Team defense (11-12 Comparison)

[SnowblindNYR]

I'm fairly certain that those advanced stats you're talking about were virtually as good under Torts, especially in 11-12; that team had fairly good possession #s if I'm not mistaken. Both styles of play can lead to good possession #s in terms of advanced stats, and so how you get off claiming that these numbers would lead to a "statistical conclusion of which team's style is more correlated to winning," I have no clue. Not sure you do either.

That said, I don't track them as closely as the guys you mentioned, and don't know for sure what changes may have occurred this season (but I vaguely remember reading something that indicated it was about the same, maybe a slight increase this year). Anyone who actually does, feel free to hop in.

I was pretty sure that team was middle of the pack, but maybe I'm wrong, hope someone can help us. I can't believe that team being one of the better possession teams in the NHL. In the playoffs they were probably one of the worst teams in that regard. They were constantly pinned in their zone. But they were better than that in the regular season I will agree. I don't have the stats from that regular season, maybe someone can help. I don't see the Rangers looking like they did all playoffs that year, this year. Seriously, they had a 3 game stretch probably since December that they were significantly out-possessioned (Carolina, Minnesota, and Winnipeg). They're usually at worst slightly worse than their opposition unless they're protecting a lead in the 3rd period (like most teams and that's why that gets adjusted in the stats), but usually come out on top, sometimes by a lot like they did against the 100 point Habs without 4 important skaters on this team.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Shot attempts is all you need to figure it out.

The Torts Rangers allowed teams to own the puck, cycle the puck and shoot the puck. Blocking shots was a team requirement, which is why you had low shot totals.

Certainly nothing resembling a team who was dominant, or even very good at defending against good offenses. Torts system didn't suffocate high flying offenses the way Bowman's Habs or Lemaire's Devils did.

Michael Kay just hit the nail on the head. Lundqvist needs to beat a team they are not supposed to beat in order to be considered a money goalie.

Game 7 wins against Ottawa and the Caps are nice, but until he steals a series against a 1 or 2 seed, I'm going to have a hard time ever calling him an elite playoff goalie.

Michael Kay is an idiot.

Doesnt surprise me he'd tie goaltender performance to the sole reason for winning a series.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Don't you watch hockey for entertainment? You realize we are not playing in these games right? Why would anyone watch any sport if they were not entertained? I have no interest in watching Golf or Soccer. They do not entertain me. I'd rather watch a below 500 NY Rangers team than a NY Kickballs soccer team that wins 10 championships in a row.

Hockey is serious business, you're not supposed to be entertained. His stance is as ridiculous as my friend who takes the opposite approach and complains that there are no personalities in hockey like the WWE. Both ridiculously extreme approaches. At least my friend doesn't insult everyone that disagrees with him like BRB.

 

[McRanger]

Of course the '11-'12 team overachieved. People really need a statistical breakdown to figure that out?

They specifically overachieved in the 2nd half of the season. Their goal differential was 0.196 a game, yet they got 1.283 points per game. That is only slightly lower than this 2nd half of the season (1.317 PPG) where the Rangers differential was 0.927 a game. That is a gigantic difference.

The 2nd half of '09-'10 had a better differential than the 2nd half of '11-'12 (0.238 versus 0.196) but only got 1.071 points per game. That's the difference between 8-9 points. In half a season. The difference between almost winning the Presidents Trophy and being the 6th seed in the east. Or the difference between making or missing the playoffs in '10.

The Rangers had the best goalie in the league give them a historic season. Because of that they won a lot of one goal games, and a fair amount of games they probably should have outright lost.

Since when is overachieving a bad thing? Isn't that the biggest compliment a coach can get? Somehow I doubt the Devils fans minded overachieving to the cup final.

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

11-12 GA, w/ their worst 10 games taken out: 133
13-14 GA, w/ their first 10 games taken out: 155
13-14 GA, w/ their worst 10 games taken out: 137
11-12 GA, w/ empty nets and so goals taken out: 119
13-14 GA, w/ empty nets and so goals taken out (first 10 games): 148
13-14 GA, w/ empty nets and so goals taken out (worst 10 games): 130

The totals are closer if you take out both of their worst 10 games. On average, the Rangers are more susceptible to letting up more goals throughout the season than the 11-12 Rangers were.

I'll say that the 11-12 team was in fact better than the 13-14 defense. I'm not sure if I should have given the advantage of eliminating the Rangers 10 worst games in 11-12 and not doing the same for the 13-14 Rangers. Doing so means there is a 4 goal differential before empty net/so goals are eliminated. Afterwards, there is an 11 goal difference.

Apologies, Richter Scale.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

I don't think anyone said this. This is an example of twisting people's arguments to make them seem extreme, and fit an agenda. But ok.




Sure, on paper, and looking at the individuals, they certainly are a deeper team. Which leads to a perfectly valid question: If they have such better personnel (I'm not arguing this point), why haven't they significantly out performed the past few years' teams on defense (while also failing to outperform them offensively)?

Defensively, for 2 reasons. One was the tough start and Lundqvist legitimately being worse for half the season. He gave up way more soft goals than in past years, so it's not all defense. The other reason, that team in 11-12 was one of the best defensive teams in the league, there is just so much better you can get. It's sort of why the Miller trade was stupid. Were they expected a 0.5 GAA for him? At some point there's a wall that you can't go under.

Offensively, BRB likes laughing at this, because everything to him is looking the most basic stats and making no analysis, and then pretending that what he says is smarter than anything anyone has ever said. But yes that team in 11-12 overachieved. There was no reason for them to be 12th in GFA, they didn't put enough offensive pressure and their talent was good but not top 12 in the league. This year's team creates way more opportunities but has like the 28th or 29th worst shot percentage, while our talent IMO is at worst middle of the pack. If they were just average, the team would be in the top 10 in goals scored. I think 31 made a projection to what would happen if you took all of the players' career average shot percentages and they'd be in the top 10 in goals scored. And all that said, our transition to a completely different system really repressed the numbers. They had fewer than 20 goals in the first 10 games. That's insane.

 

[AlternateSideParking]

Michael Kay is an idiot.

Doesnt surprise me he'd tie goaltender performance to the sole reason for winning a series.

Yeah because it's never happened before. What an idiot.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

11-12 GA, w/ their worst 10 games taken out: 133
13-14 GA, w/ their first 10 games taken out: 155
13-14 GA, w/ their worst 10 games taken out: 137
11-12 GA, w/ empty nets and so goals taken out: 119
13-14 GA, w/ empty nets and so goals taken out (first 10 games): 148
13-14 GA, w/ empty nets and so goals taken out (worst 10 games): 130

The totals are closer if you take out both of their worst 10 games. On average, the Rangers are more susceptible to letting up more goals throughout the season than the 11-12 Rangers were.

I'll say that the 11-12 team was in fact better than the 13-14 defense. I'm not sure if I should have given the advantage of eliminating the Rangers 10 worst games in 11-12 and not doing the same for the 13-14 Rangers. Doing so means there is a 4 goal differential before empty net/so goals are eliminated. Afterwards, there is an 11 goal difference.

Apologies, Richter Scale.

Right, but you have to factor in that Lundqvist was a different player even if you take out the worst games. Team defense I'd say with that in mind is about equal.

 

[AlternateSideParking]

Lundqvist's piss poor October and half of December is something the 2012 team never had to deal with.

Read the Post. Lundqvist told Brooks he was distracted by several things this season. Don't recall Henrik ever being asked why he sucked at any point in 2012.

 

[aufheben]

Hockey is serious business, you're not supposed to be entertained. His stance is as ridiculous as my friend who takes the opposite approach and complains that there are no personalities in hockey like the WWE. Both ridiculously extreme approaches. At least my friend doesn't insult everyone that disagrees with him like BRB.

Please.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Even if you say that the 11-12 team was better defensively sans Lundqvist, I don't think the difference is that significant. This team is still better IMO and if they don't make the ECF it won't disprove that. This Flyers team is better than either of the teams we barely beat in 11-12.

 

[AlternateSideParking]

The 2012 team had arguably the easiest road to winning the Cup any team could have ever had.

8th seed, 7th seed, 6th seed and 8th seed. I have a hard time giving credit to a team who was dominated in two critical games by a line centered by Ryan Carter.

 

[aufheben]

Alright, start wrapping it up guys, we've had numerous versions of this same discussions enough times I think.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Please.

Racist!

But seriously, I just laugh at people that would rather have the team play a bunch of goons and would rather have a worse teams because of #toffness, BRB insults anyone that dares to actually prefer one style over the other. I prefer winning over everything, but I would rather watch this team 100 times out of 100. I also think it's more conducive to winning over the long haul.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

The 2012 team had arguably the easiest road to winning the Cup any team could have ever had.

8th seed, 7th seed, 6th seed and 8th seed. I have a hard time giving credit to a team who was dominated in two critical games by a line centered by Ryan Carter.

Exactly. But people still wax poetic because we OMG barely made it to the ECF and got destroyed by the worst cup finalist since 06 or 04.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Alright, start wrapping it up guys, we've had numerous versions of this same discussions enough times I think.

Well this thread was not meant to start a **** storm. In fact I used the 11-12 team positively, they did have a great D. I just wanted to show how good our D has been this year despite adversity. Then the usual crew that has a radar for everything positive ever said about the Rangers showed up and turned this thread into a bash fest.

 

[Thirty One]

I'm fairly certain that those advanced stats you're talking about were virtually as good under Torts, especially in 11-12; that team had fairly good possession #s if I'm not mistaken. Both styles of play can lead to good possession #s in terms of advanced stats, and so how you get off claiming that these numbers would lead to a "statistical conclusion of which team's style is more correlated to winning," I have no clue. Not sure you do either.

That said, I don't track them as closely as the guys you mentioned, and don't know for sure what changes may have occurred this season (but I vaguely remember reading something that indicated it was about the same, maybe a slight increase this year). Anyone who actually does, feel free to hop in.

In 2011-12, they were 14th in the league with a 49.8 FF%.

There has been seven >50% teams make the Conference Finals since 2007-08. Two of them moved on (both Pittsburgh). If you want to be bad at possessing the puck, you better have players who can shoot the puck like Crosby and Malkin. The other five teams combined to win seven games in the CF series (Rangers with two of those seven, AWWWW YEAH).

 

[aufheben]

Well this thread was not meant to start a **** storm. In fact I used the 11-12 team positively, they did have a great D. I just wanted to show how good our D has been this year despite adversity. Then the usual crew that has a radar for everything positive ever said about the Rangers showed up and turned this thread into a bash fest.

No, I understand that. The defense has done an outstanding job at the end of the day.

 

[AlternateSideParking]

Exactly. But people still wax poetic because we OMG barely made it to the ECF and got destroyed by the worst cup finalist since 06 or 04.

The only way this team gets to or wins a Cup is if they play under 6 games in at least one series.

The 1993 Leafs are an example of a dominant team who simply ran out of gas against an inferior team because they played the max 21 games, and they melted down in Game 7 of the Campbell Finals.

The path is easier this year than last. Philly, Detroit or the Pens? All beatable.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

In 2011-12, they were 14th in the league with a 49.8 FF%.

There has been seven >50% teams make the Conference Finals since 2007-08. Two of them moved on (both Pittsburgh). If you want to be bad at possessing the puck, you better have players who can shoot the puck like Crosby and Malkin. The other five teams combined to win seven games in the CF series (Rangers with two of those seven, AWWWW YEAH).

You mean <50% right? 7 with a less than 50%.

 

[Thirty One]

You mean <50% right? 7 with a less than 50%.

Yes. Dang hungry alligators.

 

[Zil]

The only way this team gets to or wins a Cup is if they play under 6 games in at least one series.

The 1993 Leafs are an example of a dominant team who simply ran out of gas against an inferior team because they played the max 21 games, and they melted down in Game 7 of the Campbell Finals.

The path is easier this year than last. Philly, Detroit or the Pens? All beatable.

Detroit's on the other side of the bracket. I think you meant Columbus.

 

[AlternateSideParking]

Detroit's on the other side of the bracket. I think you meant Columbus.

Yeah, Columbus who I think beats Pittsburgh and I think Boston destroys Detroit.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

When are we going to reach a point where we give the benefit of the doubt to actual results vs. perceived results?

I keep hearing how the '11-12 team "overachieved" (still finished 1st in the east and within a point of the President's trophy). I dont care if they overachieved, the reality of the situation is we saw the best Rangers season in 20 years. I dont care if you didn't like their style of play - thats just you being a brat.

As for those playoffs, I apologize that they didn't dominate the first 2 rounds like you would've hoped, but thats the playoffs. You survive and try to advance. That awful Washington team that went to 7 games? Yea, they knocked off the Bruins in the round before. Oh, and getting "destroyed" in the playoffs now apparently consists of losing in game 6 of the conference finals in OT. 1st in the east, 2nd in the NHL, furthest advancement in the playoffs since winning the Cup. These are facts. They are irrefutable unless you start adding agenda-driven drivel and wayward opinions into the discourse like the OP did/seems to do with everything.

Fast forward to this season. Good season. The jury is still out on this team. Unlike '11-12, they seem to be playing their best hockey to close the season, so we'll see what happens. But still, over an 82 game season, less wins, less goals for, and more goals against than 2 seasons ago. And, if you listen to some, one of the unluckiest teams in the history of the NHL, that was almost completely sabotaged by "non-Vezina" Henrik Lundqvist earlier in the year. Hell, the OP even said if this team loses in the 1st round, its still a better season than '11-12. Why? Hell if I know. Seems to center around his bratty preferences for how this team plays the game, even if the results are worse.

When you argue the negative on stone-cold results, and argue with positive on what might be, you're on a slippery slope, as the OP usually is.

 

[True Blue]

It's not just like or not liking how a team plays. It's about talent. I Is it that hard to understand?

AT what point is it just about winning?

t's also about statistical conclusions of one team's style being more correlated to winning.

We can make stats tell anything. Especially once you start to allow bias to creep in. But no stat is perfect. You can point to puck possession. That can be countered with overpassing. One point to amount of shots. That can be countered with the distance that these shots travel. I am not saying this the debate, just that any stat can be countered with something else. In the end, stats do not matter one whit. Just the results. Coulda, shoulda, woulda do not count.

If you're looking at 2 companies' stocks. You valuate one a bit higher than the other just going by numbers, but one company's business model has proven to be more successful than the other over the long haul, is it such a travesty to say that the one which you valuated as higher is actually the worse investment? (I think those subjective factors may be included in valuation though, but that just proves my point).

In any meeting in which you point out the "business plan model" that immediately becomes compared to other market comps. And have the data to back it up. And you had better have them ready, or your recommendation will look amateurish. Further, you will need to provide stress analysis. When stressing, if you only stress one market event and shift the analysis of the company, but do not point out how a similar event will affect the income statement of the other comparable companies, again, the such a recommendation and analysis will not be taken seriously.