Team defense (11-12 Comparison)

[Richter Scale]

The 2011-2012 Rangers allowed 187 GA. The 2013-2014 Rangers allowed 191 GA. That's a 4 goal difference. And when you consider the abysmal start to the season, particularly a 9-2 blow out against SJ, that can absolutely be attributed to a 1 month long adjustment period... the Rangers would likely have had a lower GA total this year, than they did in their 2011-2012 season, had it not been for that transition period.

Even with the transition period, the Rangers allowed 4 more goals against this season. 4. Hardly anything substantial. Which means that their defense actually played better than it did in 2011-2012, if you were to just compare their seasons after the first month of the season.

Is GA a good enough metric for you?

GA is a fine stat for me. Doesn't tell the whole story either way, but its a fine stat for what it is. That said, your numbers here -- presumably taken from NHL.com's stats are slightly off. NHL.com counts a shoot out loss as a "goal against," which I think we can probably agree aren't true "goals against" for how either of us is trying to present this stat. Discounting shootout losses for both seasons you end up with 182 GA in 11-12 and 190 in 13-14. That's a difference of 8 goals. Sure, that number doesn't look huge. But its not insignificant, especially considering the differences during the respective seasons in personnel on the back end. [Edit: What 31 posted, if correct, could alter the thinking on this even further. A 13 goal difference. (Though due to his sarcastic posting history - which I enjoy even when at my own expense - I sometimes have trouble discerning which of his posts are actually legit, which is why I'm couching that statement.)]

You want to blame it on the start to the season and an adjustment period to the system. That's fine. I'm not completely opposed to that line of thought, as I've already acknowledged that the team has certainly progressed throughout the season.

Adjusting to the system may very well have been part of the problems in the beginning of the season. But what I also saw was a team struggling against clearly superior competition. In the first 12 games of the season, 8 of them were against playoff teams. So its convenient that the games you're throwing out also happened to be some of the toughest games the Rangers played all year. (By way of comparison - if you were to decide to throw out the first 12 games of the 11-12 season to be consistent - only 4 of the first 12 games were against playoff teams, so you would be throwing out some of the 'easier' games for the 11-12 team; making it not exactly a fair comparison).

But if we discount the possible issue with just deciding to discount these samples, I find myself wondering why it is suddenly ok on these boards to discount a subset of the season for this year when just last season there was just as good a reason for the beginning of the season to be discounted, but the people advocating that same thought process were crucified. Quite the whip lash I get from these boards at times. Anyhow - moving on.

And you're ignoring the broader point I made about personnel. For the personnel this team has had throughout the season compared to the 11-12 team, they should be miles better than that team defensively. But they haven't been. Even discounting the beginning of this season, and doing the same for 11-12, there isn't a significant difference in GA (to use your train of thought / logic).

So yes, in my mind the team as a whole has taken at the very least a small step backwards on defense and hasn't made up for it with more offensive production.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

GA is a fine stat for me. Doesn't tell the whole story either way, but its a fine stat for what it is. That said, your numbers here -- presumably taken from NHL.com's stats are slightly off. NHL.com counts a shoot out loss as a "goal against," which I think we can probably agree aren't true "goals against" for how either of us is trying to present this stat. Discounting shootout losses for both seasons you end up with 182 GA in 11-12 and 190 in 13-14. That's a difference of 8 goals. Sure, that number doesn't look huge. But its not insignificant, especially considering the differences during the respective seasons in personnel on the back end.

You want to blame it on the start to the season and an adjustment period to the system. That's fine. I'm not completely opposed to that line of thought, as I've already acknowledged that the team has certainly progressed throughout the season.

Adjusting to the system may very well have been part of the problems in the beginning of the season. But what I also saw was a team struggling against clearly superior competition. In the first 12 games of the season, 8 of them were against playoff teams. So its convenient that the games you're throwing out also happened to be some of the toughest games the Rangers played all year. (By way of comparison - if you were to decide to throw out the first 12 games of the 11-12 season to be consistent - only 4 of the first 12 games were against playoff teams, so you would be throwing out some of the 'easier' games for the 11-12 team; making it not exactly a fair comparison).

But if we discount the possible issue with just deciding to discount these samples, I find myself wondering why it is suddenly ok on these boards to discount a subset of the season for this year when just last season there was just as good a reason for the beginning of the season to be discounted, but the people advocating that same thought process were crucified. Quite the whip lash I get from these boards at times. Anyhow - moving on.

And you're ignoring the broader point I made about personnel. For the personnel this team has had throughout the season compared to the 11-12 team, they should be miles better than that team defensively. But they haven't been. Even discounting the beginning of this season, and doing the same for 11-12, there isn't a significant difference in GA (to use your train of thought / logic).

So yes, in my mind the team as a whole has taken at the very least a small step backwards on defense and hasn't made up for it with more offensive production.

The Rangers against SJ, Anaheim, and St. Louis during the transition: Goals against of 9, 6, 5.

After the transition against the same teams: 1, 2, 2

Maybe the fact that they were transitioning was a bigger deal than the competition. The competition made the transition tougher, but the transition was BY FAR a bigger problem than the quality of competition.

 

[Vidic15*]

GA is a fine stat for me. Doesn't tell the whole story either way, but its a fine stat for what it is. That said, your numbers here -- presumably taken from NHL.com's stats are slightly off. NHL.com counts a shoot out loss as a "goal against," which I think we can probably agree aren't true "goals against" for how either of us is trying to present this stat. Discounting shootout losses for both seasons you end up with 182 GA in 11-12 and 190 in 13-14. That's a difference of 8 goals. Sure, that number doesn't look huge. But its not insignificant, especially considering the differences during the respective seasons in personnel on the back end. [Edit: What 31 posted, if correct, could alter the thinking on this even further. A 13 goal difference. (Though due to his sarcastic posting history - which I enjoy even when at my own expense - I sometimes have trouble discerning which of his posts are actually legit, which is why I'm couching that statement.)]

You want to blame it on the start to the season and an adjustment period to the system. That's fine. I'm not completely opposed to that line of thought, as I've already acknowledged that the team has certainly progressed throughout the season.

Adjusting to the system may very well have been part of the problems in the beginning of the season. But what I also saw was a team struggling against clearly superior competition. In the first 12 games of the season, 8 of them were against playoff teams. So its convenient that the games you're throwing out also happened to be some of the toughest games the Rangers played all year. (By way of comparison - if you were to decide to throw out the first 12 games of the 11-12 season to be consistent - only 4 of the first 12 games were against playoff teams, so you would be throwing out some of the 'easier' games for the 11-12 team; making it not exactly a fair comparison).

But if we discount the possible issue with just deciding to discount these samples, I find myself wondering why it is suddenly ok on these boards to discount a subset of the season for this year when just last season there was just as good a reason for the beginning of the season to be discounted, but the people advocating that same thought process were crucified. Quite the whip lash I get from these boards at times. Anyhow - moving on.

And you're ignoring the broader point I made about personnel. For the personnel this team has had throughout the season compared to the 11-12 team, they should be miles better than that team defensively. But they haven't been. Even discounting the beginning of this season, and doing the same for 11-12, there isn't a significant difference in GA (to use your train of thought / logic).

So yes, in my mind the team as a whole has taken at the very least a small step backwards on defense and hasn't made up for it with more offensive production.

I don't get his. We finished the 4th best defensive team in the NHL. Only two goals behind St. Louis for 3rd. When we lost to St. Louis 2-1, they immediately starting trapping after they scored the first goal of the game with about 9 minutes and change in the FIRST PERIOD. It was the most disgusting anti-hockey I have seen in a while. We don't play like that, at all. This team competed defensively with old dead puck era hockey being played by other solid defensive teams.

 

[Richter Scale]

The Rangers against SJ, Anaheim, and St. Louis during the transition: Goals against of 9, 6, 5.

After the transition against the same teams: 1, 2, 2

Maybe the fact that they were transitioning was a bigger deal than the competition. The competition made the transition tougher, but the transition was BY FAR a bigger problem than the quality of competition.

And how many of those games that I've bolded from your post did they win "after the transition"? Hint: zero.

But sure, I grant you that they did give up fewer goals in those games. Not much of a consolation prize when you still lose them.
Those are elite teams, which have the skill to be successful playing a somewhat fast and loose style and the defense/grittiness/size to play a tight checking game depending upon the type of game they get into. It is part of why they are elite.

I've acknowledged that as the season has worn on, the team has improved defensively (it's pretty hard not to from the start of the season they had). But I've also said, that for a range of factors that I've already mentioned, I think they should have been better - and for that reason, they don't match up to the 11-12 team through the regular season in my mind. We'll see what they do in the playoffs.

I don't think that is being negative. I think it is putting things in perspective. But I'll leave it at that.

 

[Richter Scale]

I don't get his. We finished the 4th best defensive team in the NHL. Only two goals behind St. Louis for 3rd. When we lost to St. Louis 2-1, they immediately starting trapping after they scored the first goal of the game with about 9 minutes and change in the FIRST PERIOD. It was the most disgusting anti-hockey I have seen in a while. We don't play like that, at all. This team competed defensively with old dead puck era hockey being played by other solid defensive teams.

I don't understand what you don't understand about the bolded. Funny sentence. But seriously. What is confusing you? Here is what I already posted, which is what I meant by that statement:

And if you're looking at the defensemen - the 11-12 team's back end was, on paper, pretty significantly worse than this team's for much of the season. If anything, this year's team underperformed defensively, compared to what I would have expected looking solely at the roster.

2011-12 (in order of most games played): McDonagh, Girardi, Del Zotto, Stralman, Bickel, Staal, Eminger, Woywitka, Sauer, Erixon. Only the first three players in that group played over 70 games.

2013-14 (in order of most games played): Girardi, Stralman, McDonagh, Moore, Staal, Del Zotto, Klein, Falk, Diaz. The first 6 players in that group (if you consider Del Z and Klein 'one player') all played more than 70 games this season. A much better and more stable d-corps - on paper.

I'm not saying this team is terrible defensively. Just not as good as the OP seems to think they are and not as easily comparable to 11-12. It feels like people are starting to think I'm saying they are just abysmal at defense, and that isn't the point I've been trying to make.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

And how many of those games that I've bolded from your post did they win "after the transition"? Hint: zero.

But sure, I grant you that they did give up fewer goals in those games. Not much of a consolation prize when you still lose them.
Those are elite teams, which have the skill to be successful playing a fast and loose style and the defense/grittiness/size to play a tight checking game depending upon the type of game they get into. It is part of why they are elite.

I've acknowledged that as the season has worn on, the team has improved defensively (it's pretty hard not to from the start of the season they had). But I've also said, that for a range of factors that I've already mentioned, I think they should have been better - and for that reason, they don't match up to the 11-12 team in my mind.

I don't think that is being negative. I think it is putting things in perspective. But I'll leave it at that.

I was talking about defense, nothing to do with winning overall. We lost all of those games by 1 goal and I'd say outplayed the other team arguably all 3 times. Lots of luck is involved in 1 goal losses, we didn't lose all 3 because we got outclassed or something. The 11-12 team played a completely unsustainable style and it showed in the playoffs. They got outplayed in all 3 series against the 6, 7, 8 seeds. If the Rangers played in the 3rd season under AV like they did Torts, despite their ridiculously low shootout percentage and the 11-12 team overachieving completely, they'd have close to the same amount of points as that team. Wins and losses don't tell the whole story. Just watching the two teams, one team knows what it's doing the other team looks like a scrappy bunch hanging in there usually and winning due to the best season from the best goalie of his generation. If we got that Lundqvist most of the season, despite the transition this team would be ridiculous. Thankfully Lundqvist has turned a corner though.

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

GA is a fine stat for me. Doesn't tell the whole story either way, but its a fine stat for what it is. That said, your numbers here -- presumably taken from NHL.com's stats are slightly off. NHL.com counts a shoot out loss as a "goal against," which I think we can probably agree aren't true "goals against" for how either of us is trying to present this stat. Discounting shootout losses for both seasons you end up with 182 GA in 11-12 and 190 in 13-14. That's a difference of 8 goals. Sure, that number doesn't look huge. But its not insignificant, especially considering the differences during the respective seasons in personnel on the back end. [Edit: What 31 posted, if correct, could alter the thinking on this even further. A 13 goal difference. (Though due to his sarcastic posting history - which I enjoy even when at my own expense - I sometimes have trouble discerning which of his posts are actually legit, which is why I'm couching that statement.)]

You want to blame it on the start to the season and an adjustment period to the system. That's fine. I'm not completely opposed to that line of thought, as I've already acknowledged that the team has certainly progressed throughout the season.

Adjusting to the system may very well have been part of the problems in the beginning of the season. But what I also saw was a team struggling against clearly superior competition. In the first 12 games of the season, 8 of them were against playoff teams. So its convenient that the games you're throwing out also happened to be some of the toughest games the Rangers played all year. (By way of comparison - if you were to decide to throw out the first 12 games of the 11-12 season to be consistent - only 4 of the first 12 games were against playoff teams, so you would be throwing out some of the 'easier' games for the 11-12 team; making it not exactly a fair comparison).

But if we discount the possible issue with just deciding to discount these samples, I find myself wondering why it is suddenly ok on these boards to discount a subset of the season for this year when just last season there was just as good a reason for the beginning of the season to be discounted, but the people advocating that same thought process were crucified. Quite the whip lash I get from these boards at times. Anyhow - moving on.

And you're ignoring the broader point I made about personnel. For the personnel this team has had throughout the season compared to the 11-12 team, they should be miles better than that team defensively. But they haven't been. Even discounting the beginning of this season, and doing the same for 11-12, there isn't a significant difference in GA (to use your train of thought / logic).

So yes, in my mind the team as a whole has taken at the very least a small step backwards on defense and hasn't made up for it with more offensive production.

I have about an hour - an hour and a half of time. I will take away the Rangers first 10 games from this season, while also taking away the Rangers worst games of 2011-2012. That's actually giving a slight advantage to the Rangers of 2011-2012, as i'm taking away their worst 10 games as they were not transitioning, and am taking out the first 10 from this season due to transitioning purposes.

I will compare their GA for both seasons and their empty net goals allowed during those games. I will not discount shoot out goals against. Those, in my opinion, are fair game.

I will put up the stats in a little. If the stats prove your point, I'll retract my previous statement.

I do not believe the stats will prove your point, though. We shall see.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

I don't understand what you don't understand about the bolded. Funny sentence. But seriously. What is confusing you? Here is what I already posted, which is what I meant by that statement:



I'm not saying this team is terrible defensively. Just not as good as the OP seems to think they are and not as easily comparable to 11-12. It feels like people are starting to think I'm saying they are just abysmal at defense, and that isn't the point I've been trying to make.

I'm not sure what your point is regarding the players. I'm taking into account that Staal didn't play half the season, Sauer got hurt, an they had no 6th D-man but they still had the best D numbers since at least the lockout compared to other Rangers teams. I'm comparing them to THAT team. If you want to say that this year's team underachieved, I guess that's fine. But transitioning to a different system is way bigger deal than missing players. We played a soft schedule but still the Rangers allowed 8 goals in 5 games without one of the best D-men in the world, and almost shutout a 100 point team in Montreal without McD, Girardi, and Hank. Guys knowing the system down cold can stand to lose a Staal for a couple of months, but if the team doesn't understand how to play the system, they can have great players on every D-pairing would look bad.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

I have about an hour - an hour and a half of time. I will take away the Rangers first 10 games from this season, while also taking away the Rangers worst games of 2011-2012. That's actually giving a slight advantage to the Rangers of 2011-2012, as i'm taking away their worst 10 games as they were not transitioning, and am taking out the first 10 from this season due to transitioning purposes.

I will compare their GA for both seasons and their empty net goals allowed during those games. I will not discount shoot out goals against. Those, in my opinion, are fair game.

I will put up the stats in a little. If the stats prove your point, I'll retract my previous statement.

I do not believe the stats will prove your point, though. We shall see.

Wait, you're including shootout goals in the goals against? That's silly. Also the 11-12 team allowed more than 4 goals twice all season, the exercise will definitely favor the 13-14 team. I will say that that team's from 11-12 ability to allow 4 or fewer goals was uber impressive. They set a record of consecutive games to now allow 5 goals to start a season.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

I have about an hour - an hour and a half of time. I will take away the Rangers first 10 games from this season, while also taking away the Rangers worst games of 2011-2012. That's actually giving a slight advantage to the Rangers of 2011-2012, as i'm taking away their worst 10 games as they were not transitioning, and am taking out the first 10 from this season due to transitioning purposes.

I will compare their GA for both seasons and their empty net goals allowed during those games. I will not discount shoot out goals against. Those, in my opinion, are fair game.

I will put up the stats in a little. If the stats prove your point, I'll retract my previous statement.

I do not believe the stats will prove your point, though. We shall see.

I think the point you'll get to is that both teams were pretty similar.

But one overachieved and one is just unlucky; which, really, is a BS conclusion considering its driven by people liking the way the '13-14 team plays the game even though it hasn't yet led to better results.

I hope this team makes the conference finals like that '11-12 team; and I hope they do it in a fashion that satisfies the peanut gallery that watches competitive sports for the entertainment above the competition/results.

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

Wait, you're including shootout goals in the goals against? That's silly. Also the 11-12 team allowed more than 4 goals twice all season, the exercise will definitely favor the 13-14 team. I will say that that team's from 11-12 ability to allow 4 or fewer goals was uber impressive. They set a record of consecutive games to now allow 5 goals to start a season.

I'll include both versions, I don't mind.

Also, in theory, that should benefit the 11-12 Rangers, as I am not removing this year's Rangers top 10 worst games, but just their first games which i'm labeling as transition. I'm looking at the Rangers 10 worst in 11-12, i could be taking away games that would actually be favoring the Rangers GA total in 13-14 by not doing the same for them.

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

I think the point you'll get to is that both teams were pretty similar.

But one overachieved and one is just unlucky; which, really, is a BS conclusion considering its driven by people liking the way the '13-14 team plays the game even though it hasn't yet led to better results.

I hope this team makes the conference finals like that '11-12 team; and I hope they do it in a fashion that satisfies the peanut gallery that watches competitive sports for the entertainment above the competition/results.

Which team are you labeling as overachievers, and which team are you labeling as unlucky?

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Which team are you labeling as overachievers, and which team are you labeling as unlucky?

'11-12 = overachievers

'13-14 = unlucky

That seems to be the narrative around here

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

'11-12 = overachievers

'13-14 = unlucky

That seems to be the narrative around here

I think that is a proper narrative when comparing the two teams in terms of offensive efficiency and production.

I don't know how you can quantify either statement through defensive metrics.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

I think that is a proper narrative when comparing the two teams in terms of offensive efficiency and production.

I don't know how you can quantify either statement through defensive metrics.

You can try subtracting games, or bending over backwards with excuses to make the #'s work better. Thats what the OP attempted to do.

Luckily, the "unlucky" thing works whenever you dont have the results to back it up, because those results apparently should have been better than they actually were.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

It's not just like or not liking how a team plays. It's about talent. It's also about statistical conclusions of one team's style being more correlated to winning. Is it that hard to understand? 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).

 

[SnowblindNYR]

BRB, likes looking at GFA, GAA, and points and seeing if it's higher than another team and then argues with anyone that dare look into it a little more deeply. Damn all of you people to hell that want to actually analyze the team and not read a stat sheet!

 

[Richter Scale]

It's also about statistical conclusions of one team's style being more correlated to winning.

If these actually exist, I would be very interested in seeing them. Care to share?

 

[SnowblindNYR]

If these actually exist, I would be very interested in seeing them. Care to share?

Ask 31, Mint, and Blue Blooded. Those guys are good with advanced stats. A team's possession stats measure by shots directed at the opposing net vs. your own, correlate with winning better than anything else. The Rangers were one of the best possession teams in the league. 6th, I think. I'm not the type of person to take them as the be all end all, because then you end up with conclusions that are a stretch sometimes. That said it makes sense that the team that has the puck less is more prone to mistakes.

 

[AlternateSideParking]

The Rangers were 4th in the NHL in goals against even though nimorods on this board said Vigneault will destroy Henrik and they wouldn't play defense.

This team is deeper on defense. The bottom 3 of Klein, Moore and Diaz is light years ahead of the Eminger, Woywitka, Bickel trash we saw in 2012.

 

[NickyFotiu]

I think the point you'll get to is that both teams were pretty similar.

But one overachieved and one is just unlucky; which, really, is a BS conclusion considering its driven by people liking the way the '13-14 team plays the game even though it hasn't yet led to better results.

I hope this team makes the conference finals like that '11-12 team; and I hope they do it in a fashion that satisfies the peanut gallery that watches competitive sports for the entertainment above the competition/results.

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.

 

[Richter Scale]

Ask 31, Mint, and Blue Blooded. Those guys are good with advanced stats. A team's possession stats measure by shots directed at the opposing net vs. your own, correlate with winning better than anything else. The Rangers were one of the best possession teams in the league. 6th, I think. I'm not the type of person to take them as the be all end all, because then you end up with conclusions that are a stretch sometimes. That said it makes sense that the team that has the puck less is more prone to mistakes.

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.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

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.

Winning entertains me.

Ive been watching the Rangers too long to be picky about how they win games.

 

[AlternateSideParking]

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.

 

[Richter Scale]

The Rangers were 4th in the NHL in goals against even though nimorods on this board said Vigneault will destroy Henrik and they wouldn't play defense.

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.

This team is deeper on defense. The bottom 3 of Klein, Moore and Diaz is light years ahead of the Eminger, Woywitka, Bickel trash we saw in 2012.

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)?