very repeatable and therefore not good measure of underlying skill - they are primarily driven by variance (i.e. luck).
Last edited:
Blue Blooded
Most people rejected his message
God that was so infuriating!
Or when the breakout plan seemed to be the defenceman firing it from his own end at the stationary winger who'd either deflect it into the OZ with no one chasing, or miss the puck which proceeded to an icing.
Another question. Obviously high shot differential is a symptom of possession, but how would you compare a team that gets lots of shots and allows lots of shots to a team that gets few shots and allows few shots? Which one tends to be a better possession team and correlates better with winning? Like I don't understand how the Devils being such a great possession team can't get shots on net. Lots of blocks, lack of talent, system? They don't allow many. On the other hand we're a good possession team (though worse than the Devils in Corsi) yet we get a ton of shots, lots of good ones too, we do however allow significantly more against. I don't understand why one team shoots a lot and gives up a decent amount of shots (I believe middle of the road) and the other team shoots never and doesn't give up shots. Yet they're both good possession teams.
Blue Blooded
Most people rejected his message
I'd argue that it is better to be a high-event team (more shots for/against) if you are a positive possession team, but it is better to be a low-event team if you are a negative possession team.
Because the larger the sample -> the less variance in Sh% and Sv%. So if every team received the exact same quality of goaltending, the team with the best shot differential would win every time. Therefore it is better to be low-event when you are in the negative as there would be a greater chance that the variance effects gave you a win.
Obviously there are differences in shot quality- and goaltending talent between teams, but in the general case the above point stands.
It is the same thing with goaltending - you only want consistent goaltending if you have a good team. If you are a bad team, inconsistent goaltending actually gives you more wins. On a good team it is better to put up .92 every night, but on a bad team it is better to alternate between shutout and .85.
Interesting, that took me a bit to wrap my mind around.
But why are some high possession teams high event teams and other low event teams? Skill, system, something else?
BTW, we've had games of over 30 shots per game against most if not all of the top shots against teams. Pittsburgh for example is 6th and we had over 40 shots against them (40 in regulation).
despite a top 10 pp, we score less goals/game this year than we did last year...so the team has yet to prove torts wrong in anyway about their lack of offensive skill.
this team might be more fun to watch but the lack of goals is still there
Megustaelhockey
"I like hockey" in Spanish
- Apr 29, 2011
- 23,460
- 17,605
Except last year's team didn't have to learn a new system. This style of play is more conducive to long term success anyway.
If they are a "low event" team they aren't really "high possession". The Devils may well possess the puck in the O zone more than their opponents, but actually they aren't "high possession". Their Fenwick% is 5th in the league, but their Fenwickfor is 25th; so actually there is only 5 teams in the NHL worse at generating offensive puck possession. As you suggest, it is down to skill and system. The Devils play a conservative game. They can't/don't play an attacking style but they make up for that by not giving up much to the other team.
As regards to the earlier query about how these stats can be valid if a meh team like the Devils can be so high, well, these stats calculate shots in order to measure possession. They are only telling us about possession in the O and D zones. Without the added context of other stats - such as special teams, save% shooting%, strength of schedule - we can't see the whole story. Possession is an essential foundation but you need to do other things well too to be a good team.
Yes... but last yr the team was knocked out in the 2nd round. As was said the PP is better thus the 5 on 5 scoring must be down?
Is matching last yrs production the objective?
The team seems to lack "finishers".
Thus, the acquisition of a true goal scorer seems to be needed. Is there any money out there to sign anyone?
Latest posts
-
-
-
Confirmed with Link: Canucks Re-Sign G Kevin Lankinen 5y/4.5AAV
- Latest: sensodyne17
