Post-Game Talk: #2 - 10/5/19 | RANGERS @ senators | 7:00 - MSG

[Maximus]

I'll take Hischier for Georgie. They need a goalie, we need a center. It fits both teams needs perfectly, clearly.

I'd do that as well. NO way in hell would they tho.

 

[aufheben]

I realize that I'm "new" 'round these parts, but I would like to petition for a new victory gif. I feel like the flamingo has peaked.

The Rangers are 2-0, while scoring a ton in victory. All these good vibes started when Andersson fell on his ass during the intro. So...what say you, gents? Andersson tripping as the new victory gif!

I think we’re going with Trouba’s dog this year. His Husky-whatever thing.

 

[NYR]

May be an unpopular opinion but I think Georgiev is the future. If Shesterkin shows promise in the AHL + any call-ups, then I can see him packaged in a similar deal for a young center.

I think Shesterkin would have to come in and play out of his mind before he knocks Georgiev out of the line up.
Georgiev has picked up right where he left off from last year and looks ready to take on a significant amount of starts this year.
Shesterkin still has quite a bit to prove yet.

 

[egelband]

very refreshing not having to deal with chris neil plastering ranger players into the boards and dislocated their shoulders...thank god he's gone ...every trip to ottawa used to be a disaster

Thankfully most of those dirtbags have been replaced by hockey players. Even Wilson has - it seems - has quit the hit-job business.

 

[egelband]

May be an unpopular opinion but I think Georgiev is the future. If Shesterkin shows promise in the AHL + any call-ups, then I can see him packaged in a similar deal for a young center.

Possibly. But it's a little early now for decision-making.

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

He very well could be.

While I personally think Shesterkin has the extra something special in him, I can’t say I have a strong opinion one way or the other as to who “wins” when all is said done. Just so long as we keep the better option and maximize the value of the other.

Umm...if Shesty is not the future, we are in deep shit.

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

The younger ones can get a decent return depending on the timing

We’d prob get a pretty good return on Shesty right now if we made a knee jerk trade after Z-bad beat the Senators.

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

Possibly. But it's a little early now for decision-making.

And if that’s true, that’s a huge issue, but the Orangutans start thinking everything is a lateral move after we win a few.

 

[stonec]

Face offs are like running backs.

Neither matters.

Face-offs wins are the best way of obtaining puck possession, which is probably THE single most predictable measure of how a team is doing (puck possession relates to corsi/fenwick/etc).

 

[Irishguy42]

Face-offs wins are the best way of obtaining puck possession, which is probably THE single most predictable measure of how a team is doing (puck possession relates to corsi/fenwick/etc).

They're important in single-game sample sizes, but once you get into larger sample sizes, like season/career, they're not really predictive or important.

 

[Lua]

Faceoffs in general aren't important. Individual faceoffs can be.

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

Faceoffs in general aren't important. Individual faceoffs can be.

that’s a bunch of gobbily gook

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

They're important in single-game sample sizes, but once you get into larger sample sizes, like season/career, they're not really predictive or important.

of course they are

the average of the career might not be as important as the correlation between high FO win % years and the years they were not shitty.

 

[stonec]

Faceoffs in general aren't important. Individual faceoffs can be.

If your goal is to lose puck possession, then I agree they are not important.

 

[GeorgeKaplan]

Face-offs wins are the best way of obtaining puck possession, which is probably THE single most predictable measure of how a team is doing (puck possession relates to corsi/fenwick/etc).

They’re not, most shifts don’t start with a face off

 

[Lua]

If your goal is to lose puck possession, then I agree they are not important.

Except faceoff percentage isn't a good predictor of possession. Ryan Strome for example won 9/14 faceoffs against Winnipeg and had really bad possession metrics.
There are important faceoffs. They are more important on special teams. Most faceoffs aren't important, and often enough possession changes hands several times between a faceoff and a notable on-ice event.

 

[Anzi]

Faceoffs in general aren't important. Individual faceoffs can be.

I remember reading some study or whatever that said that winning 80 more faceoffs than lost contributes an extra goal. So in that case being 40% on faceoffs compared to 50% in a single game probably doesn't matter that much but over the course of a season that probably results in a few goals lost.

 

[darko]

Special teams faceoffs are important. Even strength not so much.

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

Special teams faceoffs are important. Even strength not so much.

I mean given the zone start and man advantage.

I think team face off is more important than individual over a long period of time.

 

[Ola]

BTW, I just got to say that it was a strong decision by DQ to start Geo in this one.

It’s a really important game. If Geo comes in and isn’t quite up to game speed and we don’t win it — it’s a decision that can be questioned.

OTOH, if Geo don’t play, it’s a week for our next game...

 

[smoneil]

I think we’re going with Trouba’s dog this year. His Husky-whatever thing.

View media item 6173
If Trouba's is ever unavailable, I too have a Husky-whatever ready to help out.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

1.9% did not vote for Zibanejad

 

[Chimpradamus]

Special teams faceoffs are important. Even strength not so much.

Faceoffs in the offensive/ defensive zone are important, neutral zone not so much.

 

[Ola]

Except faceoff percentage isn't a good predictor of possession. Ryan Strome for example won 9/14 faceoffs against Winnipeg and had really bad possession metrics.

There are important faceoffs. They are more important on special teams. Most faceoffs aren't important, and often enough possession changes hands several times between a faceoff and a notable on-ice event.

Yeah, and it just shows us how complex the game is.

I've not seen any recent data on it, but a lot of studies where made before and during the trapping era that showed that the number of goals scored right after winning the puck was vastly over-represented compared to the numbers of goals scored after having possession for a longer time. And this is still true to some extent at least. When you win the puck after a FO its often not a tremendously favorable position to be in. Everyone is more or less standing still, the defending team is moving in a very familiar environment and are putting instant pressure on the puck holder. I think its one of those aspects of the game teams could pay more attention too.

But with the above said, I do think its important to recognize that (a) winning a FO is an opportunity to do something good, just as (b) losing a FO is an opportunity to do something good (i.e. creating a turnover which is the best way to score a goal in hockey), and of course vice versa, (c) winning a FO is risky because you can give the puck away and (d) losing it can be negative because the other team gets command. The impact of all these four potential variables is of course highly dependent on who you have on the ice and in what state the two teams are in. In addition you also have very different type of wins and losses. Is the win/loss clean or more of a draw?

A won/lost FO can never from my POV be "huge". If if a team wins a clean FO with 10 seconds left, what are the odds that they will score just because a defender have the puck with time on the blueline in the attacking zone? 5%? Surely not more than that.

But on the other hand, nothing is "huge" in this context. There is very solid data that in the SHL, mistake and giveaway prone defenders have no detectable impact on the out come of a game, for example. Why? The number of mistakes and give aways made are so constant, everyone more or less makes the same number of mistakes and giveaways when you start counting them. But somehow you got to get to the bottom line, and all these things are of course one of many many variables. So you can't say that they don't matter.

 

[NCRanger]

Other than this current "rebuild" or "build" whatever you want to call it the past three draft years, the Rangers from my recollection have only had two other times in the 50 years I've been a fan where we as a fanbase knew the team was rebuilding and were prepared for it.

1st time was after that JP Parise goal back in '75 signified the end of those really good to almost great Ranger teams from '70--75 when we drafted guys like Don Murdoch, Mike McEwen, Deblois, Duguay,Mario Marios and Don Maloney. Those were the young guns that were big parts of that amazing '79 Cup run and who played on those very competitive Ranger teams of the early 80's who used to lose to the damn Islanders every stinken year.

Obviously there were veterens like Hedberg, Nilsson, Greshner, Dave Maloney but the problem for those teams was other than JD that one stretch back in '79, the goaltending of guys like Glen Hanlan, Steve Weeks, Steve Baker, Eddie Mio etc...was never really up to snuff and was never elite enough for us to get past the Islanders. That's what held back those teams IMO.

2nd time was around 1988-1991 or so when after a couple of crappy years, mngt drafted some real good players again like Amonte, Weight, Zubov, Nemchinov, Kovalev which added to Richter and Leetch having been drafted in '85 and '86, we now had a solid influx of youth again which all either helped us win the Cup in '94 or were traded away for guys who helped us win that Cup. Unlike that first "rebuild", we had goalies this time like Beezer and Richter who were elite and to where we could be competitive for a Cup.

So as I said, this is the 3rd rebuild I can recall and this one looks like it should be THE most successful of all of them seeing the talent we've acquired the past 3 drafts has been elite and ultimatly we'll be able to use some of these pieces to add some more young veteren talent to add to the Panarins, Zibs, Buch's, Trouba's. And like that 2nd rebuild in the late 80's early 90's, this rebuild has the goalie component as Georgie and/or Shesty should be the guy to lead us to the promised land.

So yeah, this is a very exciting time here seeing I'd be truly shocked if we arent seriously competing for the Cup beginning 2022 thru the end of the decade. This truly has the makings of what could be a golden age just like teams like the Black Hawks, Penguins have had over the past 10 years in that we should not be thinking just another Cup but multiple Cups during the new decade to come.

We'll see but I'm stoked for what's to come.

You call the late 80's a "rebuild"?

Before 1987, they were basically just icing teams, actually acting more like a "small market" than anything else. They'd trade for someone at the deadline to "make a push", but that was about it. 1984-85, they had some really bad injuries and it reflected in an awful record for a team that all in all wasn't as bad as the record, if healthy. If you want to call 1985-86 a "rebuild" because Ted Sator sent the veterans to the minors, ok, but by the next season, the Rangers were acting like a typical mid-80's Ranger team again.

1987-88, they didn't make the playoffs, but they were 10th overall, and if they DID make the playoffs, I have no doubt they would have gone on the same run as the Devils did that playoff.

1988-89 - team was in first place for a majority of the season. Blew a lead in early February in a game in Montreal (Lafleur's return), and really never recovered. Finished 3rd, got swept by Pittsburgh. Richter's first game was Game #4. The finish got Esposito canned.

1989-90 - Won the Patrick Division. First Division or league regular season "championship" in 48 years. Leetch got injured late in the season. Got through the Fishsticks in 5 (that was the year of all the goonery and LaFontaine getting attacked in an ambulance). Was also the year John Druce turned into Wayne Gretzky. Again, not that far away, and with a few breaks, team may have been in the Finals.

1990-91 - Again in first place most of the season. Finished 2nd. Went on a losing streak in early March that changed the season. Unfortunately became a one line team by playoff time and lost to Washington.

Granted, a lot of trades worked out ridiculously well. Who thought Carey Wilson was a point a game player? They got Nicholls via a trade during this time, Gartner via a trade. Brian Mullen was via trade, Kisio (a little earlier) via trade. Ogrodnick, too. Many of the guys who helped later were already drafted by this time, and playing.

If you call that part of Ranger history a "rebuild", sign me up for that all the time.