Speculation: Roster Building Thread: Part XXIII

[Blue Blooded]

I like TDA and don't take this as a knock on him. He was matched against Kane, Strome and Caligula against Chicago and did well.

Against Boston:
View attachment 178721

Against Hurricanes:
View attachment 178723



Yeah, its mind-boggling how well they did above, isn't it? But it doesn't matter who you play against right? A math professor in Vancouver said so (with total disregard of a ton of relevant factor speaking in the other direction). Its only a coincidence that TDA's CF% without the top opposition is 5x as good against Chicago as with them almost twice as good as against Carolina? Right? Purely a coincidence?

First of all, I can pick out minuscule samples where DeAngelo has dominated top guys (like the Kane example) and where Pionk has been crushed. In fact that is way more common than the other way around. E.G. DeAngelo has been a +19 RelCF% against Panarin this season and +15 against Barkov, Barzal and Giroux. In these microsamples you are going to see every outcome under the sun, what matters is the aggregate.

Secondly, nobody is claiming that "who you are playing against doesn't matter". Nobody is disputing that in the specific minutes you play against top competition, such as the Bergeron line, you will have worse metrics than when you play weak competition - that is a ridiculous strawman.

What has been said is that the impact of QoC on your overall on-ice metrics is significantly lower than the impact of QoT and is in fact almost, though not entirely, negligible. This is because on the whole your matchups aren't as specific as one might think. My view is that unless you do multivariate projection models that put a specific number to weight the QoC on relation to other metrics you might as well disregard it on the aggregate.

It has also been observed that players who have better metrics against poor competition usually have better metrics against top competition. I did some work on this way back in the summer of 2013 when most of this board was adamant that Girardi was a legit top-pairing defenceman and that Strålman, seen as a 3rd pairing guy, never could handle the top guys like he could. I dug into the data and showed that Strålman was significantly better than Girardi against every tier of competition, because even though he was on lower pairings he still had accumulated a ton of minutes against top competition - just like every defenceman. In fact in the specific case of Girardi it turned out that he was comparatively worse against top competition than against weak - funny that. Most players' competition curve looks the roughly the same, though Strålman did have a flatter curve and Girardi a steeper one. Unfortunately I can't replicate the work now because hockeyanalysis.com is no longer around and they were the only ones to present the data in a manner that such studies were feasible.

I also had a post earlier this year, which was a response to one of your posts, where I clearly showed that Skjei-DeAngelo had been used as our primary defensive pair for a stretch and that they performed significantly better than Staal-Pionk. A post which you conveniently ignored and never responded to.

 

[Blue Blooded]

I like TDA and don't take this as a knock on him. He was matched against Kane, Strome and Caligula against Chicago and did well.

Against Boston:
View attachment 178721

Against Hurricanes:
View attachment 178723





Yeah, its mind-boggling how well they did above, isn't it? But it doesn't matter who you play against right? A math professor in Vancouver said so (with total disregard of a ton of relevant factor speaking in the other direction). Its only a coincidence that TDA's CF% without the top opposition is 5x as good against Boston as with them almost twice as good as against Carolina? Right? Purely.a.coincidence?

Here is the CBJ game for example, seems like Tony was primarily matched against Panarin and had him covered while Pionk saw much fewer minutes against him and got completely obliterated.

 

[Ola]

Blueblooded- I have not responded to many of those points because I agree with them! Unfortunately it tend to be like that, you nod in agreement and take up all good info and analysis you see but jump out and reply only when you see something you don’t agree with.

The point was made that TDAs play the three games without Pionk showed that Pionk was horrible and TDA posted top CF% against the best of the other team. That the usage didn’t have as much impact etc.

That was just not at all the case. In one game he faced a top star playing with two struggling up and comers and did GREAT. In the two other games he had a CF% of 10% and then 30%. The description made and the point I responded to was just not even remotely correct.

Then you have the CBJ game. Not to take anything away from TDA, I think he is really underrated — it should be mentioned that the CF% after a point of a game where the score of a game is a bit nuts and one team looks like it have ran away with it — is not only super small sample size, but also HIGLY impacted by the mental status of the two teams. In the game you referred, TDA was like Pionk destroyed up to a certain point of the game (he had like CF% 9 up until that point, right?), then the momentum shifted and as far as I can see most if not all rangers did great.

 

[Glennsoe]

which twitter account is the "best" to follow for Ranger trade rumours and such?

 

[Ola]

Blueblooded- I just think it’s a bit dishonest to claim that TDA during three games without Pionk did GREAT in that shut down role we have struggled so much with for years, when he de facto had a CF% of 10% and 30% in two of three games. Don’t you agree with that?

I just think that whoever presents numbers must have some kind of loyalty to give a fair picture of it, because numbers — if you intentionally try to be misleading — can show anything.

There is only one truth, when Pionk was out TDA’s CF% against the top of the other team was like what 60% / 10% / 30%.

 

[RangerBoy]

Labanc better be coming with that 2nd.

Something else needs to be added with that 2nd round pick but that high 2nd would be something the Rangers will want because the other 2nd's will be lower.

Getting a first for Zuccarello will not be easy because there are other rentals available for trade. There are only so many teams in that market.

 

[RangerBoy]

If Larry Brooks had his way, the Rangers rebuild would be over. If you have read this stuff over the last year, he doesn't want them to trade anyone. How every player shouldn't be viewed as an asset. If it was up to him, Kevin Hayes would have been given 6-7 years last summer. When he has discussed trading Hayes it is always for some unrealistic deal for a pending rental. He doesn't them to trade Kreider. Chris will get more than $6M. JVR got $7M. Pacioretty got $7M and Nevada has no state income tax. Kreider has a tough agent in Matt Keator. This will be Kreider's last contract at 29. Brooksie wanted the Rangers to pay Staal too. That was the cost of doing business too. He wants them to have a competitive team and slowly brings young players in. Sign big free agents. He wrote the same stuff about McDonagh. How the Rangers need to bring back Nylander for McDonagh. He wanted them to sign Kovalchuk and how Ilya would become a core member of his team. How Marty Brodeur vouched for Kovalchuk as a teammate. No cares about what Marty thinks. Kovalchuk has 9 goals in 40 games. LA has him signed for 2 more seasons. Rebuilding teams don't sign 35 year old players to multi-year contracts. Rebuilding teams don't sign big free agent contracts. Period.

His idea of "rebuilding" sounds like the Neil Smith plan. The Rangers maneuvered to select Brendl and Lundmark in 1999. Then the Rangers signed Fleury, Kamensky, Lefebvre, Quintal, Taylor and McLean. Make the Rangers team competitive and then wait for Malholtra, Brendl and Lundmark to become part of the team.

How did that work out?

 

[haohmaru]

His idea of "rebuilding" sounds like the Neil Smith plan. The Rangers maneuvered to select Brendl and Lundmark in 1999. Then the Rangers signed Fleury, Kamensky, Lefebvre, Quintal, Taylor and McLean. Make the Rangers team competitive and then wait for Malholtra, Brendl and Lundmark to become part of the team.

How did that work out?

Terribly, obviously. They botched the draft and that list of free agents isn't exactly the who's who of good players in the late 90's.

But, then again, Larry Brooks isn't the GM of the Rangers so I'm not sure why we care about what you think he'd do if he were.

 

[RangerBoy]

Ranger's missed their shot to fleece Edmonton. No way that Chiarelli isn't fired ASAP.

Kreider has an 11 no trade list. There is a very good chance Edmonton is on that list.

 

[haohmaru]

Kreider has an 11 no trade list. There is a very good chance Edmonton is on that list.

I think he was talking about Zuccarello, not Kreider. Either way, Edmonton as a trading partner just got a lot less likely.

 

[Ghost of jas]

Wow, a quality take from Brooks, and a sentiment a few of us have expressed here. If a team is willing to overpay for Kreider then yes, you move here m. But, if you can get him for $6 million per for 6 years, that’s a steal IMO. Of course, Brooks doesn’t completely get it right. He claims the Rangers haven’t added any A prospects, which, unless he means the prospects actually acquired the n the trades, isn’t true, as Chytil, Kravtsov and Miller are all A prospects.

But, all told, blind squirrel, nut, yadda, yadda, yadda...

 

[Blue Blooded]

Blueblooded- I just think it’s a bit dishonest to claim that TDA during three games without Pionk did GREAT in that shut down role we have struggled so much with for years, when he de facto had a CF% of 10% and 30% in two of three games. Don’t you agree with that?

I just think that whoever presents numbers must have some kind of loyalty to give a fair picture of it, because numbers — if you intentionally try to be misleading — can show anything.

There is only one truth, when Pionk was out TDA’s CF% against the top of the other team was like what 60% / 10% / 30%.

He did GREAT because he got "shutdown" deployment against all opposition in these games and still managed to put up top possession numbers (relative to the team). So not only did he get saddled with the most difficult matchups (which will drag his CF%) and got the most difficult deployments in these (which will drag his CF%), all his play against the easier opposition was defensively geared in terms of deployment (which will drag his CF%) and he still came out with top notch numbers overall.

 

[Lays]

Wow, a quality take from Brooks, and a sentiment a few of us have expressed here. If a team is willing to overpay for Kreider then yes, you move here m. But, if you can get him for $6 million per for 6 years, that’s a steal IMO. Of course, Brooks doesn’t completely get it right. He claims the Rangers haven’t added any A prospects, which, unless he means the prospects actually acquired the n the trades, isn’t true, as Chytil, Kravtsov and Miller are all A prospects.

But, all told, blind squirrel, nut, yadda, yadda, yadda...

Brooks meant at the TDL we didn’t get any A prospects

 

[Ghost of jas]

Brooks meant at the TDL we didn’t get any A prospects

I must have read it too fast.

 

[Vinny DeAngelo]

I think he was talking about Zuccarello, not Kreider. Either way, Edmonton as a trading partner just got a lot less likely.

That really spoils the fun for us... now we’re probably waiting until the trade deadline again

 

[wafflepadsave]

That really spoils the fun for us... now we’re probably waiting until the trade deadline again

We always were. These guys wait until the last minute.

 

[Ori]

which twitter account is the "best" to follow for Ranger trade rumours and such?

Well I like the official news so I follow both Rangers and the Canucks. @Glennsoe New York Rangers (@NYRangers) | Twitter
About typical rumor tweets TSN have some for sure, but it`s more general sport news: TSN (@TSN_Sports) | Twitter

 

[RGY]

Edmonton was interested in Zucc. There were tweets last night about it.

They also tried to trade Talbot to a non-playoff eastern conference team. That team was on Talbot’s NTC. Doubt it was us even though the speculation Talbot was part of a larger deal. Was it Ottawa for Dzingel?

Are we really talking about Kreider getting a new contract in the same light of Staal’s re-signing? Cmon that is just f***ing stupid. I am sorry, I know there is a couple here that would LOVE to trade Kreider for whatever absurd reason...well the reason is because we arent tanking good enough so we need to get rid of every soul on this team.

There will be a market for Zucc and Hayes. Nams has drawn interest although I wouldnt mind keeping him moving forward for depth as the team comes together in the next 2-3 years.

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

Wow, a quality take from Brooks, and a sentiment a few of us have expressed here. If a team is willing to overpay for Kreider then yes, you move here m. But, if you can get him for $6 million per for 6 years, that’s a steal IMO. Of course, Brooks doesn’t completely get it right. He claims the Rangers haven’t added any A prospects, which, unless he means the prospects actually acquired the n the trades, isn’t true, as Chytil, Kravtsov and Miller are all A prospects.

But, all told, blind squirrel, nut, yadda, yadda, yadda...

I am not a fan of Brook's personality, especially his sense of entitlement, but he is a pretty good reporter, especially in these times when they are quite rare. He came up in a time without any analytics, and while an old mentality appears in some of his reporting he has worked quite hard to understand the newer parts of the game as well. For this, he should be given credit.

It's clear his interpretation of A prospect is far different from yours. Chytil and Miller are unlikely to be game-breakers. They may turn into very good, top line players, but it seems rather obvious to me that Brooks was referring to game-breaking talents, not necessarily generational, but someone who you can build your team around for a decade. In that sense, I can't say I fully disagree with him. Kravtsov might become that guy, but we are undoubtedly still lacking someone who projects to be a can't-miss, sure fire, perennial all-star.

You can argue Chytil, Miller and Kravtsov could turn into that, but they are not sure things, far from it, especially Miller who has a lot of tools to be excited about, but is still a ways off from the NHL. Hughes, Kakko, Cozens, these are the kinds of guys that change the trajectory of a franchise and, in my opinion, is who he is referring to.

 

[Shesterkybomb]

Once again...are we allowed to like both DeAngelo and Pionk or do I have to pick a side? Each has their warts, each has their upside, but anyone claiming that DeAngelo is a good dman right now is looking too much at the positives and not enough at the negatives. He has been better this recent stretch but he has struggled to stay in the lineup while Pionk has played most of the year, there is a reason for it. Now if Deangleo has FINALLY gotten it then we are better off for it.Hopefully both guys go through this part of their development and come out better for it. So far the benchings seemed to have helped DeAngelo and without Quinn holding his feet to the fire we probably wouldnt see this version of him, maybe Pionk needs some tough love for a bit too.

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

His idea of "rebuilding" sounds like the Neil Smith plan. The Rangers maneuvered to select Brendl and Lundmark in 1999. Then the Rangers signed Fleury, Kamensky, Lefebvre, Quintal, Taylor and McLean. Make the Rangers team competitive and then wait for Malholtra, Brendl and Lundmark to become part of the team.

How did that work out?

I'm sorry, but comparing drafting in the 90's to today is just sad. Also, the guys you are referring to were signed when they were on the tail end of their careers for the most part, that is not at all what Brooks is advocating.

Hayes is entering the prime of his career, as is Kreider. It's significantly different to promote re-signing them at their ages to 5 or 6 year deals, then signing the guys you mentioned.

I just don't understand the comparisons being thrown around in here. They are not even remotely close to any reality.

 

[Mike in Houston]

I was in a nice discussion on Twitter regarding Kreider. From their perspective the belief is to deal him now in lieu of resigning him for 6 @ 6 million because by the third year of the deal Kreider would've lost much of his speed and the deal would look like an albatross. Power forwards break down faster than other players.

I disagree. I'm in the camp that we need to resign him for the reasons Larry referenced. At the same time I'm not opposed to trading him in the right deal. But what is the right deal? And how do you know that what you get back will match or exceed what you dealt. We know what we have in Kreider. He has handled playing in NY. He's a playoff performer. And he's part of the leadership group, perhaps the future captain. This team just can't be kids. You need guys like Kreider to lead the way.

 

[RGY]

Once again...are we allowed to like both DeAngelo and Pionk or do I have to pick a side? Each has their warts, each has their upside, but anyone claiming that DeAngelo is a good dman right now is looking too much at the positives and not enough at the negatives. He has been better this recent stretch but he has struggled to stay in the lineup while Pionk has played most of the year, there is a reason for it. Now if Deangleo has FINALLY gotten it then we are better off for it.Hopefully both guys go through this part of their development and come out better for it. So far the benchings seemed to have helped DeAngelo and without Quinn holding his feet to the fire we probably wouldnt see this version of him, maybe Pionk needs some tough love for a bit too.

I think ADA can be an effective player in this league. I think he has the ability to be a Shattenkirk-lite. Not great defensively but he sure as hell can produce offensively. And for that I can see him topping out as a #4 defenseman.

Pionk otoh...he has a ton of work to do. He needs to get better defensively. He is never going to be impactful offensively. He is a good skater but that means nothing. John Gilmour is a great skater and he shouldnt sniff the NHL. Pionk needs to identify what type of player he is going to be and needs to be to stay in the NHL. He screams the Dan Girardi path. Very similar situations. Girardi established who he was going to be and he enhanced those areas of his defensive game. Pionk is a better skater, but he needs to be better with his body positioning, physicality, stick on the ice in the right lanes, making better decisions with the puck on his stick, way better net front presence especially with the opposing forward in front with him, etc. I think Ryan Lindgren understands a lot of these areas and is why he has a better chance of establishing a long NHL career and top out as a #4. Pionk’s ceiling is a #5-#6 defenseman. And that is ok for an undrafted college free agent. But his “warts” compared to ADA’s hurt his chances more.

 

[RGY]

I'm sorry, but comparing drafting in the 90's to today is just sad. Also, the guys you are referring to were signed when they were on the tail end of their careers for the most part, that is not at all what Brooks is advocating.

Hayes is entering the prime of his career, as is Kreider. It's significantly different to promote re-signing them at their ages to 5 or 6 year deals, then signing the guys you mentioned.

I just don't understand the comparisons being thrown around in here. They are not even remotely close to any reality.

You beat me to it.

You cannot compare those drafts to now. Scouting is more advanced. More exposure. More technology. Even the analytics. Different management.

And above all, as far as free agency goes, not having a salary cap allowed for those terrible decisions. Front Offices, not just the Rangers, were much more reckless as long as they had the money. Bobby Holik. I mean there were some really bad ones in there. Stop comparing 2019 to 2000. That is just as reckless and essentially bringing in ancient facts to fit a narrative for an argument being made today.

I want Kreider re-signed. He is one of the most physically fit players in the NHL. He is a gym rat. I dont see his raw skills disappearing before age 35.

Hayes they can deal him. They can deal him and re-sign him. Either way I am ok with the decision.

Panarin is 27. He is elite. Please dont compare those bums we signed to Panarin. And for the record, Fleury was very good at times but we all know he had off ice problems that hurt him on the ice.

 

[Shesterkybomb]

I think ADA can be an effective player in this league. I think he has the ability to be a Shattenkirk-lite. Not great defensively but he sure as hell can produce offensively. And for that I can see him topping out as a #4 defenseman.

Pionk otoh...he has a ton of work to do. He needs to get better defensively. He is never going to be impactful offensively. He is a good skater but that means nothing. John Gilmour is a great skater and he shouldnt sniff the NHL. Pionk needs to identify what type of player he is going to be and needs to be to stay in the NHL. He screams the Dan Girardi path. Very similar situations. Girardi established who he was going to be and he enhanced those areas of his defensive game. Pionk is a better skater, but he needs to be better with his body positioning, physicality, stick on the ice in the right lanes, making better decisions with the puck on his stick, way better net front presence especially with the opposing forward in front with him, etc. I think Ryan Lindgren understands a lot of these areas and is why he has a better chance of establishing a long NHL career and top out as a #4. Pionk’s ceiling is a #5-#6 defenseman. And that is ok for an undrafted college free agent. But his “warts” compared to ADA’s hurt his chances more.

Pionk has been played above his head with Staal for the most part, he has been given a pretty tough task and to me has looked like he was trying to do too much. Everyone dumps on him when he makes the wrong play on a 2 on 1 while Staal is still at the other blueline. Pionk will be fine in a role suited to him, which is definately not a shut down pair. Put him with Claussen, 2nd or 3rd pair and he will thrive there.
DeAngelo isnt a top pair d either, never will be. To hear people talk about him here is mind boggling, a guy who couldnt be a regular on a roster begging for a top pair dman is now our best d? Come on, hes a bad game or two from watching again. He needs to play consistant for a longer stretch than 3 games, and I really hope he does because we need him to but let's all not get ahead of ourselves. It appears he has taken the coaches advice and has turned the corner but if either him or Pionk are on our top pair in 2 years we are in big trouble.