Gee, really?
I wonder if the Rangers missing the top half of their six defensemen has had some kind of adverse affect on their defense?
Do you have "data" that might illustrate how losing your #1, #2 and #3 defender might make you worse defensively?
Also... do you have a clue?
I provide statistics... you provide... not much.
Yes, I have a clue. Did you watch the Rangers for the first 58 games? Did you see them with McDonagh and Shattenkirk? Guess what? Their defense wasn't any better.
The Rangers have been top-5 in High Danger Chances Against for the vast majority of the season. How do you explain that when their top-3 defense was in the line up?
October through January, when McDonagh got plenty of ice time, the Rangers conceded 390 HDCA which was good for 3rd most in the NHL. In fact, during that time period, they gave up more HDCA than the Islanders.
October to December, when Shattenkirk played the majority of his games, Rangers conceded 251 HDCA, once again, good for 3rd in NHL and in front of the Islanders.
Explain that beyond "Gee Really" because you sound a bit on the foolish side now.
If you are a Ranger fan and saw the team October through January, you would know the only reason they even have a .500 record is because Lundqvist played otherworldly in Nov, Dec and Jan for them. Their defense has sucked all season. When Lundqvist cooled off, and has now slumped, their GA go way up... Hmm...
Let me guess... I don't have a clue. Good response.