Team defense (11-12 Comparison)

[SnowblindNYR]

Good stuff with the stats. Had no idea it was that close.

My apologies if this has been mentioned, since I didn't read through the entire thread, but one big difference I have noticed is we're not trapped in our zone as much. This team doesn't defend as well, but the more liquified system prevents us from getting trapped in our own zone for minutes at a time. That was a game-changer under Torts. We would get pinned and dominated for long stretches on a game-by-game basis.

I mean, I don't think we're as bad defending as people make us out to be. There are more breakdowns sometimes, but I guess that's what happens when you don't play a 100% defensive style and they probably aren't the experts at this style as they were in Torts that they played under for a long time. I also think part of the reason they're not pinned in their zone is because of their play inside their zone.

 

[GAGLine]

I mean, I don't think we're as bad defending as people make us out to be. There are more breakdowns sometimes, but I guess that's what happens when you don't play a 100% defensive style and they probably aren't the experts at this style as they were in Torts that they played under for a long time. I also think part of the reason they're not pinned in their zone is because of their play inside their zone.

We had just as many defensive breakdowns in the old system. The difference this year is that Henrik had more trouble stopping them, particularly early on. For a while there it seemed like any breakaway or 2 on 1 was an automatic goal.

The biggest difference between AV's system and Torts' system is that we actually have a transition game. We make plays in the neutral zone and attack rather than rushing back to the defensive zone, giving the other team an easy entry and collapsing.

Coaches always talk about making the other team go 200 feet. We made it easy last year for other teams because we usually started out below our goal line.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

We had just as many defensive breakdowns in the old system. The difference this year is that Henrik had more trouble stopping them, particularly early on. For a while there it seemed like any breakaway or 2 on 1 was an automatic goal.

The biggest difference between AV's system and Torts' system is that we actually have a transition game. We make plays in the neutral zone and attack rather than rushing back to the defensive zone, giving the other team an easy entry and collapsing.

Coaches always talk about making the other team go 200 feet. We made it easy last year for other teams because we usually started out below our goal line.

Yep, that whole 11-12 season I thought to myself that the D wasn't as good as Hank made it seem.

 

[Crease]

If we're omitting the Rangers bad start from statistical analysis on the basis that its not a true indication of what this team is, then shouldn't we account for significant injuries that other teams dealt with but are no longer dealing with? I'm not saying its wrong to omit the Rangers bad start, but the logic can apply to other scenarios as well. And if its not applied to the other scenarios, then it sort of becomes an apples-to-oranges comparison. Anaheim's blueline was decimated for a good part of the beginning of the season. Calgary was missing Giordano for quite a while. Montreal was missing Emelin. I'm sure there are other examples.

 

[aufheben]

If we're omitting the Rangers bad start from statistical analysis on the basis that its not a true indication of what this team is, then shouldn't we account for significant injuries that other teams dealt with but are no longer dealing with? I'm not saying its wrong to omit the Rangers bad start, but the logic can apply to other scenarios as well. And if its not applied to the other scenarios, then it sort of becomes an apples-to-oranges comparison. Anaheim's blueline was decimated for a good part of the beginning of the season. Calgary was missing Giordano for quite a while. Montreal was missing Emelin. I'm sure there are other examples.

One would think.

 

[Thirty One]

If we're omitting the Rangers bad start from statistical analysis on the basis that its not a true indication of what this team is, then shouldn't we account for significant injuries that other teams dealt with but are no longer dealing with? I'm not saying its wrong to omit the Rangers bad start, but the logic can apply to other scenarios as well. And if its not applied to the other scenarios, then it sort of becomes an apples-to-oranges comparison. Anaheim's blueline was decimated for a good part of the beginning of the season. Calgary was missing Giordano for quite a while. Montreal was missing Emelin. I'm sure there are other examples.

There would definitely be merit in that.

I look forward to your results, Crease.

 

[Crease]

There would definitely be merit in that.

I look forward to your results, Crease.

Hell no. I'm just here in an advisory capacity.

 

[doncherrysgrill]

Comparing this team's defense to the 2012 defense is a joke in terms of personnel...Staal played 46 games, Stu Bickel was the 6th defenseman that year. Two years later he's probably 10th on the team's depth chart. McDonagh was good but not even close to what he is today. Bickel played 51 games. Steve Eminger played 42. Jeff Woywitka played 27. Michael Del Zotto played 77.

Yes, that defense needed to play that system. No, this defense does not.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

If we're omitting the Rangers bad start from statistical analysis on the basis that its not a true indication of what this team is, then shouldn't we account for significant injuries that other teams dealt with but are no longer dealing with? I'm not saying its wrong to omit the Rangers bad start, but the logic can apply to other scenarios as well. And if its not applied to the other scenarios, then it sort of becomes an apples-to-oranges comparison. Anaheim's blueline was decimated for a good part of the beginning of the season. Calgary was missing Giordano for quite a while. Montreal was missing Emelin. I'm sure there are other examples.

This actually plays into what I was about to post. To me getting used to a radically different system is WAY more drastic than injuries. Of course at some point injuries do become a good excuse. That said, teams with sound systems can still be successful. Look at Pitt throughout the years, they're decimated every year and still find themselves as a top team in the east each year. In 10-11, they had no Crosby and Malkin and I believe were a 100 point team that almost beat a good Lightning team. Look at us today, no McDonagh, Girardi, MSL, Hank, or Kreider, and frankly we outplay one of the best teams in the east on their home turf and would have shut them out without our top pairing if Diaz's shot decided to be half an inch off. Also let's take a look at how we faired without our team MVP defensively, granted with some weaker offenses that we faced. 8 goals against in 5 games, 1.6 against, but really less since we played 2 OT games. Once again some poor offenses and it's a small sample size, but to me players not knowing where they should be on the ice is far more drastic than getting NHL players, albeit inferior ones playing a system adapted to.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Comparing this team's defense to the 2012 defense is a joke in terms of personnel...Staal played 46 games, Stu Bickel was the 6th defenseman that year. Two years later he's probably 10th on the team's depth chart. McDonagh was good but not even close to what he is today. Bickel played 51 games. Steve Eminger played 42. Jeff Woywitka played 27. Michael Del Zotto played 77.

Yes, that defense needed to play that system. No, this defense does not.

Del Zotto was very good that year though. But yeah this D is better and deeper, IMO. It's just that people think of that team as amazing defensively and you still see posts saying this D is mediocre. Finished 0.1 goals a game more.

 

[Garfinkel1]

You'd then have to remove 10 [bad] games from every other team, no?

I dont understand why everyone is arguing with him. He is 100% right. You can't pick and choose when you want to use data. Either use statistically valid data or dont use it at all.

Dont use data and eliminate data points because it doesn't support your argument.

 

[Chimpradamus]

Yes, you could eliminate the 10 worst games, but then you would have to eliminate the 10 best games as well to eliminate outliers (weighted average). And of course you would have to do it with every team.

The defensive corps is much better on paper this year. We're not stuck in our zone for the majority of games, more of the other way around. Things are looking good.

 

[SA16]

I dont understand why everyone is arguing with him. He is 100% right. You can't pick and choose when you want to use data. Either use statistically valid data or dont use it at all.

Dont use data and eliminate data points because it doesn't support your argument.

Mostly but not entirely true. For example, including any of the time Biron was in goal (admittedly very little) really doesn't tell you anything about the current team. (For accuracy you would, of course, have to check to see if other teams had a similar situation in goal for a couple of games and remove those from their stats as well).

 

[aufheben]

I dont understand why everyone is arguing with him. He is 100% right. You can't pick and choose when you want to use data. Either use statistically valid data or dont use it at all.

Dont use data and eliminate data points because it doesn't support your argument.

It all depends on whether the stat makes the Rangers look better or worse. If I removed our 10 best games of the season for reasons that I deemed justifiable, the same people would jump all over it.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

I dont understand why everyone is arguing with him. He is 100% right. You can't pick and choose when you want to use data. Either use statistically valid data or dont use it at all.

Dont use data and eliminate data points because it doesn't support your argument.

He has a point, but the Rangers have a legit excuse that maybe only Flyers have. Yesterday's game kind of is a point in the direction of showing that a system change is more drastic than injuries. We outplayed one of the best teams in the east and the league on their home ice when they had a lot more to play for without 4 of our best players. The truth is somewhere between get rid of 10 games and keep them. I guess the trends used are the best compromise.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

It all depends on whether the stat makes the Rangers look better or worse. If I removed our 10 best games of the season for reasons that I deemed justifiable, the same people would jump all over it.

Do you really not see the difference between eliminating games willy nilly and eliminating games from a stretch when the team was going through an excruciating transition between polar opposite systems?

 

[Tawnos]

It all depends on whether the stat makes the Rangers look better or worse. If I removed our 10 best games of the season for reasons that I deemed justifiable, the same people would jump all over it.

I wouldn't have a problem eliminating both the best and worst 10 games when evaluating a team. Similar to the concept in baseball that "every team is going to win 54 games and every team is going to lose 54 games. It's what you do with the other 54 that matters."

That being said, i have a feeling that if you removed those 20 games, the Rangers worst 10 games are significantly worse than the best 10 games are better as compared to the other 62.

 

[aufheben]

Showing trends isn't a compromise, it's unbiased facts. Picking and choosing is subjective.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Showing trends isn't a compromise, it's unbiased facts. Picking and choosing is subjective.

Except IMHO, showing trends is a bit more "picking and choosing" than taking out a stretch of games that pretty much everyone accepts had extenuating circumstances behind them. Say the Rangers were in year 3 of AV and had no injuries nor major changes and just sucked in October, taking it out would show that the Rangers are playing better, but still taking out that first month would be deceiving, what are you basing it on? Why is their play from November on more relevant than from October on? Trends do show how the team is playing right now, but still if you do trends and cut off in a random point like November that to me is more deceiving than taking out October because of your so called "subjective factors" such as a system change. What I'm saying is trends tend to be completely subjective and actually more arbitrary than anything. They're usually done on a monthly basis. Why are we looking at November on and not October on?

 

[Son of Steinbrenner]

Showing trends isn't a compromise, it's unbiased facts. Picking and choosing is subjective.

Absolutely but we need to be honest about something. As someone that has posted here for over 10 years I KNOW that some posters will destort arguments with convoluted stats. We both see that, I'm sure.

I think some longtime posters play a very shrewd game of "I'll be happy to eat crow". These posters set the bar high, will tell you if the team doesn't win a cup the year is failure, and say "I'll be happy to eat crow". How bold of them! What great fans they are! They will base every argument on this Cup or bust mentality and when the team doesn't win a cup will proclaim the year a failure, will say Sather missed an opportunity to rebuild and base that on their own posts. These posters don't go out on a limb, they don't add anything to debate. They are just waiting for the team to fail so they can gladhand the other "I'll be happy to eat crow" posters and say "look we knew it all along" and use convulted stats and logic to prove a point. It's a never ending circle on this board but at least a lot of other posters see it.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

That's fine, my point was that ranking a tampered stat against untampered stats produces a meaningless number. It's a fallacy. Although I'm sure if it was -31- and not me who pointed it out, they'd all be singing his praises.

Meaningless implies that no change would occur in the data. It is meaningful in that regard. Whether it's accurate to make an analysis based on removing that segment is obviously the argument you're making though.

But snow is saying the former and he's right. Some teams do certainly face more adversity than others. Snow thinks the NYR started the season facing enough adversity to where it was abnormal compared to the rest of the entire league. If it is true that the NYR truly had an abnormal amount of adversity than in order to get an accurate gauge of the team it would make sense to remove a bit.

You may disagree that it was abnormal but it's on you then to provide evidence to show it. If you want to look solely at the NYR I think it's more than fair to remove the early games. If you want to compare to the rest of the league then I think it is incorrect to remove the sample from the NYR and not from anyone else.

Take the 10 worst games away from each team and then make your comparison. If the NYR truly had an abnormal amount of adversity then the adjustment made to the NYR will be MUCH higher than the adjusment made to other teams.

 

[aufheben]

Ok this is just absurd at this point, I've said my piece. I have no idea what is so complicated.

You may disagree that it was abnormal but it's on you then to provide evidence to show it. If you want to look solely at the NYR I think it's more than fair to remove the early games. If you want to compare to the rest of the league then I think it is incorrect to remove the sample from the NYR and not from anyone else.

This is, literally, what I said.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

It's an 82 games season, and no matter how you look at it, their record will be one of the following:

46-31-5
45-32-5
45-31-6

Doesn't matter who got hurt, who got sick, or who the coach is/was. The results are the results!

Those are only W-L results. For a deeper analysis of what caused those specific results you need to look at other data.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

Ok this is just absurd at this point, I've said my piece. I have no idea what is so complicated.

Your refusal to compromise on any point is probably what makes it so complicated.

Here is something you were absolutely right about: I disagree with Snow that you can go about making a comparison after removing the NYR 10 worst games and leaving in every other teams ten worst.

I have no problem removing every teams 10 worst and then making a comparison. If the NYR truly faced more abnormal adversity then it will show in the adjusted stats. It still may be inaccurate but it may also show if the adversity the team faced was abnormal compared to other teams

Is that really so frustrating that you just threw your hands up claiming absurdity?

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

Ok this is just absurd at this point, I've said my piece. I have no idea what is so complicated.



This is, literally, what I said.

I know that. Everything I wrote literally showed that I know that. But I brought up a separate point which for some reason led you to have a freakout moment and act like it was absurd. What's more the separate point I brought up is one I thought you yourself brought up. (You can't just take away the NYR you have to take away everyone's) So I was a little shocked that what made you throw up your hands was me agreeing with you.

If snow can't agree with that then so what? It's not a big deal.