Larrys13
Registered User
- Aug 14, 2020
- 94
- 82
In 2015 I couldn't post a simple takedown of Tanner Glass without someone posting a picture of him holding a puppy. And the world keeps spinning.It's obnoxious. They're obnoxious. Vince can't even make a simple assertion about Barclay Goodrow without a bunch of people flashing xGF and other metrics all the time.
From that ESPN article:
Panarin hasn't been as good all around this year as the last 2 years, but "declined drastically in the last 2 years" seems like it's an extremely misleading quote at best.
His pace this season of 1.20 ppg is higher than his career average (1.10), in fact, it's higher than any season in his career prior to joining the Rangers.
Yes, he was 1.37 his first year here and 1.38 in year 2, but are we REALLY going to act like Panarin being at 1.20 is a DRASTIC decline? Seems like a great player who had a Hart worthy season which will probably be his career peak, and his 'drastic decline' sees him still being virtually a 100 point player.
Panarin scoring at a 99 point pace with the team being a playoff team or scoring 113 point pace and being a lottery team. Which do you think Panarin and the Rangers would prefer?
Going into the season a lot of us felt that if this team were to make the playoffs, we would need the young kids to step up and produce. Chytil, Laffy, Kakko in particular.
Now the three of them have contributed but its a stretch to say they have stepped up and produced at another level. They havent been the deciding factor for the Rangers success thus far
Its kinda scary to think how good this team would be if those three were actually scoring at the paces they were predicted to be at this stage.
These are the same predictors who are saying the Rangers arent a good team.
He was 9th, 2nd, and 4th the previous 3 years, 39th is a decline. And comparing it to his non-Ranger years is a bit disingenuous considering scoring is quite a bit higher than it was 2015-2017. He's higher than McDavid (by 0.08), but McDavid's on-ice SH% is 3% lower, so that's an interesting comparison. I don't know how you can say his play driving numbers don't matter when his point production has decreased and his GF% is the lowest it's been since his rookie season. His ixGF/60 is at the lowest number in his career too.He's scoring 2.33 pts/60 at 5v5. That's 39th in the league for 500+ min forwards. Higher than Connor McDavid. Higher than 3 of his 4 non NYR years. He has the lowest individual shooting percentage of his career. His play driving numbers are bad. Doesn't really matter. A lot of it is team systems/structure based and those stats always underperform for the guys who are elite shooters/playmakers. The top players routinely significantly outscore their xG since almost all models extremely heavily regress things to the mean. Patrick Kane is always the obvious example for this. <50% xG% every year since 2014 (554 games played). 46.3 xGF%. 52.9 GF%.
Well said.Analytics have taken the enjoyment out of the game, which is a shame because they are very useful. Everyone is an expert now, and we aren’t allowed to enjoy wins or players if the charts don’t look good. The team has some major flaws right now (and thankfully they know it) but I didn’t need the advanced metrics to tell me that.
It's not the analytics themselves, but the people who tend to like them.
These guys are all in their late 20's early 30s and are convinced that most NHL GMs are idiots who actively play bad players and would be so much better if they just built teams based on analytics. It's the single most arrogant, entitled, self aggrandizing philosophy I've seen.
It's obnoxious. They're obnoxious. Vince can't even make a simple assertion about Barclay Goodrow without a bunch of people flashing xGF and other metrics all the time.
I’m not Panarin basher by any means but let’s not act like Panarin’s PPG “decline” from the last two seasons comes with improvements in other area of HIS game. This NY Rangers team are in the playoffs spot primarily due to Shesterkin and special teams (where Shesterkin is again the main reason for PK success).
But otherwise I agree that Panarin is way down the list of my concerns with this team and its coaching.
I generally like analytics and think they are useful tools to reveal truths and patterns that are hard for the mind to pick up on.
But this is undoubtedly true. I avoid “hockey Twitter” for this reason. I do my best to avoid falling into this trap but know I don’t always succeed.
He was 9th, 2nd, and 4th the previous 3 years, 39th is a decline. And comparing it to his non-Ranger years is a bit disingenuous considering scoring is quite a bit higher than it was 2015-2017. He's higher than McDavid (by 0.08), but McDavid's on-ice SH% is 3% lower, so that's an interesting comparison. I don't know how you can say his play driving numbers don't matter when his point production has decreased and his GF% is the lowest it's been since his rookie season. His ixGF/60 is at the lowest number in his career too.
He's scoring 2.33 pts/60 at 5v5. That's 39th in the league for 500+ min forwards. Higher than Connor McDavid. Higher than 3 of his 4 non NYR years. He has the lowest individual shooting percentage of his career. His play driving numbers are bad. Doesn't really matter. A lot of it is team systems/structure based and those stats always underperform for the guys who are elite shooters/playmakers. The top players routinely significantly outscore their xG since almost all models extremely heavily regress things to the mean. Patrick Kane is always the obvious example for this. <50% xG% every year since 2014 (554 games played). 46.3 xGF%. 52.9 GF%.
Thank you for providing this context. This is exactly why the quote in the article saying he has "declined drastically" rubbed me the wrong way and is misleading in my opinion. That quote is used to frame Panarin as being a problem with the Rangers and if you didn't know the actual numbers you would think he's scoring at like a 2nd liner rate or something. Dude is still 10th in the league in scoring.It was always going to decline. They shot 12.21% with him on the ice his first year. That's higher than any full season Crosby and Ovechkin have ever had. It was never sustainable and I've posted that many times over the last two years.
xG numbers are very biased towards volume shooters which Panarin is not. Of the players over 2 points/60 since 2019 (80 forwards) 26 of them are under 7 shots/60. Those guys average 2.57 xGF60 and 57.75 CF60 The 16 guys over 9 shots/60 average 2.76 xGF60 and 63.1 CF60. Intuitively this is obvious since an iCF guaranteed a CF/some xG whereas a player focused on passing and setting up plays does not get credited for those.
With regards to his defensive numbers I largely think they are irrelevant and are too team dependent. I don't care if they give up a lot of low quality shots and likewise I don't care if they choose to not take low quality shots. If you play with that sort of strategy you are almost guaranteed to have poor CF and xG numbers and I think that is optimal. A large percentage of shot attempts are total wastes and teams would be better off not taking them (i.e. the vast majority of shots from the defense or from beyond the circles). That is, of course, not an excuse for them being trapped in their zone too often like they were in the 2nd/3rd against Minnesota.
Likewise the Rangers as a team should be trying to play pond hockey and allow tons of chances and generate a lot of quality chances because what is the point of playing defensive and insulating the goalie when you have Shesterkin (same in the pass for Lundqvist)?
His On-ice SH% is virtually identical to what it was in 2018-19 and last season, so that doesn't explain the decline. What does explain it is that when he's on the ice the Rangers just simply aren't generating as many shots and as many chances when he is on the ice. In all honesty last season was a bit of a fluke as well, with a 94% IPP%, the next highest in his career is this season at 82.7%It was always going to decline. They shot 12.21% with him on the ice his first year. That's higher than any full season Crosby and Ovechkin have ever had. It was never sustainable and I've posted that many times over the last two years.
xG numbers are very biased towards volume shooters which Panarin is not. Of the players over 2 points/60 since 2019 (80 forwards) 26 of them are under 7 shots/60. Those guys average 2.57 xGF60 and 57.75 CF60 The 16 guys over 9 shots/60 average 2.76 xGF60 and 63.1 CF60. Intuitively this is obvious since an iCF guaranteed a CF/some xG whereas a player focused on passing and setting up plays does not get credited for those.
With regards to his defensive numbers I largely think they are irrelevant and are too team dependent. I don't care if they give up a lot of low quality shots and likewise I don't care if they choose to not take low quality shots. If you play with that sort of strategy you are almost guaranteed to have poor CF and xG numbers and I think that is optimal. A large percentage of shot attempts are total wastes and teams would be better off not taking them (i.e. the vast majority of shots from the defense or from beyond the circles). That is, of course, not an excuse for them being trapped in their zone too often like they were in the 2nd/3rd against Minnesota.
Likewise the Rangers as a team should be trying to play pond hockey and allow tons of chances and generate a lot of quality chances because what is the point of playing defensive and insulating the goalie when you have Shesterkin (same in the pass for Lundqvist)?
Saying analytics ruins your enjoyment of the Rangers is like saying the weatherman ruined your house when a hurricane floods it.
The weather channel isn't an entertainment industrySaying analytics ruins your enjoyment of the Rangers is like saying the weatherman ruined your house when a hurricane floods it.
They should draft at least 5 -6 of them this year...it will take at least a good young C probably 5 yrs to be a highly regarded #2 guy .....by then we will need a #1 Center....what a vicious circle we are in .need to draft those but the Rongos absolutely refuse
If he takes the two weeks off he will be in July form upon return . I hope I'm wrong and he works on his cardio .....yeah right LMAO....I wonder how many will vacation somewhere exotic ?It is. he had an absolute abysmal start to the year.
he 'adjusted' and said the right things. That he 'needed to move his feet'. He improved. Now he's headed back to the beginning of the season minus a few spurts and/or against former teams.
I'd add him as a scout /assistant coach in the organization . I'm sure he has a ton of skills he can assist with ....Staal was pretty cooked last year with MTL. Don't see how he will add anything to the Rangers. The Rangers need more speed, not to get even slower.
If you truly saw nothing wrong with the situation, it wouldn't bother you at all that other people complain.The weather channel isn't an entertainment industry
Justifying doom and gloom as a counterargument to people calling someone annoying posting on a fan board for a freakin hockey team lol
A more apt analogy would be me saying I like it where I live despite the weather and someone constantly complaining to me everyday that I shouldn't because the weather is actually so bad for reasons x, y, and z
I think he's making his full time home in Minn these days, so if he works for anyone I'd imagine its them.I'd add him as a scout /assistant coach in the organization . I'm sure he has a ton of skills he can assist with ....
That nerd needs to stop reading analytics.From a paywalled ESPN article on whether the Rangers are contenders or not:
"Do the Rangers play better when Shesterkin is in net because they have confidence in their goalie? Or is it Shesterkin actually making New York appear better as a team than it really is?
The general consensus is that the truth about the Rangers probably falls somewhere in the middle.
"Put it this way," one scout said. "I believe the Rangers can go as far as Shesterkin can take them."
Others were a little more direct in their feelings on the Rangers.
We asked one NHL executive whether the Rangers are "just" Igor Shesterkin.
"Yes," they said.
Is there anything else to New York's success?
"No," they said. "They're not very good."