Player Discussion Ryan McDonagh

[offdacrossbar]

We have the 6th best PP in the league right now.

Once again, HFNYR fails to realize what is actually wrong with the team, and clings to these ridiculous narratives they come up with every year.

This board specializes in missing the forest for the trees.

1. could be better. might need to be. why settle ?

2. playing mcd on all the pp's is counter productive in 2 ways.

a. we are less productive than we could be with a better shooter at the top. we all have eyes, its painful to watch mcd fumble pucks and make an attempt to shoot. its gotten to the point where it needs to change.

b. those extra minutes degrade ryan's ability to impact the game 5v5 and especially late in close games where his top line defense is more crucial (and hes the best at it that we have) than would be those extra minutes he played (poorly) on the pp point.

for a team that is so desperate for consistent defense, why taken away a strength by playing our best defender on the pp at all ? let him rest and play the pk and 5v5 where his defense can impact the game.

the argument that his offense (whatever he can contribute) is more important than his defense is silly. he plays 25 brutal mins a night. give him a break. let him play where he can have the biggest positive impact.

not
on
the
pp

 

[Leetch66]

my take.

mcd is a below average point producer on the pp and should not be the #1 point man on our pp. period.


517 total games played inc playoffs.

12 total pp goals. twelve. 517 games.

45 assists. 517 games.

57 total pp points. 517 games.

thats @ 1 PP point for every 9 games played.

i rest my case.

WOW....it really is worse than I thought . Hard to argue them numbers....or in this case... the lack of them . I guess we are also in the market for a PPQB while we are at it for that right side Dman . Girardi likely has numbers that are as good as that .

 

[silverfish]

my take.

mcd is a below average point producer on the pp and should not be the #1 point man on our pp. period.


517 total games played inc playoffs.

12 total pp goals. twelve. 517 games.

45 assists. 517 games.

57 total pp points. 517 games.

thats @ 1 PP point for every 9 games played.

i rest my case.

Another instance of bull**** analysis.

How many PPs did the Rangers get in those games?
How much PP TOI did McDonagh get?

How do those two answers compare to the rest of the league?
Among players who get similar PP usage to McDonagh over this time, how many points have they recorded?

The real analysis here should be:

Over the past three seasons, McDonagh has skated 447 minutes of power play time. If we then build our sample around that, and only include players who have skated, let's say, 300 minutes of PP time, and then sort by points per 60, McDonagh is 39th of 67 in the sample.

Can he be better? Absolutely. Could the Rangers do better than McDonagh as a 1PP QB? Absolutely. Can they do worse? Absolutely.

But when you intentionally build your argument to boil down to:

thats @ 1 PP point for every 9 games played.


What you're doing with that is intentionally leading the end viewer to see it framed this specific way, which is total crap. Total, utter, crap.

Absolutely infuriating.

And if for some reason you're one of those people who hates rate stats, among d-men who have skated 400-500 PP mins in the past 3 years, McDonagh is 9th out of 18 in points.

Again, the conclusion to any McDonagh PP analysis is this:

Can the Rangers do better? Yes.
Might the Rangers be better off limiting McD's PP time to keep him fresh for EV/PK? Yes.
Do the Rangers currently have a better option? Maybe in Clendening, not enough data to know.
Is it worth trying #4? Yes.

Can the Rangers do worse? Yes.
Are the Rangers currently one of the top PP teams in the league? Yes.

It's never as simple as this:

thats @ 1 PP point for every 9 games played.

Never. You end your argument like that, and you're pushing an agenda, not conducting analysis.

 

[offdacrossbar]

Another instance of bull**** analysis.

How many PPs did the Rangers get in those games?
How much PP TOI did McDonagh get?

How do those two answers compare to the rest of the league?
Among players who get similar PP usage to McDonagh over this time, how many points have they recorded?

The real analysis here should be:

Over the past three seasons, McDonagh has skated 447 minutes of power play time. If we then build our sample around that, and only include players who have skated, let's say, 300 minutes of PP time, and then sort by points per 60, McDonagh is 39th of 67 in the sample.

Can he be better? Absolutely. Could the Rangers do better than McDonagh as a 1PP QB? Absolutely. Can they do worse? Absolutely.

But when you intentionally build your argument to boil down to:

thats @ 1 PP point for every 9 games played.


What you're doing with that is intentionally leading the end viewer to see it framed this specific way, which is total crap. Total, utter, crap.

Absolutely infuriating.

ok, so using your own numbers then, hes worse than average and in fact, not very effective on the pp.

again, i rest my case.

we can also apply the eye test as well. hes frustratingly poor.

hissy fits over numbers are nice. im not a numbers guy per say. then again, i dont need to be to see that capt mcd doesnt belong on the 1st pp unit over guys like clendo and even holden.

 

[silverfish]

ok, so using your own numbers then, hes worse than average and in fact, not very effective on the pp.

again, i rest my case.

we can also apply the eye test as well. hes frustratingly poor.

hissy fits over numbers are nice. im not a numbers guy per say. then again, i dont need to be to see that capt mcd doesnt belong on the 1st pp unit over guys like clendo and even holden.

"Not a numbers guy"

*pushes specific poor conclusion to advance agenda with numbers*

I'm glad you "rest your case" but your case is full of holes and it's terrible.

 

[offdacrossbar]

"Not a numbers guy"

*pushes specific poor conclusion to advance agenda with numbers*

I'm glad you "rest your case" but your case is full of holes and it's terrible.

believe what you want.

you seem to be disagreeing with me over my method rather than my conclusion or opinion. so then if the method isnt satisfactory to you, the entire argument is nullified ?

the numbers do show mcd isnt very effective on the pp. your numbers and mine. same.

show me some numbers to refute that big boy. prove to me im wrong like you are preaching that my method is weak.

show me something that counters my conclusion rather than whine about my analytics or lack there of.

 

[silverfish]

believe what you want.

you seem to be disagreeing with me over my method rather than my conclusion or opinion. so then if the method isnt satisfactory to you, the entire argument is nullified ?

the numbers do show mcd isnt very effective on the pp. your numbers and mine. same.

show me some numbers to refute that big boy. prove to me im wrong like you are preaching that my method is weak.

show me something that counters my conclusion rather than whine about my analytics or lack there of.

If I think a specific method was conducted to reach a predetermined conclusion then yes, I will not accept the findings of the analysis.

I've posted the brief look into this I took.

Another instance of bull**** analysis.

How many PPs did the Rangers get in those games?
How much PP TOI did McDonagh get?

How do those two answers compare to the rest of the league?
Among players who get similar PP usage to McDonagh over this time, how many points have they recorded?

The real analysis here should be:

Over the past three seasons, McDonagh has skated 447 minutes of power play time. If we then build our sample around that, and only include players who have skated, let's say, 300 minutes of PP time, and then sort by points per 60, McDonagh is 39th of 67 in the sample.

Can he be better? Absolutely. Could the Rangers do better than McDonagh as a 1PP QB? Absolutely. Can they do worse? Absolutely.

But when you intentionally build your argument to boil down to:

thats @ 1 PP point for every 9 games played.


What you're doing with that is intentionally leading the end viewer to see it framed this specific way, which is total crap. Total, utter, crap.

Absolutely infuriating.

And if for some reason you're one of those people who hates rate stats, among d-men who have skated 400-500 PP mins in the past 3 years, McDonagh is 9th out of 18 in points.

Again, the conclusion to any McDonagh PP analysis is this:

Can the Rangers do better? Yes.
Might the Rangers be better off limiting McD's PP time to keep him fresh for EV/PK? Yes.
Do the Rangers currently have a better option? Maybe in Clendening, not enough data to know.
Is it worth trying #4? Yes.

Can the Rangers do worse? Yes.
Are the Rangers currently one of the top PP teams in the league? Yes.

It's never as simple as this:

thats @ 1 PP point for every 9 games played.

Never. You end your argument like that, and you're pushing an agenda, not conducting analysis.

 

[offdacrossbar]

If I think a specific method was conducted to reach a predetermined conclusion then yes, I will not accept the findings of the analysis.

I've posted the brief look into this I took.

fair enough.

i appreciate your numbers stuff.

all good buddy.

i agree to all those agreements you had.

less mcd on the pp. more mcd on the pk/5v5

 

[silverfish]

fair enough.

i appreciate your numbers stuff.

all good buddy.

i agree to all those agreements you had.

less mcd on the pp. more mcd on the pk/5v5

It's not personal, I'm just on a mission this weekend to shoot down bad analysis

 

[SA16]

Holden has 1 ppp every 16 games in his career. Clendening 1 every 14. I guess based on your scientific analysis McDonagh is actually better than him. Shocker.

 

[Filthy Dangles]

Oh, geez. I forgot about that.

Equipment manager should have cut the C off the jersey right then and there

 

[offdacrossbar]

Holden has 1 ppp every 16 games in his career. Clendening 1 every 14. I guess based on your scientific analysis McDonagh is actually better than him. Shocker.

my eyes tell me, when i watch mcd on the pp, hes not very good at shooting the puck and that kind of matters.

 

[SA16]

So now the stat you went through all the work to point out as telling against him doesn't matter because you didn't realize the work you did actually makes him look the best of any defenseman on the team? Talk about an agenda. There is not one legitimate piece of evidence you can use that will show that McDonagh is not currently the best option the team has. Unless you want to propose they play 5 F 0 D which in actuality is likely the correct strategy but not a realistic option to see them use so it's not even worth discussing

 

[FLYLine27*]

my eyes tell me, when i watch mcd on the pp, hes not very good at shooting the puck and that kind of matters.

Ok, so he's not a great shooter. I don't think anyone will disagree with you there. But he does other things on the PP that help it. Good puch rusher, good first passer, good passer within the offensive zone, good at keeping the puck in. He not Chara in his prime back there, but he isn't hurting the PP.

 

[silverfish]

So now the stat you went through all the work to point out as telling against him doesn't matter because you didn't realize the work you did actually makes him look the best of any defenseman on the team? Talk about an agenda. There is not one legitimate piece of evidence you can use that will show that McDonagh is not currently the best option the team has. Unless you want to propose they play 5 F 0 D which in actuality is likely the correct strategy but not a realistic option to see them use so it's not even worth discussing

****ing PREACH

Zib - Pirri - Kreider
Stepan - Zucc

Put Kreider where Greenway was for the USA WJC team. Rotate from the goal line to screening the goalie depending on where the puck is. Zib and Pirri on the wings for one-timers. Stepan lone man at the point. Zucc the bumper.

 

[offdacrossbar]

So now the stat you went through all the work to point out as telling against him doesn't matter because you didn't realize the work you did actually makes him look the best of any defenseman on the team? Talk about an agenda. There is not one legitimate piece of evidence you can use that will show that McDonagh is not currently the best option the team has. Unless you want to propose they play 5 F 0 D which in actuality is likely the correct strategy but not a realistic option to see them use so it's not even worth discussing

the numbers show(mine and other numbers) hes an average producer on the pp. my contention was that hes average on the pp point (and owns perhaps the worst shot of any of the 3 i highlighted as potential pp point men) and would be better used 5v5 and on the pk. still think so.

hes NOT the best option on the team imo, clendo has shown the ability to play the pp point and possesses the better shot. its not even close there really as mcd has a brutal bad shot from the point. he just doesnt seem to be able to hit the net and no matter what you say, your pp point man better have that ability or you are not as good as you could be. period.

Ok, so he's not a great shooter. I don't think anyone will disagree with you there. But he does other things on the PP that help it. Good puch rusher, good first passer, good passer within the offensive zone, good at keeping the puck in. He not Chara in his prime back there, but he isn't hurting the PP.

clendo is better and should get more time. even holden would be a better option. and skjei should get a shot. mcd has a bad shot.

puck rushing hes fine but so is skjei. mcd has a bad shot.

passer, they can all pass it. clendo especially. and mcd isnt an amazing passer really. mcd has a bad shot.

keeping the puck in ??? all pretty good no better than the other. mcd has a bad shot.

hes not hurting the pp ? sure he is. YOU SAID IT, he cant shoot. mcd has a bad shot.

that
hurts
the
pp

 

[offdacrossbar]

****ing PREACH

Zib - Pirri - Kreider
Stepan - Zucc

Put Kreider where Greenway was for the USA WJC team. Rotate from the goal line to screening the goalie depending on where the puck is. Zib and Pirri on the wings for one-timers. Stepan lone man at the point. Zucc the bumper.

nope.

you need buchy out there.

i would add buchy and subtract pirri to be honest with you.

prefer pavel in that spot where pirri plays.

i give pirri pp2 time.

 

[silverfish]

nope.

you need buchy out there.

i would add buchy and subtract pirri to be honest with you.

prefer pavel in that spot where pirri plays.

i give pirri pp2 time.

I like Pirri there so the PK can't cheat towards Zib, but I'm fine with Buchnevich, too.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

****ing PREACH

Zib - Pirri - Kreider
Stepan - Zucc

Put Kreider where Greenway was for the USA WJC team. Rotate from the goal line to screening the goalie depending on where the puck is. Zib and Pirri on the wings for one-timers. Stepan lone man at the point. Zucc the bumper.

Kreider has never played the Greenway role well. Ironic you point to WJC play since using Kreider in that role there did not go well.

 

[silverfish]

Kreider has never played the Greenway role well. Ironic you point to WJC play since using Kreider in that role there did not go well.

I don't know if I've ever seen Kreider consistently used in the Greenway/Foligno role. I've seen him screening goalies, but I've never seen him pivot to the side of the goal, face down (up?) ice, and try and make plays from there.

In the sense where I'm saying if the puck goes to Zib or Pirri/Buch and they don't one-time it, I want Kreider jumping out of the screen to be an extra option outside the PK formation.

My memory is bad though.

 

[SA16]

"the numbers show(mine and other numbers) hes an average producer on the pp. my contention was that hes average on the pp point (and owns perhaps the worst shot of any of the 3 i highlighted as potential pp point men) and would be better used 5v5 and on the pk. still think so. "

Except this makes no sense. If he didn't play on the PP he wouldn't get more time at ES or on the PK. He would just get the same time and not get the PP minutes. Clendening averages 1 powerplay point every 16 games. How is he a better option than McDonagh who gets 1 every 9?

"he just doesnt seem to be able to hit the net and no matter what you say, your pp point man better have that ability or you are not as good as you could be. period. "

Please stop making things up. Nobody is going to take you seriously. Of the 65 dmen with at least 300 mins TOI on the PP between 2014 and 2017 he is 18th best in percent of shot attempts on goal. Your statement is blatantly false and I am sure you will respond by saying you only care about this year (irrelevant sample size) or that other guys are better when there is absolute no data to back that up. I have yet to see one true statement you have made that isn't plainly reciting numbers "He has 1 PPG this season" or something. You hate McDonagh and Nash. Everyone knows it. Maybe people would get behind your viewpoint if you actually posted valid analysis (not necessarily numerical) as opposed to stating information so obviously false that it takes less than a minute to look it up and prove it wrong.

 

[offdacrossbar]

"the numbers show(mine and other numbers) hes an average producer on the pp. my contention was that hes average on the pp point (and owns perhaps the worst shot of any of the 3 i highlighted as potential pp point men) and would be better used 5v5 and on the pk. still think so. "

Except this makes no sense. If he didn't play on the PP he wouldn't get more time at ES or on the PK. He would just get the same time and not get the PP minutes. Clendening averages 1 powerplay point every 16 games. How is he a better option than McDonagh who gets 1 every 9?

"he just doesnt seem to be able to hit the net and no matter what you say, your pp point man better have that ability or you are not as good as you could be. period. "

Please stop making things up. Nobody is going to take you seriously. Of the 65 dmen with at least 300 mins TOI on the PP between 2014 and 2017 he is 18th best in percent of shot attempts on goal. Your statement is blatantly false and I am sure you will respond by saying you only care about this year (irrelevant sample size) or that other guys are better when there is absolute no data to back that up. I have yet to see one true statement you have made that isn't plainly reciting numbers "He has 1 PPG this season" or something. You hate McDonagh and Nash. Everyone knows it. Maybe people would get behind your viewpoint if you actually posted valid analysis (not necessarily numerical) as opposed to stating information so obviously false that it takes less than a minute to look it up and prove it wrong.

this isnt that tough. maybe you are overthinking it or under thinking it ?

I've already cited the numbers. he has 1 pp goal this season. ONE. and were close to half way thru the season. hes our #1 pp point man. 1 single goal. what about that cant you comprehend.

holden has 2 pp goals. with virtually no pp time.

clendo has 1. same as mcd. again, limited pp time.

since 2014 thru today reg season and playoffs, 209 games played, mcd has 8 total pp goals and 26 assists. do the math.

and again, the numbers show hes at best, average- middle of the pack, points producer on the pp. at best.

playing the pp- wheres hes ill suited, given his poor shot and lack of overall offensive ability, hurts the team in 2 specific ways.

1. there are better options on the pp point. others can be more effective there. have you seen his shot ? so thats a given.

2. while he may not get more minutes if he doesnt play the pp- and, btw, i didnt say he would so again, you are incorrect, he certainly will be both fresher and more effective- especially in the 3rd period, playing less pp minutes. hes at like 25 mins per game now. get that down to 21 or so. common sense man.

i want our best defender defending. i want our #1 matchup defender matching up and playing defense which is his strength not lugging the mail up the ice on the pp and then looking like a doofus on the point.

fewer pp minutes- where he sucks and more 5v5 and pk minutes fresher- where he excels = more effective #27 and thus better team. simple.

simple.

 

[Bob Richards]

Thank God he came back from that injury tonight. If we lost McDonagh then our defense might as well write strongly worded letters to opposing teams asking them not to score.

 

[Vinny DeAngelo]

I know mac trunk gets a lot of crap on this board for not being Erik karlsson, not being messier, and not having perfect Corsi, but he got his 30th assist tonight! The guys having a great year offensively

 

[Chaels Arms]

I know mac trunk gets a lot of crap on this board for not being Erik karlsson, not being messier, and not having perfect Corsi, but he got his 30th assist tonight! The guys having a great year offensively

The guy is having a great year, period.