Post-Game Talk: The Official Matt Rempe Hart Trophy Campaign Thread

[Harbour Dog]

The 2 on 0 goal was 0.12 xG so lower than the first goal.

Seriously? Something is WAY off if they're saying that Kreider's shot there only goes in 1 out of 8 attempts on that play.

Do the numbers literally just look at the type of shot and the area of the ice it's taken from?

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Seriously? Something is WAY off if they're saying that Kreider's shot there only goes in 1 out of 8 attempts on that play.

Do the numbers literally just look at the type of shot and the area of the ice it's taken from?

That's what I was thinking about. Maybe it's taking into consideration plays where the scorer is in that part of the ice on the PP for example where they are getting defended and not taking into account a 2 on 0. The last 2 on 0 I remember us actually scoring on was like Hlavac against the Sabres in 2001. I'm sure we've scored on them since then and 2 on 0 is rare but they're not automatic.

 

[tiggles]

Seriously? Something is WAY off if they're saying that Kreider's shot there only goes in 1 out of 8 attempts on that play.

Do the numbers literally just look at the type of shot and the area of the ice it's taken from?

As far as I know, Moneypuck and most (all?) public expected goal models don't take pre-shot passing into account, because that's not tracked in the NHL's public data. It's why previous iterations of the Rangers that favored quality over quantity were generally viewed more favorably in private models that took those things into consideration.

 

[FUZfan]

A lot of negativity on here despite playing the whole game without taking a bench minor.

 

[Machinehead]

Seriously? Something is WAY off if they're saying that Kreider's shot there only goes in 1 out of 8 attempts on that play.

Do the numbers literally just look at the type of shot and the area of the ice it's taken from?

Pretty much.

The fact that it's a 2 on 0 makes the puck movement extremely unpredictable, but a lot of models are not going to differentiate Kreider's shot from an in-zone chance from the same location.

This is definitely an issue and the type of modeling that Moneypuck uses is already a bit antiquated.

I don't agree with all of Vally's takes nor do I think his model is without its own warts, but his model does way more to differentiate quality.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Pretty much.

The fact that it's a 2 on 0 makes the puck movement extremely unpredictable, but a lot of models are not going to differentiate Kreider's shot from an in-zone chance from the same location.

This is definitely an issue and the type of modeling that Moneypuck uses is already a bit antiquated.

I don't agree with all of Vally's takes nor do I think his model is without its own warts, but his model does way more to differentiate quality.

Almost 3 higher than the Rangers allowed. The difference between the game being a laugher and the Rangers having a shot in the end. Goaltending still sucks.

 

[Machinehead]

View attachment 991004

Almost 3 higher than the Rangers allowed. The difference between the game being a laugher and the Rangers having a shot in the end. Goaltending still sucks.

Goaltending sucks sometimes.

It's pretty random. I can live with it when it's Quick. We're paying him to be random.

The problem is what we're paying the other guy to also be random.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Goaltending sucks sometimes.

It's pretty random. I can live with it when it's Quick. We're paying him to be random.

The problem is what we're paying the other guy to also be random.

I've said this quite a bit. But got posters here calling me a hypocrite because I don't hold Quick to the same standard as the highest paid goalie of all time.

 

[Oscar Lindberg]

I've said this quite a bit. But got posters here calling me a hypocrite because I don't hold Quick to the same standard as the highest paid goalie of all time.

It’s more so you’re nonstop about it but that’s just a guess from me lol

 

[80s Kid]

I like how the caps went from a team in no mans land to a top team after they got rid of obese pete but here we are f***ing ourselves with the same retread. The Fat Boys Club mentality needs to change. We can’t bring in retirement prone coaches because of their legacy just to be an enabler. How does anyone have any respect for a leader when they’re this unfit? I don’t care if you’re a manager at a CVS, you have to show up looking regal and behave like a classy person. Generous, tolerant, doesn’t hold grudges. I personally judge every friend and coworker when I see them stuff themselves full of food at a buffet or when they order food delivery for themselves at their own house gathering and it’s a main course and two full appetizers. You lose respect watching a fat person warfph down a pad thai, a chicken thai red curry and two spring rolls that aren’t even thai and then try to explain the meal as cheaper because you ordered more per delivery. We need to bring in someone dignified and inspires confidence and demands respect with their presence. Someone who doesn’t eat fried foods and instead grabs an omelette at the omelette station and eats it with a yogurt and black coffee and pretend it satisfied them. Someone who has the self control and self care of their image to not purposefully walk by the boxes of pastries on the table and pretend like they barely saw the pastries in the corner of their eye while they walked past them and decided to have one even though they helped themselves to one 5 minutes ago and knew full well what they were doing walking pass the table.

Lol...You're really running with this? If this is still a joke, consider me fooled.

I do think Lavi needs to go, just not because of his weight lol. He had a good first season and I'm sure not all of this is his fault but this season is just not acceptable. Lack of effort, too many men penalties, blowing leads, giving up early goals/not ready to play, etc. This team needs a different approach. I'm not advocating for this but can you imagine this team with Mike Babcock?