Toggle sidebar

Speculation: Roster Building Thread: Part XIV

  • We're expecting server maintenance on March 3rd starting at midnight, there may be downtime during the work.
  • Xenforo Cloud has upgraded us to version 2.3.6. Please report any issues you experience.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I'd like to point out that Namestnikov is looking like the guy to keep between Spooner and him. He's thrived the last couple weeks since he's been benched.

I like him with Zibanejad a lot. I wouldn't break them up anytime soon. I know they want to keep Lias at center for the moment, but if they need to get him minutes, he should be glued with Zibby and Vlad.

I was surprised Lias didn't score last night on that nifty move he made on the defender. Usually he's money on those.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vinny DeAngelo
Edge said:
But I think that's part of the problem. We consistently dismiss any success we have and downplay it.

It's like we go in with the preconceived notion and then make the evidence fit the narrative we decided on.

If that roster is just a little bit healthier in LA, or certain guys aren't banged up --- that's a very different outcome.

I didn't see a team get overwhelmed against LA, or against Tampa, or even against NJ. I saw a team that was a healthy McD away, or a Rick Nash hot streak away, or some other fairly attainable difference away.

This team played A LOT of playoff hockey from 2012-2015 --- 57 games in total.

Frankly, this team could've beat LA.
Click to expand...


I can play the what if game too, what if the Rangers lost to Pitt in the 2nd round after being down 3-1?
 
DutchShamrock said:
What if the league didn't make us play 6 in 9 nights? This is could go on forever.
Click to expand...
I did not start the what if game.

My point, the Rangers could be building the same thing they did, a team who has to beat the odds in like 3 or 4 of the playoff series they would need to win to win a Cup.

Four 50/50 coin flips = ~6% probability of winning all 4 in a row, Rangers should maybe be building a roster that has ~6% chance to win a Cup? In order to do so they have to be at least 50/50 for those 4 series.

How do they get there?
 
Off Sides said:
I did not start the what if game.

My point, the Rangers could be building the same thing they did, a team who has to beat the odds in like 3 or 4 of the playoff series they would need to win to win a Cup.

Four 50/50 coin flips = ~6% probability of winning all 4 in a row, Rangers should maybe be building a roster that has ~6% chance to win a Cup? In order to do so they have to be at least 50/50 for those 4 series.

How do they get there?
Click to expand...
Who says they had to beat the odds in 3 out of 4 series? I had them as the favorite in 3 of 4.
 
Off Sides said:
I did not start the what if game.

My point, the Rangers could be building the same thing they did, a team who has to beat the odds in like 3 or 4 of the playoff series they would need to win to win a Cup.

Four 50/50 coin flips = ~6% probability of winning all 4 in a row, Rangers should maybe be building a roster that has ~6% chance to win a Cup? In order to do so they have to be at least 50/50 for those 4 series.

How do they get there?
Click to expand...
You took Edge's point and twisted it, that's how. He was just refuting the notion that this was a trash team in disguise for years. We were closer to winning than being 1st round chumps. He wasn't playing the what if game, just making a point.
 
Thirty One said:
Who says they had to beat the odds in 3 out of 4 series? I had them as the favorite in 3 of 4.
Click to expand...
Really, the Pitt series and the LA series?

DutchShamrock said:
You took Edge's point and twisted it, that's how. He was just refuting the notion that this was a trash team in disguise for years. We were closer to winning than being 1st round chumps. He wasn't playing the what if game, just making a point.
Click to expand...

I never said they were a trash team, I said their skaters were overwhelmed by the skater rosters that eliminated them over those runs and Lundqvist could only somewhat mitigate the difference. Then it was the what if game not started by me.

I think it's possible that is a similar group of skaters the Rangers could end up with unless they do eventually draft some elite skaters. Then I qualified that as maybe I am underestimating what their pool has, or maybe they can get them through other means.
 
Off Sides said:
I can play the what if game too, what if the Rangers lost to Pitt in the 2nd round after being down 3-1?
Click to expand...

But I don't think that's the point.

The premise was that the Rangers were overwhelmed and outmatched against top teams, and yet the results show that they were right there 3 out of 4 years. Additionally, the difference between them being a champion or being the first runner-up was as much about timing and a little bit of good fortune than it was that the Rangers weren't the better team per se.

Again, this team was 2 goals away from back to back cup finals appearances. Maybe even just one OT goal away. Arguably a couple of goals away from 3 Stanley Cup apperances in 4 years?

That doesn't strike me as overwhelmed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pld459666
Edge said:
But I don't think that's the point.

The premise was that the Rangers were overwhelmed and outmatched against top teams, and yet the results show that they were right there 3 out of 4 years. Additionally, the difference between them being a champion or being the first runner-up was as much about timing and a little bit of good fortune than it was that the Rangers weren't the better team per se.

Again, this team was 2 goals away from back to back cup finals appearances. Maybe even just one OT goal away. Arguably a couple of goals away from 3 Stanley Cup apperances in 4 years?

So we're not necessarily talking about an isolated season surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
Click to expand...

They did not win the Cup, they had no group of players that went near, at or over a point per game.

The teams that eliminated them, sans the Devils (which I did not look up, maybe they did), had a better group of skaters statistically in every one of their runs.

How is what I am saying not what happened without the what ifs?
 
Off Sides said:
Really, the Pitt series and the LA series?
Click to expand...
I had them as favorites in the Pittsburgh series, yes.

playoffodds.png


round2forecast.png

round3forecast.png

scfforecast.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: Off Sides
Off Sides said:
They did not win the Cup, they had no group of players that went near, at or over a point per game.

The teams that eliminated them, sans the Devils (which I did not look up, maybe they did), had a better group of skaters statistically in every one of their runs.

How is what I am saying not what happened without the what ifs?
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about the individual stats, I am talking about what they did as a team.

So, you're telling me that those Rangers teams looked overwhelmed?

Because I did not see that.

You're citing other teams being better statistically, and yet the Rangers hung right there with them and the difference.

I don't see a team being overwhelmed, I don't see a team being better collectively. I see a few bounces going the wrong way and a very competitive series.

I don't think the argument is whether the Rangers lost, I think the argument is whether the Rangers belonged. And the Rangers belonged and weren't that far off from winning.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pld459666, Tawnos and Thirty One
Off Sides said:
Really, the Pitt series and the LA series?



I never said they were a trash team, I said their skaters were overwhelmed by the skater rosters that eliminated them over those runs and Lundqvist could only somewhat mitigate the difference. Then it was the what if game not started by me.

I think it's possible that is a similar group of skaters the Rangers could end up with unless they do eventually draft some elite skaters. Then I qualified that as maybe I am underestimating what their pool has, or maybe they can get them through other means.
Click to expand...
Dude... I didn't attribute the trash team quote to you or anyone. I'm climbing out of this rabbit hole though.
 
Off Sides said:
I am surprised you had them as favorites as Pitt was seeded 1st, but good on you.
Click to expand...
Puck Prediction dot com also had the Rangers as favorites to win that series (53%). The sentiment was there in some corners that the Rangers were actually a good team. Not here, though. Most here thought we should trade every player because of the existence of Pittsburgh and Boston.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Blue Blooded, lucky13, jas and 1 other person
Edge said:
I'm not talking about the individual stats, I am talking about what they did as a team.

So, you're telling me that those Rangers teams looked overwhelmed?

Because I did not see that.

You're citing other teams being better statistically, and yet the Rangers hung right there with them and the difference.

I don't see a team being overwhelmed, I don't see a team being better collectively. I see a few bounces going the wrong way and a very competitive series.

I don't think the argument is whether the Rangers lost, I think the argument is whether the Rangers belonged. And the Rangers belonged and weren't that far off from winning.
Click to expand...


Yes I saw a team that got out to early leads, and could not hold on to them even with their goalie playing as well as he did. The Kings skaters turned those game to their advantage because they performed better than the Rangers skaters.

I don't see how this roster is not a superior statistical roster to the next one.

My point is the same as it was when this started, the Rangers are going to need some group of players that can do what the Kings roster did in those playoffs, if history is a guide, since the salary cap, other than the one year Chicago won for, I think their 2nd or 3rd time every roster than has won has had some group of players that matches up more so with that Kings roster than to what the Rangers had.



NHL.com - Stats

NHL.com - Stats
 
Off Sides said:
Yes I saw a team that got out to early leads, and could not hold on to them even with their goalie playing as well as he did. The Kings skaters turned those game to their advantage because they performed better than the Rangers skaters.

I don't see how this roster is not a superior statistical roster to the next one.

My point is the same as it was when this started, the Rangers are going to need some group of players that can do what the Kings roster did in those playoffs, if history is a guide, since the salary cap, other than the one year Chicago won is for I think their 2nd or 3rd time every roster than has won has had some group of player that matches up more so with that Kings roster than to what the Rangers had.



NHL.com - Stats

NHL.com - Stats
Click to expand...

I mean, if you want to play this in both directions like you did earlier in the thread, the Kings also couldn't contain the Rangers early in games. The Kings skaters absolutely did not perform better than the Rangers in that series. In terms of goals scored, I believe it's the closest series in SCF history, or it's right among the closest. The series was a standstill that was determined by bounces that went the Kings direction.
 
Here I am bringing up things that actually happened fending off like 3 people who are bringing up stuff that did not happen.

Rangers lost 4-1

They were outscored 15 - 10

Points per game over their whole runs

Kings
Kopitar 1.0
Carter .96
Williams .96
Gaborik .85


Rangers had
Kreider at .87
McD .68
Stepan .63
MSL .60


Compare the runs of every other Cup champ since the salary cap to the Kings, now to the Rangers, other than one of them(again I think it one of the Chicago runs), they all have skaters(plural) who went near (.8 or higher), at 1.0 per game. or even above a point per game played.

Is it really that bad that I want the Rangers to have some group of skaters that would compare to what has been winning the Cup since the salary cap was introduced?

If so, bad on me

If that is a good thing then how do the Rangers get that group?
 
Go Away Staal said:
McDonagh also went pointless for like the first 10 games of that run or something.

He was a monster from the middle of the Pens series onwards
Click to expand...


I agree, that actually happened.

10 points in 6 games in the Montreal series and 4 in 5 versus LA.

How do the Rangers get that sort of player and then add like 3 or 4 more skaters that can do something like that?

Then repeat that roster for several years in a row in hopes that all these other things like bounces and whatever go more the Rangers way than the other teams way?
 
Off Sides said:
I agree, that actually happened.

10 points in 6 games in the Montreal series and 4 in 5 versus LA.

How do the Rangers get that sort of player and then add like 3 or 4 more skaters that can do something like that?

Then repeat that roster for several years in a row in hopes that all these other things like bounces and whatever go more the Rangers way than the other teams way?
Click to expand...

Sacrificing Zucc to Beelzebub
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom