Post-Game Talk: 2014-15 New York Rangers (53-22-7 [RS] // 11-8 [PO]) Warning #516

[silverfish]

"You let in 6 goals each in two games, you're not going to win the series. It's not going to happen."

Definitely not Henrik's best series, but if you look at the math, he actually played right to his regular season totals at 5v5.

He got torched on medium danger shots, letting up 3.4 more than his numbers suggest he should've. But, he bailed the Rangers out relentlessly. His expected high danger goals against this series was 9; he gave up 5. Throw in low danger shots, and he saved two more goals in the series than he should've.

'Elite' goalies do that. They step up their game in the playoffs. I'm positive, considering how he played, his numbers in the Caps and Penguins series are probably overwhelmingly ridiculous.

If you run the same numbers for Bishop, he gave up two more goals than he his numbers suggest. He faced 43 high danger shots all series (ew), and let in 10 goals with an expected 7.2 goals against.

I'm not absolving Hank. I'm just trying to play the numbers game and paint a picture. Of course, this is only 5v5. It does suggest, though, that the Rangers PP can be viewed as a downfall of this team. Two games, on home ice, where the Lightning were able to generate momentum off of failed Rangers power plays.

$8.5m on Hank leaves you $61.5m to spend on your 13 forwards, 7 defensemen, and backup goalie. You can look at that and say, damn, that gives us roughly $3m to spend on each roster player.

Or you can look at it and say, we're paying $8.5m for a goalie to carry us in the playoffs, which Hank has done. He's gonna give up bad goals. I wouldn't necessarily say Killorn's goal last night was bad. That puck had eyes. But it's one that you want Hank to stop. You want him to stop that shot because he's the best in the world, because he's made that save before, because he's paid to make that save.

It is (for lack of a better term in which I mean no offense by) because we have a spoiled viewpoint due to Lundqvist. Every year he's between the pipes, you know what you're going to get, and some games, some stretches of time, you're not going to get that play. That's why the game isn't decided on paper, or via someone's Excel sheet. Hockey is a random, unpredictable, frustrating life we've chosen to live.

A hard truth is that, if you go 160 minutes straight on home ice without scoring, you're not going to win the series, no matter how many goals Lundqvist gives up. I wouldn't say Bishop necessarily outplayed Lundqvist, because he didn't. Bishop was a hot mess of trash who will be exposed (along with Crawford/Andersen) in the SCF.

So you can look at the $8.5m tied up in Lundqvist and be annoyed, but I'm going to choose to look at the nearly $19m tied up in Nash, St. Louis, and Girardi, and be more annoyed at that.

 

[Metranger]

Losing Zuccarello immediately popped my enthusiasm balloon as far as making it to the SCF. I thought there was no way without him. It made the playoffs a little less fun for me to watch cause I love that guy so much. Imagine the 90's Cowboys playoff teams without Aikman.

The fact that we got this far without him is a testament to this team....However, AV's coaching decisions really deflated me. I believe that Bill Belichek would have figured out a way to win with this team. It's a simile I know...

But I sit here not so much upset as disappointed. It wasn't a good effort(sans Hank) and I feel the worst for Hank more than anything.

So, it's up to Rangers brass to figure it out. AV needs some honest introspection with his decisions. He seems like a smart guy.

 

[Filthy Dangles]

I'm not strawmanning at all. You're the one who brought up the generational nonsense.

One Vezina, one first all star team, three all star appearances. That's not generational talent hardware.

I just dont get/buy the argument. If Hank was signed to 2-3 mil less, the Rangers would have gotten a roster player(s) for some of these runs that would have pushed them over the top to a cup?

Did Hank earn his 8.5 more than Nash earned his 7.8? What about staals ~6? Tanner Glass' 1.45?

Again, you know Lundqvist would have gotten 10+ easily, he took a hometown discount. It would be nice if his contract was less, but you're talking about the best goalie of this generation....

 

[Bullseyes]

Oh, I was wrong on the dates. That's a mea culpa. However, I couldn't care less about it since a year and a half makes little difference in the scheme of things. Quick is roughly 4 years younger than Hank. His contract takes him to 36. Hank's contract takes him to 38 or so (give or take, I believe?).

Quick's contract is not only better since he's a younger goalie and will be younger when it ends, but it's also at a much lower salary.

They are eminently comparable. Quick's wasn't some cap circumvention deal like Luongo's.

It's at a lower cap-hit because the contract was allowed at the time. Had it been signed at the time Lundqvist did, it would not be for 10 years and the cap-hit would most likely be a lot more.

Jonathan Quick is making $58 million over 10 years.
Henrik Lundqvist is making $59.5 million over 7 years.

What, is Jonathan Quick take a massive cut from that $58 million he signed for? I doubt it.

The Rangers couldn't tack on extra years at the end of Lundqvist's contract to lower the cap-hit. The Kings would not have been able to give Quick 10 years, regardless if it was cap circumvention or not. So no, the contracts are not comparable.

I don't even like Lundqvist's contract (nor do I like Quick's). It's just asinine to compare two contracts, which were signed during different CBAs, where there were different rules for contracts.

 

[irishlaxburger2]

Definitely not Henrik's best series, but if you look at the math, he actually played right to his regular season totals at 5v5.

He got torched on medium danger shots, letting up 3.4 more than his numbers suggest he should've. But, he bailed the Rangers out relentlessly. His expected high danger goals against this series was 9; he gave up 5. Throw in low danger shots, and he saved two more goals in the series than he should've.

'Elite' goalies do that. They step up their game in the playoffs. I'm positive, considering how he played, his numbers in the Caps and Penguins series are probably overwhelmingly ridiculous.

If you run the same numbers for Bishop, he gave up two more goals than he his numbers suggest. He faced 43 high danger shots all series (ew), and let in 10 goals with an expected 7.2 goals against.

I'm not absolving Hank. I'm just trying to play the numbers game and paint a picture. Of course, this is only 5v5. It does suggest, though, that the Rangers PP can be viewed as a downfall of this team. Two games, on home ice, where the Lightning were able to generate momentum off of failed Rangers power plays.

$8.5m on Hank leaves you $61.5m to spend on your 13 forwards, 7 defensemen, and backup goalie. You can look at that and say, damn, that gives us roughly $3m to spend on each roster player.

Or you can look at it and say, we're paying $8.5m for a goalie to carry us in the playoffs, which Hank has done. He's gonna give up bad goals. I wouldn't necessarily say Killorn's goal last night was bad. That puck had eyes. But it's one that you want Hank to stop. You want him to stop that shot because he's the best in the world, because he's made that save before, because he's paid to make that save.

It is (for lack of a better term in which I mean no offense by) because we have a spoiled viewpoint due to Lundqvist. Every year he's between the pipes, you know what you're going to get, and some games, some stretches of time, you're not going to get that play. That's why the game isn't decided on paper, or via someone's Excel sheet. Hockey is a random, unpredictable, frustrating life we've chosen to live.

A hard truth is that, if you go 160 minutes straight on home ice without scoring, you're not going to win the series, no matter how many goals Lundqvist gives up. I wouldn't say Bishop necessarily outplayed Lundqvist, because he didn't. Bishop was a hot mess of trash who will be exposed (along with Crawford/Andersen) in the SCF.

So you can look at the $8.5m tied up in Lundqvist and be annoyed, but I'm going to choose to look at the nearly $19m tied up in Nash, St. Louis, and Girardi, and be more annoyed at that.

Where can you find these advanced goaltending stats?

 

[Steve Kournianos]

Play Devil's advocate:

Is there even a Game 7 if Lundqvist didnt cost them Game 3?

To me, the turning point was Game 2 because it gave Tampa confidence they could beat Lundqvist high with regularity on either side. The MSL botched 5-on-3 was big too but they came back to tie it.

 

[Infinitum Vitae*]

You would have actively tried to trade Henrik Lundqvist.

There are no words.

You act as if he is a god and will never be traded. Guess what the greatest hockey player ever got traded. It's not impossible.

 

[CDiablo]

In regards to TB vs West, I think TB is going to get massacred on the PP. Rangers bottom 5 in the league PP scored at a %20ish rate. Imagine a team with a real PP going against them.

As for the Hank discussion. I feel letting up 2 softies(game 3 GWG and goal 1 of last night) affords him as much blame as the rest of the team and the coaching staff in this years loss. He played lights out for much of the 1st and 2nd round but hit some road bumps in the 3rd.Just like everyone else I am worried when hes going to lose a step. Many fans say he is a slow starter, but one year hes simply never going to "start." No major signs yet. No worries of that yet.

I'm not too worried about the forwards of the team but the old folks need to go. The defense is very worrying. McDonagh seems to be falling apart. The player from the 13-14 season and before never really showed up this year. Hes been different ever since his injury last year. Stall is overpaid IMO for a defensive Dman. I'm worried Girardi is going to break down hard. I don't think we will be able to afford Yandle so I see him being trade fodder. I don't really care for his defensive ability anyways. Not worried about Klein cheap and very effective all season. Sucked during the playoffs but I'll chalk that up to him being a "warrior" and returning from injury early.

 

[Zaggs]

Lundqvist is basically Dan Marino or Don Mattingly. Hes a star who can carry a team but cant win a title by himself.

You have to credit Sather for at least trying to give him goal support. When they couldnt score a lick between 2007-2010, he went out and got the best available offensive players.

Gaborik
Richards
Nash
St. Louis
Yandle
Boyle

He gave Duclair a chance. He let Stepan skip the AHL. He gave Zuccarello a chance. He hired an offensive-minded coach.

So really, what else is there left to do? None of those veteran guys elevated their game in tne postseason when they were here give or take a series or two. None played like all stars who were being paid millions.

You have to get to the postseason to win the Cup. Those guys helped them get there; some even carried them there. But they all never lived up to expectations.

No more trades. No more expensive UFA. that needs to stop. Build around whats already there and draft players with skill and character to fit in

I'll bet when they win the Cup (and they will), it'll be because of the guys who grew up in tne system.

Part of the problem however is that he was getting players on the downside of their careers (Richards, St. Louis), creating other problems (Boyle, Yandle), and sometimes paying way too much for their services (Boyle, Yandle, St. Louis). So at best Sather is a draw with those moves, though more likely he's created a deficit.

 

[kovazub94]

Then why didn't he do it against Tampa? Such a great guarantee.

Another ridiculous argument from you. He had a bad game. But since you like stupid arguments please name me a elite player of your liking who always scored in a one goal game?

 

[Ail]

Part of the problem however is that he was getting players on the downside of their careers (Richards, St. Louis), creating other problems (Boyle, Yandle), and sometimes paying way too much for their services (Boyle, Yandle, St. Louis). So at best Sather is a draw with those moves, though more likely he's created a deficit.

Yandle was the best defensemen in the ECF for the Rangers. The cost was not high considering he will probably post 50-60 points this season for the Rangers and if they play their cards right and fix the defense he will also pay dividends next post-season as well.

Boyle is debatable from the perspective that Stralman was the better choice if given the option of one or the other. That's also in knowing Boyle was actually not that bad all things considered.

MSL was a good gamble last year but cost them this year potentially. It's basically a wash.

 

[Zaggs]

As I've always said, Tampa knows they can score on Lundqvist. They've done it all season. There are just as many 4 goals or more games against Hank from Tampa as there are 1 goal games. Even in game 6 everyone wanted to talk about the 7 goals and ignore the 3 Tampa scored. Well there is a reason they scored 3 and thats usually enough in the playoffs. Is it entirely Hanks fault? Course not.
Too many times the team was happy if they got the puck to go all the way down the boards. Then the other team would beat them there, all 3 forwards would come together to try to get the puck back, and if they did no one was in front of the net. Not to mention far to happy to not pass the puck to the guy 10 feet away from them when they could try to pass to the guy 30 feet away to expected disastrous results. I don't know if these two issues are coaching (my bet) or team chemistry. But other teams usually looked so fluid bring the puck up the ice while the Rangers looked like they were wrestling with a lard grease watermelon.

 

[Zaggs]

Yandle was the best defensemen in the ECF for the Rangers. The cost was not high considering he will probably post 50-60 points this season for the Rangers and if they play their cards right and fix the defense he will also pay dividends next post-season as well.

Boyle is debatable from the perspective that Stralman was the better choice if given the option of one or the other. That's also in knowing Boyle was actually not that bad all things considered.

MSL was a good gamble last year but cost them this year potentially. It's basically a wash.

I didn't say Yandle sucked all around. But what +/- comes with that 50 points? What did he have this season? -26? he's going to give it up defensively, hence solving one issue while creating another. My problem however isn't with Yandle the player, I'll take him 7 days a week and 5 times on Sunday over Boyle. But rather the price paid for another offensive defenseman who can be a defensive liability. Stralman by comparison had I think 12 less points, but also was +22.

 

[ThisYearsModel]

Ben Bishop, Frederick Andersen or Corey Crawford will have their name on the cup. Jonathan Quick already does twice. Meanwhile, Henrik gives up bleeders like last night, or clueless "where am I?" goals like in OT of Game 3 and he gets complete absolution. The bottom line is that these guys all got outworked with zero desperation in 2 straight home games in the semifinals. It is inexplicable but it is the fact. They propelled Tampa into the finals and have nothing to show for 3 trips to the semis. Nothing I have seen make me believe they will get all the way there, and the cupboard of prospects is just about bare.

 

[KotsyJr]

Still can't believe we went 1-3 at home.

And got SHUT OUT in back to back home games.

And the last five games of scoring went 5, 5, 0, 7, 0.

LOL @ the zeroes

 

[Zaggs]

Still can't believe we went 1-3 at home.

And got SHUT OUT in back to back home games.

And the last five games of scoring went 5, 5, 0, 7, 0.

LOL @ the zeroes

Tampa wanted it more. They played like every game could be their last. Rangers only played like that when they were actually down in games probably because of their "Dude, we can totally come back from anything" attitude.

 

[Pizza]

The Bolts did to us exactly what we should have been able to do to them:

Shut us down completely in two games.

The only question now is how do the Rangers improve from here?

 

[Hunter Gathers]

So you can look at the $8.5m tied up in Lundqvist and be annoyed, but I'm going to choose to look at the nearly $19m tied up in Nash, St. Louis, and Girardi, and be more annoyed at that.

I don't know what I've said to indicate the opposite. How many times do I have to say that I'm annoyed at every player on this team and Sather for the contractual issues we are going to be having? I'm not trying to be a jerk here, silverfish. You're a favorite poster of mine and someone I love conversing with on here. So this is more of a general post to everyone who has somehow missed that aspect that I've stated countless times so far.

 

[stan the caddy]

They played a bad game. Can't do that in game 7.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Another ridiculous argument from you. He had a bad game. But since you like stupid arguments please name me a elite player of your liking who always scored in a one goal game?

He had more than one bad game.

And, once again, why do some people continue to overlook the fact that I've blamed a TON of people. Is the love for a single player literally obscuring my posts?

 

[Hunter Gathers]

The Bolts did to us exactly what we should have been able to do to them:

Shut us down completely in two games.

The only question now is how do the Rangers improve from here?

Cut ties with MSL, trade Hags for something, trade Talbot for an asset, and hope to God Lundqvist doesn't start declining at 34 (thankfully the metrics show that there is little decline for them depending on age).

 

[RiceCooker]

Seriously, getting shut out in the final 2 home games is inexcusable... the team looked so lethargic in both games. It's not like the offense was peppering Bishop with a ton of shots and creating great chances, a lot of forwards just disappeared. I am still stunned by how they played in games 5 and 7.

 

[Captain Lindy]

No team has ever won a Cup without getting elite goaltending in the playoffs. The better the goalie you have, the better chance you're going to get that kind of goaltending in the playoffs.

Frankly, this whole discussion is a waste of typing.

Well, it'll happen THIS year! Who out of the three goalies left is elite?

 

[Synergy27]

The Bolts did to us exactly what we should have been able to do to them:

Shut us down completely in two games.

The only question now is how do the Rangers improve from here?

Well, that's definitely a question, but it's even more important than some people think. This was really the Rangers chance. Not only is the cap going to make it hard for them to maintain (let alone get better), they are also going to have to deal with a Tampa team that is only going to improve. The fact that they have guys like Drouin just waiting in the wings is scary. Even more skilled youth on top of experience gained this year makes them the odds on favorite in the east for the next several years.

And I'll bring this up now because I'm feeling salty, but all of the McIlrath apologists should revisit their stance. Not only will a player like him not help change the result we just witnessed, but having a player like Tarasenko in the lineup, still on his ELC, would have almost definitely put this team over the top. You don't get shutout at home two straight times with a dynamic young scorer like that adding depth to the lineup.

You can tell me to let it go all you want but I won't. Such an epic blunder.

 

[trilobyte]

Seriously, getting shut out in the final 2 home games is inexcusable... the team looked so lethargic in both games. It's not like the offense was peppering Bishop with a ton of shots and creating great chances, a lot of forwards just disappeared. I am still stunned by how they played in games 5 and 7.

It was not very good. It cost them.