Mancini does the little things better than Lindgren, like move the puck quickly and skate well enough to not be put in a bad spot to get hit and injured. Some of Lindgren’s injuries can be avoided if his skating was better.
Roster Building Thread - Part XII
- Thread starter Leonardo87
- Start date
- Status
Mancini does the little things better than Lindgren, like move the puck quickly and skate well enough to not be put in a bad spot to get hit and injured. Some of Lindgren’s injuries can be avoided if his skating was better.
McRanger92
Registered User
- Jun 7, 2017
- 11,422
- 21,111
Im perfectly fine with that. Our PP is going to be good no matter what with the players we have. The point of the whole exercise of changing things up is to not be so predictable, which we obviously are.
We have more than 5 guys who can play on the PP. Why does our top unit play for a minute 45 every time out? Why cant we spread the units more evenly and pick and choose which one starts (based on game situation, faceoff location, etc.). When youre down late or need a goal, nothing is stopping Lavi from putting the top guys out there together. We are way to linear in our thinking here.
And I'll say this for the people who are resistant to change. Did Panarin's 44 points on the PP mean anything when we went 1 for 14 or whatever it was when the team was fighting for their playoff lives against Florida? Status quo will lead to failure. We didnt make personnel changes so we need to make usage changes. If not, Laviolette will look good next to Hank on the TNT panel next year.
- Apr 16, 2012
- 4,724
- 5,888
His PPG dropped by 40%. From 20 to 12... his one timer definitely got less effective, probably because it is 100% predictable.
His assists stayed the same. 19.
- Apr 16, 2012
- 4,724
- 5,888
I want to try Laf (who is superior to most already at EV, and CERTAINLY better than Zibs 5v5) on the PP (and other looks) to see if it IMPROVES, and because our power play has shit the bed the last two post seasons and contributed to us being bounced from the playoffs... we need to be able to roll out alternate configurations. Has nothing to do with getting Laf's stats up. And stifling him, to save a million or two a year on his contract, is IMO penny wise and pound foolish.
Ok great.
So now we take Mika off the left bumper and replace him with Laf on the right bumper.
Sets up Trocheck better in the slot, but it hampers Fox and Panarin because those are their spots to roam traditionally.
But clearly hampering our two best offensive players is the right call.
- Apr 16, 2012
- 4,724
- 5,888
Reworking the power play is something we SHOULD do. The setup is a one trick pony and thus predictable. Hence Zibs PPGs, looking at the last two seasons, dropping 40%, from 20 to 12. Developing a reworked PP doesn't mean we can't primarily use our existing PP1, either. WHATEVER IS WORKING. Options are good. And the regular season is the time to get that familiarity, not just throw them together when PP1 is failing in the post season... Stagnate and die, adapt and survive.
DanielBrassard
It's all so tiresome
If Laf was more adept at one-timing the puck and we had a RH player play net front and a LH shot in the bumper it would make sense to put him on the PP. but that would require a lot of moving parts for the one unit on the team that we know is elite.
TominNC
Registered User
One trick pony and still top 5. The horror. Leave the PP alone and figure out a better 5v5 process
- Apr 16, 2012
- 4,724
- 5,888
You have a crystal ball? I don't. That's why I'm saying to try different things. and AGAIN, trying different things doesn't mean we cant use our existing PP1 whenever the f*** we feel like it... Do people think once we try something new that current configuration/option is gone forever? That its some sort of irrevocable change? Frankly I don't get the extreme resistance to seeing if we can make IMPROVEMENTS. Failure of PP1 was a big reason we've gotten bounced the last two years... Let's NOT see if we can avoid that this year... Head scratcher.
How about BOTH. Holy shit. Hahahaha.
Top 5 didn't help against FL...
TominNC
Registered User
Work on improving areas that are deficient.
The dead horse is already a jar of glue. It’s been explained dozens of time by various people. I’m not dealing with dense people any more. Bye
- Apr 16, 2012
- 4,724
- 5,888
Well, you've proclaimed the matter settled, so I guess that is that. hahaha. So DON'T deal with this "dense" person. I could not care less. And I take no offense. I don't need you to agree with me and don't give a shit if you are condescending. It's all good.
BTW PP1 WAS deficient when it mattered the last two post seasons. Pretty convenient to ignore that. I'm not talking about just plugging Laf in for Zibs. A totally DIFFERENT look/setup would actually likely be more effective as an alternative. Not going to know unless we try. Or we could just let the current PP1 shit the bed for the third straight post season bounce and only complain about other deficient areas...
Wild. This sort of thinking is like me saying we need a cure for colon cancer, and someone telling me we should concentrate on pancreatic cancer... when clearly, we need cures for BOTH.
SA16
Sixstring
There is no change you can make to the PP to "avoid failure in the playoffs." It's basic statistics. Things with low success rates (like a 25-30% PP) are prone to prolonged stretches of failure. The worse the PP, the more likely those stretches and the longer they are.
- Apr 16, 2012
- 4,724
- 5,888
Ummm. but when one PP has dropped below 10% and you have another that can have even 20% success rate... you've just doubled your chances of scoring a goal...
I'm not sure why people are so dead set against developing alternatives/options for an aspect of the game that helped get us bounced the last two post seasons...
What was the sample size in the Florida series?
it was less than 20 pp’s right? So the difference between 10% and 20% a couple goals… not 20 goals.
- Jan 18, 2012
- 34,467
- 52,317
The PP was just as effective when Mika was in the bumper and Panarin on the left wall. I'd honestly like Mika there, more than the poorly setup one timers from him
-----Kreider----
Panarin-Tro-Laffy
------Fox------
would be the alternate setup. I do not see Mika coming off the PP. I'm his biggest critic. It is what it is. I would rather he stay in the bumper where he had great success previously
Hire Sather
He Is Our Star
DanielBrassard
It's all so tiresome
The Crypto Guy
Registered User
- Jun 26, 2017
- 28,272
- 36,814
It’s not really many posters, SA16 just feels he needs to recycle the same argument 500 times and cant seem to budge on exploring anything different than keeping the same PP, no matter if they are slumping or not.
NYR Viper
Registered User
DanielBrassard
It's all so tiresome
I think we are less equipped to handle Panarin going down actually as crazy as that might sound. Especially since we still had Gustafsson who did an admirable job. Also missing 10 games compared to missing a few months is not quite the same.
- Apr 16, 2012
- 4,724
- 5,888
We lost games 4, 5 and 6 by one goal each... game 4 in OT... a couple of goals is a HUGE difference in the outcome. And who is to say it couldn't have gone a hot 35%... I used a low 20% to show even THAT could make a difference. We went 1 for 3 in game 4, and 0 for 4 in game 5 and 0 for 1 in game 6...
Again, in those circumstances, a couple of goals is huge, both scoreboard wise and momentum wise.
Not being a dick, genuinely interested in your thinking: Why are you opposed to trying some new looks/configurations during the regular season? I'm not saying throw away the current PP1, I'm saying ADD to it. What do you see the downside as? You don't think it will keep us out of the playoffs, or drop us way down in the seeding, do you?
- Apr 16, 2012
- 4,724
- 5,888
SA16
Sixstring
The team could actually be better without Panarin since that would let them upgrade the powerplay by putting Laf on PP1.
Well it's simple. You can understand math and variance. Or you can not. And there is very little successful convincing that can be done to those who aren't very intelligent. Oh no, the PP is 2 for it's last 20. So now you think that means on the next PP they are 10% to score? Or it's that they are like 26% to score as they've shown over hundreds of games? I wonder which is correct.
If you win $1 if a coin flip comes up heads and lose $1 if it comes up tails, and you flip it six times and it comes up tails all six times, would you go ahead and get a new coin for the 7th flip because clearly that one isn't performing well and is in a slump?
Well it's simple. You can understand math and variance. Or you can not. And there is very little successful convincing that can be done to those who aren't very intelligent. Oh no, the PP is 2 for it's last 20. So now you think that means on the next PP they are 10% to score? Or it's that they are like 26% to score as they've shown over hundreds of games? I wonder which is correct.
If you win $1 if a coin flip comes up heads and lose $1 if it comes up tails, and you flip it six times and it comes up tails all six times, would you go ahead and get a new coin for the 7th flip because clearly that one isn't performing well and is in a slump?
Last edited:
McRanger92
Registered User
- Jun 7, 2017
- 11,422
- 21,111
Prediction: If Panarin is out long term, the Rangers 5v5 numbers will improve. We will also lose a lot more games. Will be quite a conundrum for people.
RempireStateBuilding
Registered User
- Status
Ad
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Player Discussion The Slaf Thread - Parabolic Growth Edition- Latest: WeThreeKings
