Game Analysis: #2 - 10/7/13 | New York Rangers @ Los Angeles Kings | Analysis

[ecemleafs]

good road win against a quality opponent. la is just a better team than we are up and down the lineup. (right now anyway)

try telling the kings fans that. their bottom 6 never scores. our D is better than theirs. LA's top 6 when playing well is loaded though.

 

[aufheben]

I think we're all getting an idea why Pouliot can't seem to find a home. He teases with his talent.

Pretty much. Successful signing so far, nonetheless.

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

Pretty much. Successful signing so far, nonetheless.

Not sure I'm ready to say that.

 

[NYR Viper]

Not sure I'm ready to say that.

For the price, if he can be a decent 3rd liner that's a win.

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

For the price, if he can be a decent 3rd liner that's a win.

When you have to use the phrase, "can be" it means he's not shown what he'll be here. So it's too early to say it's a win or a loss. People were in love with Taylor Pyatt when he scored 3 goals in the first four games last season...

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

I have high expectations, an A would be beating the Blackhawks 5-0.

If this game was an A what would the other game be graded as?

As I said a C is good, it is pretty much meeting expectations. I think this Rangers team should challenge for the Presidents Trophy.

Overall I gave the team a B, i.e. surpassing expectations. I don't see the problem. Everyone but the fourth line and McD-Girardi met or exceeded expectations. The third line was fantastic.

Just because the team was good doesn't mean there wasn't areas where they could improve. And just because there is grading inflation in the US and everything below A is awful doesn't mean I have to subscribe to it. As the scale said a B is very good.

Now that you explained your scale it makes sense. I actually like it. Everyone always ranks A as success but there are different levels of success. There's being just plain dominating and superior which I think deserves an A. Then there's above expectation as you put a B. Then meeting the bar is C. D is sub par E is nearly useless and F is a garbage can on ice

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

Why does it seem like multiple people thought Brad Richards turned the puck over that lead to LA's goal? Did Sam call it that way?

It was actually Pyatt and Girardi who turned the puck over, Richards was way down the ice (possibly coming off the bench) and not involved in the turnover at all. However, he did a poor job defensively picking up Muzzin on the actual goal

I wanted to ask about this. Looking at the play I didnt think it was Richards I was trying to figure it out. I was going between the Jets and my Ranger stream. I heard Rich get the blame and he was in the area so I apologize if I jumped to a conclusion

 

[JohnC]

Watching Poo these past two games, he's looked like Nash did at the beginning of last season. So ridiculously snakebitten

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

THAT was what I want to see from my hockey team. THAT is AV's system when it's clicking.

THAT is also Brad Richards looking like he did three years ago. The best thing that could happen to this team would be for him to make the decision whether or not to buy him out at the end of this year difficult. (Although I still think you probably have to do it for cap reasons.)

Others have mentioned these points, but so refreshing to see an actual transition game, scoring chances from dangerous parts of the ice and - I couldn't believe my eyes - keeping the pressure up with a lead in the 3rd period. Let's see it again tonight.

 

[RegalRangers]

Our fourth line was really fascinating to me.

The physicality that they brought was terrific. It made the Rangers very difficult to play against. They stirred up frustrations and made some Kings lose focus. Asham might not be a permanent fixture on the 4th line but he certainly convinced me of the benefit of a rough player in that spot over the skill game of Fast. Dorsett is a really ideal 4th liner. And DMoore seems like he could still be a 3rd line C on a less deep team.

But, once the puck was stuck in our zone, the 4th line was somewhat of a liability, especially when they were out there with JMoore/Stralman. I noticed later in the game that AV had Girardi and McD out there with the 4th line a bit.

A bit of a double-edged sword. A net-positive for sure. It helps that DMoore is a good face-off man. It'll be interesting to see what happens to our 4th line when hags is back in the lineup.

 

[Bardof425*]

Of course you are going to spend some time in your end, but I'd like to do that as little as possible. I'm not content with playing prevention defence.

And I love McDonagh, best defenceman on the team IMO. The issue is with the pairing itself as Girardi's lack of ability with the puck drags them down. I want to break them up, not keep them together but play them less.

And stop accusing me of cherry-picking. Cherry-picking is a dishonest way to debate where you knowingly bury evidence to strengthen your point and I go a long way out of my way not to do it, so I consider it a pretty big insult. I'm not burying any evidence. I have an opinion, I'm very open about how I formed it and what evidence I'm basing it on.



I agree, but that is exactly why I don't want Girardi out there for half the game. It is a lot easier to pressure Girardi into a situation where he has to either play it safe or force it than the other Rangers defencemen.

But you are cherry picking. You focus on puck possession and zone start stats. There are other ways to statistically judge a player's performance. I noticed you haven't mitigated any of the negatives by looking at the level of competition each pair plays against. Please tell me why and try not to get emotional.

 

[Levitate]

I wanted to ask about this. Looking at the play I didnt think it was Richards I was trying to figure it out. I was going between the Jets and my Ranger stream. I heard Rich get the blame and he was in the area so I apologize if I jumped to a conclusion

It was Mike Richards who got the puck on the turnover so maybe that was what caused a lot of confusion

 

[Drewbackatu*]

This was one of the best 60 minute efforts I've seen from this team in a while. The forecheck was present, the intensity was there. I did get a little nervous when it was 2-1 before that McDonagh fluke goal, we had so many quality chances and couldn't convert, I thought that was going to come back to haunt us but nonetheless so what the last 2 goals were lucky, sometimes it's better to be lucky than good. We deserved the 2 points, any point tonight and it's icing on the cake imo

Agree. They played with a lot of energy and commitment. I think tonite's game vs the Sharks will be tougher because they have a more potent offense.

 

[smoneil]

The only concern I had with Girardi was his puck-handling. He seemed to actively fear having the puck on his stick in his own zone. There were more than a few times that he dished it off to McD or one of the forwards when they were in a worse position than he was. At one point, I think he actually tried to pass it back to Lundqvist behind the goal. His defense was very good, but he needs to improve on his breakouts--which I'm sure will happen over time. These guys are still learning the system and, particularly for the guys who were here for the entirety of Torts' tenure, that will take more than just a few games.

This is the case for Henrik as well. He had to adjust his game a bit due to the change in the rule on pad size. He'll be fine, but I doubt he will be King-like until he gets a dozen or so games to adjust to the changes in his play. I'm already seeing a steady improvement from him from pre-season to the first two games. He'll get there.

 

[Blue Blooded]

But you are cherry picking. You focus on puck possession and zone start stats. There are other ways to statistically judge a player's performance. I noticed you haven't mitigated any of the negatives by looking at the level of competition each pair plays against. Please tell me why and try not to get emotional.

Because it isn't as big a factor as most think and you can't bring up every single aspect in a forum post. The difference in Corsi/60 QoC between Girardi and Strålman over these past two games is 1.75, the difference in Corsi/60 is 46.48. Can you see how one number dwarfs the other?

Sure McD-Girardi have faced more difficult competition, but the difference in competition isn't big enough to explain the discrepancy. You make it seem as if McD-Girardi faced the Kopitar line on every shift while Moore-Strålman was constantly matching up against the Kings' 4th line, it doesn't work that way. While the matchups can tilt slightly they roughly even out in a larger sample. Looking at it so far it is actually Staal-MDZ who has gotten by far the most cushy deployments.

But my major point is still: I'm not content with what McD-Girardi brings out there after seeing what McD-Strålman could accomplish last season. There isn't one measure where McD-Strålman didn't blow McD-Girardi completely out of the water the past season.

I mean if Strålman had put up his numbers the past season solely from cushy deployments on the bottom pairing I'd be sceptical if he could reproduce them in a more difficult role. But when he got the chance this past season, he proved he could do it and then some.

I have written a comprehensive article on it that you can read if you want to which takes situational usage into account.

 

[bernmeister]

I'm glad we not only won and played a solid game vs a tough adversary.

That said, this is a bit Twilight Zone-esque.

I'm glad everyone, even Pyatt, looks better under AV. But I'm not holding my breath he will be more than a shell of what he was in his prime. If he were still on the team, after 82 games, how much drive can we expect?

Of course w/Hags coming back in a few wks, I'm expecting, barring trade, Pyatt to go, not Fast.

In any event, it was nice Richards finally showed up and worked and looked better. But fact is, we were lucky on that goal deflecting off the Kings' defenseman's stick. IMO, a fast shot with a moving Quick was the better option. But we got lucky.

Then, there was what is probably a once in a career nightmare for a G of Quick's calibre. His own deflection after mishandling his own stick. Yikes!

To sum, you take what you can get.
It was credited to Braves OF Rico Carty: "I'd rather be lucky than good."

We will not be this lucky again anytime soon. Let's hope the good work continues and holds up to overcome when we are unlucky.

 

[smoneil]

Because it isn't as big a factor as most think. The difference in Corsi/60 QoC between Girardi and Strålman over these past two games is 1.75, the difference in Corsi/60 is 46.48. Can you see how one number dwarfs the other?

Sure McD-Girardi have faced more difficult competition, but the difference in competition isn't big enough to explain the discrepancy. You make it seem as if McD-Girardi faced the Kopitar line on every shift while Moore-Strålman was constantly matching up against the Kings' 4th line, it doesn't work that way. While the matchups can tilt slightly they roughly even out in a larger sample. Looking at it so far it is actually Staal-MDZ who has gotten by far the most cushy deployments.

But my major point is still: I'm not content with what McD-Girardi brings out there after seeing what McD-Strålman could accomplish last season. There isn't one measure where McD-Strålman didn't blow McD-Girardi completely out of the water the past season.

I mean if Strålman had put up his numbers the past season solely from cushy deployments on the bottom pairing I'd be sceptical if he could reproduce them in a more difficult role. But when he got the chance this past season, he proved he could do it and then some.

I have written a comprehensive article on it that you can read if you want to which takes situational usage into account.

We know your math says one thing. Our eyes say something else. Stralman stuck out twice to me last night, and neither instance was a positive one. He wasn't bad, but he didn't look like anything more than he is--a 3rd pair D on a good team. You keep arguing your point as if your advanced math is 100% of the story, but how many coaches now have deployed Stralman on the 3rd pair? How many coaches have ranked our big 4 over him (based on a significant difference in minutes played)? Even Torts, who was a big supporter of Stralsy, outright said that he didn't want him playing big minutes on a regular basis.

Most of the fans and ALL of the professionals disagree with what your math is saying. You act as if that means all of us/them are wrong and we/they just need to read more of your attempts to parse math into on-ice reality. What that SHOULD say to you is that you might want to consider why just about nobody sees the player the way you and your math do. When you are in a room by yourself (and maybe a couple other people, none of whom are professionals), the problem just might be with your methodology or its relevance.

 

[Blue Blooded]

We know your math says one thing. Our eyes say something else. Stralman stuck out twice to me last night, and neither instance was a positive one. He wasn't bad, but he didn't look like anything more than he is--a 3rd pair D on a good team. You keep arguing your point as if your advanced math is 100% of the story, but how many coaches now have deployed Stralman on the 3rd pair? How many coaches have ranked our big 4 over him (based on a significant difference in minutes played)? Even Torts, who was a big supporter of Stralsy, outright said that he didn't want him playing big minutes.

Most of the fans and ALL of the professionals disagree with what your math is saying. You act as if that means all of us/them are wrong and we/they just need to read more of your attempts to parse math into on-ice reality. What that SHOULD say to you is that you might want to consider why just about nobody sees the player the way you and your math do. When you are in a room by yourself (and maybe a couple other people, none of whom are professionals), the problem just might be with your methodology or its relevance.

You seem to think I look up the stat sheets after games and pretend I've seen them. That is not at all how it is.

The stats have clued me in to important areas to observe while watching the games. Like breakouts and zone entries for example. I have observed how Girardi gets himself and the Rangers into trouble in their own zone a lot. But the thing is, he is doing it in a "defensible" way. He is constantly getting into situations where you can basically say "what was he supposed to do", and sure with the situation being what it was he made the right decision but he shouldn't be getting into them at all.

A lot of coaches misuse their defencemen massively, and GMs are also pretty bad at identifying them correctly as well.

Case in point, Robyn Regehr on the top pairing in LA when Muzzin-Doughty were dominant last season. Now Sutter is thinking about scratching Muzzin over one giveaway. Terrible short-sighted coaching.

Some GMs are terrible at distinguishing PMDs from defencemen with skill. Some have effective transition games and tilt the ice in their team's favour, others just pick up points and/or play the PP well.

PMDs: Karlsson, Letang, Doughty, Visnovsky, Boyle, Ehrhoff

"PMDs": J. Johnson, Phaneuf, Fowler, Del Zotto, Streit, R. Whitney

Everyone seems to think Whitney suddenly just fell of. Sure his skating got worse after his injury, but he always kind of sucked.

And not ALL professionals disagree. Chicago, San José, Detroit, and Ottawa seem to share very similar views on how to build an effective team.

 

[smoneil]

You seem to think I look up the stat sheets after games and pretend I've seen them. That is not at all how it is.

Not at all. I just think you use those stats to validate what you want to see. Stralman has had many coaches and GMs across a few teams now. The ones who thought the HIGHEST about him felt like he was a good 3rd pair guy who can temporarily play 2nd pair during a short-term emergency. Stralman isn't Karlsson. Offensively, Strals is a poor-man's MDZ. Defensively, he's about on par with MDZ. That's why he plays about 5 minutes per game less than MDZ. You want to have him replace Girardi?! That's just insane. Stralman's defense would be so exposed on the top pairing. Girardi's offense and transition game aren't as good as Stral, but that's not why he's on the top pair. Frankly, McD's offense is as good or better than Stralman.

To be perfectly honest, if Stralman were from Pakistan or Australia or anywhere other than Sweden, I doubt you would be trying so hard for so long to convince this board what our eyes and the eyes of every professional who has had some say over the issue can plainly see--that Stralman is a good bottom pair guy, and nothing more.

 

[Blue Blooded]

Not at all. I just think you use those stats to validate what you want to see. Stralman has had many coaches and GMs across a few teams now. The ones who thought the HIGHEST about him felt like he was a good 3rd pair guy who can temporarily play 2nd pair during a short-term emergency. Stralman isn't Karlsson. Offensively, Strals is a poor-man's MDZ. Defensively, he's about on par with MDZ. That's why he plays about 5 minutes per game less than MDZ. You want to have him replace Girardi?! That's just insane. Stralman's defense would be so exposed on the top pairing. Girardi's offense and transition game aren't as good as Stral, but that's not why he's on the top pair. Frankly, McD's offense is as good or better than Stralman.

To be perfectly honest, if Stralman were from Pakistan or Australia or anywhere other than Sweden, I doubt you would be trying so hard for so long to convince this board what our eyes and the eyes of every professional who has had some say over the issue can plainly see--that Stralman is a good bottom pair guy, and nothing more.

Not at all. If I was an LA fan I'd be tooting Muzzin's horn just as much. Point being, I don't have any nationalistic agenda here.

 

[Green Blob*]

Where are the players of the game poll?

 

[ponzu4u]

One more thing, for those of you who weren't there, I'm not sure if you could see it, but after the horn sounded, Richards and Stepan were both giving Nash crap for blowing the empty netter. Nash was smiling too he knew he blew it.

 

[Levitate]

Not at all. If I was an LA fan I'd be tooting Muzzin's horn just as much. Point being, I don't have any nationalistic agenda here.

the same Muzzin who's going to be benched by his coach in favor of Martinez?

 

[JohnC]

One more thing, for those of you who weren't there, I'm not sure if you could see it, but after the horn sounded, Richards and Stepan were both giving Nash crap for blowing the empty netter. Nash was smiling too he knew he blew it.

It's not that he blew it, even Patrik Stefan scores on that empty net

Seemed like he was looking for Richards to finish the hat trick

 

[chosen]

Were you expecting a novel? I never said AV was better than Torts because of it, just that we rarely looked this good in all 3 zones under Torts. Oh and if we lose 6-0 tonight or something I will gladly say we almost never lost this badly under Torts (we lost by more than 3 goals exactly once in the last 2 seasons).

Looking forward to your comments.

Drawing a conclusion on one game is silly.