What is your most unpopular Rangers opinion?

[Maximus]

So, like an exact cutoff point?

I don't know.

Not 1 in 80!

So making the playoffs 38 times in past 50 years not only making it but winning multiple rounds in half of those playoff appearances doesnt move the needle at all...eh?

I wonder if you went over to the Islander board and ask them so what would you rather have 4 Cups in a row but after that for the next 40 years, you are going to make the playoffs maybe 25% of the time and you’ll go one and done 95% of the time with no hope for another Cup.

Or on the other hand you can have 1 Cup in the past 40 years but you’ll make the playoffs 80% of the time and you’ll win multiple rounds in half those playoffs appearances and the quest to win a Cup will be viable most years,I’d bet a large chunk of my hefty mortgage that a large majority of Islanders fans would give up those 4 Cups and take the path we have been on seeing ours has hope whereas there path is a dead end.

Anyways..Its Cup or bust for you...I got it. Well at least now I know why your so miserable, ornery and so negative.

It’s too bad you have such a narrow minded view because you’ve missed some pretty enjoyable hockey over the past decade or so despite no Cup win....oh well!

 

[Machinehead]

So making the playoffs 38 times in past 50 years not only making it but winning multiple rounds in half of those playoff appearances doesnt move the needle at all...eh?

I wonder if you went over to the Islander board and ask them so what would you rather have 4 Cups in a row but after that for the next 40 years, you are going to make the playoffs maybe 25% of the time and you’ll go one and done 95% of the time.

Or on the other hand you can have 1 Cup in the past 40 years but you’ll make the playoffs 80% of the time and you’ll win multiple rounds in half those playoffs appearances, I’d bet a large chunk of my hefty mortgage that a large majority of Islanders fans would give up those 4 Cups and take the path we have been on seeing ours has hope whereas there path is a dead end.

Anyways..Its Cup or bust for you...I got it. Well at least now I know why your so miserable, ornery and so negative.

It’s too bad you have such a narrow minded view because you’ve missed some pretty enjoyable hockey over the past decade or so despite no Cup win....oh well!

When you make the playoffs 38 times and win it once, then no, it doesn't move the needle.

If we had made it 38 times and won it 2 or 3 times, then I could say "yeah, doing that is better than making it 5 or 6 times and winning it 5 or 6 times." Then the subjectivity comes into play.

There is absolutely nothing subjective whatsoever about the Rangers being a bad hockey franchise.

And again, it is just blowing my mind that I'm explaining this.

 

[Edge]

When you make the playoffs 38 times and win it once, then no, it doesn't move the needle.

If we had made it 38 times and won it 2 or 3 times, then I could say "yeah, doing that is better than making it 5 or 6 times and winning it 5 or 6 times." Then the subjectivity comes into play.

There is absolutely nothing subjective whatsoever about the Rangers being a bad hockey franchise.

And again, it is just blowing my mind that I'm explaining this.

But if it's blowing your mind, and everyone else seems to be confused or unclear about how you arrived at that conclusion, that indicates there is a clear disconnect. So help us connect the dots.

 

[Machinehead]

But if it's blowing your mind, and everyone else seems to be confused or unclear about how you arrived at that conclusion, that indicates there is a clear disconnect. So help us connect the dots.

But I literally don't know how to explain it.

You're asking me to explain why water is wet. Like, it just f***ing is.

 

[Edge]

But I literally don't know how to explain it.

You're asking me to explain why water is wet. Like, it just ****ing is.

No I'm asking you to explain why you think some water tastes better than other water.

Is it the temperature at which it is served? Is it the minerals (too much, too little)? Is it the packaging? The label? The aftertaste?

You say hardware is the only thing that matters. But then you say 1 in 80 isn't good because they didn't occur in a certain time frame. So how does 1 in 80 compare to zero in 50? Or 3 in 40, but missing the playoffs more often. How is it graded compared to nearly moving to Kansas City, but being gifted arguably two generational talents? Why did you choose 1 in 80 and not 1 in 30? How do you account for teams not existing or someone like the Habs having rigged the system for the first 50 years?How does sustained success factor compared to a short window of success surrounded by mediocrity? How does value factor into things, because this is a business? Do you not consider business part of your criteria?

Things of that nature.

As someone who works in higher education, and is familiar with the concept of defending a thesis, I don't think these questions are out of line. I mean obviously no one is expecting that kind of defense, but a couple of lines perhaps? Help us understand the parameters.

 

[Tawnos]

Anyone counting years before expansion and the draft to look at overall franchise success is being disingenuous. And no, this isn't some arbitrary cutoff line. The conditions the Rangers had to operate in prior to 1967 were largely disadvantageous for the Rangers.

From 67-68 to 18-19, the Rangers are 7th in points percentage. They've made the playoffs 72.5% of the time, which is 6th behind Boston, Montreal, Philadelphia, San Jose, and St Louis. They've played in the semi-finals (final 4... conference finals after 1975, divisional before) 22% of the time, which is 7th behind Boston, Chicago, Edmonton, Montreal, Philadelphia, and the Islanders. I didn't include Vegas in there for obvious reasons.

The Rangers aren't the absolute most successful franchise, and definitely not when it comes to ultimate success, but I think they can be called successful in a broader sense.

 

[Machinehead]

No I'm asking you to explain why you think some water tastes better than other water.

Is it the temperature at which it is served? Is it the minerals (too much, too little)? Is it the packaging? The label? The aftertaste?

You say hardware is the only thing that matters. But then you say 1 in 80 isn't good because they didn't occur in a certain time frame. So how does 1 in 80 compare to zero in 50? Or 3 in 40, but missing the playoffs more often. How is it graded compared to nearly moving to Kansas City, but being gifted arguably two generational talents? Why did you choose 1 in 80 and not 1 in 30? How do you account for teams not existing or someone like the Habs having rigged the system for the first 50 years?

How does sustained success factor compared to a short window of success surrounded by mediocrity? How does value factor into things, because this is a business. Do you not consider business part of your criteria.

As someone who works in education, and is familiar with the concept of defending a thesis, I don't think these questions are out of line. I mean obviously no one is expecting that kind of defense, but a couple of lines perhaps?

Ok, I feel like I'm writing a thesis on why the sky is blue but I'll take a crack at it.

Since 1940, 12 franchises have more Stanley Cups than the Rangers, including every single other team that's been around that long.

Since 1967, which I think is a fair cutoff point for reasons @Tawnos highlighted...wow, look at this: the same 12 franchises have more Stanley Cups than the Rangers.

Since 1926, in the whole 94 years of their history, the Rangers have had the best record in the NHL a paltry four times. Half of that time, they only had five other teams to beat.

Are the Rangers below the pack? Probably not.

Are the Rangers firmly in the pack with absolutely nothing special to say about themselves? Absolutely.

More than any other NA sport, the NHL is a league of haves and have-nots. The Rangers are demonstratively the latter.

 

[BKGooner]

Objectively, the Rangers were clearly the worst team of the Original 6 era. So bad that the greatest player of that 50 year time frame attended Rangers training camp and then decided he was better suited elsewhere. Hockey was different in Rangerstown even in the 50's.
In the first expansion era, the Rangers were pretty average. Some very good teams in the early 70's that just couldn't get over the hump and a smattering of lucky teams but no bonafide monster teams. If you think I am being harsh, look at what the Oilers, Candiens, Bruins and Islanders did in this time frame.
In the second expansion era the Rangers were an above average team. Couple of President's Trophies, one Stanley Cup, some seasons of abject horror. Again this may seem harsh, but in a time of relative parity, several teams managed to post multiple Finals appearances and Cups.
Post Lockout era the Rangers have again been an above average team. No Cup wins,A President's Trophy,several Eastern Conference Final appearances. Good but not great.
Looking at each of these time frames who were the Rangers best players and where do they belong relative to their peers? There really isn't much to compare. Our legends are exactly that our legends, not the legends of the game.
Overall, i would rate the Rangers as an iconic but ultimately average or even mediocre franchise. I still love them more than a fat kid loves cake.

 

[Machinehead]

And yes, if the Rangers have a dynasty, they enter the haves.

You could say that about any team ever.

 

[romba]

Unpopular opinion:

@Machinehead is not completely wrong

 

[Edge]

Ok, I feel like I'm writing a thesis on why the sky is blue but I'll take a crack at it.

Since 1940, 12 franchises have more Stanley Cups than the Rangers, including every single other team that's been around that long.

Since 1926, in the whole 94 years of their history, the Rangers have had the best record in the NHL a paltry four times. Half of that time, they only had five other teams to beat.

Are the Rangers below the pack? Probably not.

Are the Rangers firmly in the pack with absolutely nothing special to say about themselves? Absolutely.

More than any other NA sport, the NHL is a league of haves and have-nots. The Rangers are demonstratively the latter.

But your arguing post-1940 in one statement, and then 94 years in the other. That's a complete cherry pick. It's one or the other. And you previously said that hardware was everything, so based on your second criteria they rank 7th.

And where is that cutoff with nothing to say about themselves?

Is it 5th? 7th? 10th?

Chicago had less cups prior to 2010, but more cups since. As such they leap-frogged the Rangers. So are they now a substantially better franchise? If the Rangers do the same, and win three cups in the next 10 years, does that change the trajectory? That would give them the fourth most cups rather than the 7th. Is the difference between four and seven the difference? If that happens, does it become 4 in 90 years, or 4 in 36?

Who are the teams with something special outside of Montreal, Toronto and Detroit? Toronto sits second right now, but they are 0 for their 53 seasons. How does that factor?

Are the Islanders, as a whole really more successful? Basically their whole franchise is summed in one amazing stretch from 1980 to 1983. And yet their fan base has dwindled, they've nearly moved several times, there's little in the 7 years prior or 37 years since to write home about.

As Tawnos pointed out, from 67-68 to 18-19, the Rangers are 7th in points percentage. They've made the playoffs 72.5% of the time, which is 6th behind Boston, Montreal, Philadelphia, San Jose, and St Louis. They've played in the semi-finals (final 4... conference finals after 1975, divisional before) 22% of the time, which is 7th behind Boston, Chicago, Edmonton, Montreal, Philadelphia, and the Islanders. Why wasn't a post-expansion considered a more accurate barometer?

Why is 1940 a better cutoff than 1926 or 1967?

 

[BKGooner]

Tawnos makes a fair point. Pre-1967 The Leafs owned GTA and most of Ontario, The Canadiens got Quebec and the Rangers, Hawks, Bruins, and Wings scrappled it out for the remaining players. How come all those teams were capable of assembling dynasties under the same restrictions. You can argue that the Hawks are as bad as the Rangers in the Original 6 era and that Detroit might be worse if not for Howe, but the fact remains the Rangers have just never produced enough elite players to compete against other teams at a dynastic level.

 

[Machinehead]

But your arguing post-1940 in one statement, and then 94 years in the other. That's a complete cherry pick. It's one or the other.

I covered multiple periods of time to provide more evidence.

And you just said that hardware was everything, so based on your second criteria they rank 7th.

Don't know where you got that. 12 teams with more Cups means you're 13th.

And where is that cutoff with nothing to say about themselves?

Is it 5th? 7th? 10th?

Again, I don't know exactly, I think you're just being obtuse.

Chicago had less cups prior to 2010, but more cups since. As such they leap-frogged the Rangers. So are they now a substantially better franchise? If the Rangers do the same, and win three cups in the next 10 years, does that change the trajectory? That would give them the fourth most cups rather than the 7th. Is the difference between four and seven the difference? If that happens, does it become 4 in 90 years, or 4 in 36?

Yes, yes, and yes. That's how winning works. We should definitely try it.

Who are the teams with something special outside of Montreal, Toronto and Detroit? Toronto sits second right now, but they are 0 for their 53 seasons. How does that factor?

13 all-time and being bad recently >>>>> 4 all-time and being bad recently. That's an easy one.

Are the Islanders, as a whole really more successful? Basically their whole franchise is summed in one amazing stretch from 1980 to 1983. And yet their fan base has dwindled, they've nearly moved several times, there's little in the 7 years prior or 37 years since to write home about.

The Islanders have THREE more championships than we do in our lifetimes, our parents' lifetimes, and some of our grandparents' lifetimes. Yes, they're more successful.

As Tawnos pointed out, from 67-68 to 18-19, the Rangers are 7th in points percentage. They've made the playoffs 72.5% of the time, which is 6th behind Boston, Montreal, Philadelphia, San Jose, and St Louis. They've played in the semi-finals (final 4... conference finals after 1975, divisional before) 22% of the time, which is 7th behind Boston, Chicago, Edmonton, Montreal, Philadelphia, and the Islanders. Why wasn't a post-expansion considered a more accurate barometer?

The ultimate results are the same. I care about the Stanley Cup and I'll give you finishing with the best record. That's worth something.

I absolutely could not care less about making the 2nd round or having the 7th best record.

Why is 1940 a better cutoff than 1926 or 1967?

It's not necessarily. That's why I covered multiple eras.

 

[KirkAlbuquerque]

Objectively, the Rangers were clearly the worst team of the Original 6 era. So bad that the greatest player of that 50 year time frame attended Rangers training camp and then decided he was better suited elsewhere. Hockey was different in Rangerstown even in the 50's.
In the first expansion era, the Rangers were pretty average. Some very good teams in the early 70's that just couldn't get over the hump and a smattering of lucky teams but no bonafide monster teams. If you think I am being harsh, look at what the Oilers, Candiens, Bruins and Islanders did in this time frame.
In the second expansion era the Rangers were an above average team. Couple of President's Trophies, one Stanley Cup, some seasons of abject horror. Again this may seem harsh, but in a time of relative parity, several teams managed to post multiple Finals appearances and Cups.
Post Lockout era the Rangers have again been an above average team. No Cup wins,A President's Trophy,several Eastern Conference Final appearances. Good but not great.
Looking at each of these time frames who were the Rangers best players and where do they belong relative to their peers? There really isn't much to compare. Our legends are exactly that our legends, not the legends of the game.
Overall, i would rate the Rangers as an iconic but ultimately average or even mediocre franchise. I still love them more than a fat kid loves cake.

They were the worst team of the O6 era, no doubt . Those teams in the 50s and 60s were horrible and there were a lot of reasons for that well documented . But as far as worst O6 franchises, the Leafs are quite easily the worst AINEC

 

[Machinehead]

They were the worst team of the O6 era, no doubt . Those teams in the 50s and 60s were horrible and there were a lot of reasons for that well documented . But as far as worst O6 franchises, the Leafs are quite easily the worst AINEC

They have 13 Stanley Cups.

That's three New York Rangers plus change.

 

[KirkAlbuquerque]

They have 13 Stanley Cups.

That's three New York Rangers plus change.

Don’t care. Since expansion they haven’t even made a cup final, let alone won . That’s pathetic.

 

[Edge]

I covered multiple periods of time to provide more evidence.



Don't know where you got that. 12 teams with more Cups means you're 13th.



Again, I don't know exactly, I think you're just being obtuse.



Yes, yes, and yes. That's how winning works. We should definitely try it.



19 all-time and being bad recently >>>>> 4 all-time and being bad recently. That's an easy one.



The Islanders have THREE more championships than we do in our lifetimes, our parents' lifetimes, and some of our grandparents' lifetimes. Yes, they're more successful.



The ultimate results are the same. I care about the Stanley Cup and I'll give you finishing with the best record. That's worth something.

I absolutely could not care less about making the 2nd round or having the 7th best record.



It's not necessarily. That's why I covered multiple eras.

Total Stanley Cup championships: Rangers rank 8th: Check Out Who Has the Most Stanley Cup Wins

Post Expansion Era:

Rangers are 7th in points percentage.

Rangers are 6th for percentage of making the playoffs.

Rangers are 7th for playing in the final 4.

So that's exactly the point, there are identifiers by which the Rangers rank 6-8 in the league. Not the best, but not unsuccessful.

 

[Machinehead]

Total Stanley Cup championships: Rangers rank 8th: Check Out Who Has the Most Stanley Cup Wins

Post Expansion Era:

Rangers are 7th in points percentage.

Rangers are 6th for percentage of making the playoffs.

Rangers are 7th for playing in the final 4.

So that's exactly the point, there are identifiers by which the Rangers rank 6-8 in the league. Not the best, but not unsuccessful.

Yeah but it's all the identifiers you don't get to hang banners for.

You do understand that perspective, right?

 

[Machinehead]

Don’t care. Since expansion they haven’t even made a cup final, let alone won . That’s pathetic.

That's fine and dandy but calling them by far the worst 06 franchise inherently includes the o6 era where they were far and away the second best team.

That's a bad take.

 

[KirkAlbuquerque]

That's fine and dandy but calling them by far the worst 06 franchise inherently includes the o6 era where they were far and away the second best team.

That's a bad take.

You’re a bad take.

 

[Machinehead]

You’re a bad take.

I was a miracle baby.

 

[BKGooner]

They were the worst team of the O6 era, no doubt . Those teams in the 50s and 60s were horrible and there were a lot of reasons for that well documented . But as far as worst O6 franchises, the Leafs are quite easily the worst AINEC

Agreed definitely very close to the bottom since the original expansion. and that could outweigh their earlier success. One things all the underachiving O6 teams have in common is negligent ownership. Wirtz, Ballard and Gulf&Western were only concerned about draining as much capital from the fans as possible. I can't even remember who owned the wing before Illitch, but they were vampires too.

 

[Edge]

Yeah but it's all the identifiers you don't get to hang banners for.

You do understand that perspective, right?

Okay fine, the Rangers have the 8th most banners in league history.

Until the recent surges by Chicago and Pittsburgh, they had the 6th most banners.

 

[Machinehead]

Okay fine, the Rangers have the 8th most banners in league history.

Until the recent surges by Chicago and Pittsburgh, they had the 6th most banners.

I'm still underwhelmed.

 

[Machinehead]

Agreed definitely very close to the bottom since the original expansion. and that could outweigh their earlier success. One things all the underachiving O6 teams have in common is negligent ownership. Wirtz, Ballard and Gulf&Western were only concerned about draining as much capital from the fans as possible. I can't even remember who owned the wing before Illitch, but they were vampires too.

That sounds like a relatable and familiar problem!