Are the Rangers the worst President's Trophy winners of the Cap era?

[PuckLuck3043]

Data analysis techniques can be helpful in identifying patterns and trends in data, but if the data being analyzed is not correlated to the outcome of interest, then the results may not provide any meaningful insights. For example, if a particular statistic is not predictive of future goals or wins, then focusing on that statistic may not lead to a meaningful impact on future outcomes.

To address this concern, it's important to first understand why certain statistics are more predictive of future goals and wins than others. For example, Corsi and expected goal statistics can be more predictive because they take into account a wide range of shot attempts, not just the number of goals scored. These statistics can help to capture the overall offensive and defensive tendencies of a team, as well as their ability to generate and prevent high-quality scoring chances.

To evaluate the predictive power of particular statistics, it's important to conduct statistical analyses to determine the correlation between the statistic and future goals and wins. This can involve using techniques such as regression analysis, which can help to determine the statistical significance of the relationship between the statistic and the outcome.

I find it sad but also predictable how people are attacking the devils in this post. We have the brightest future of any team in the league and a brighter history, pretty much any team would kill for.

Are you joking with this? You just shit on a rival team with the most points in the league and you can't understand why some are coming at you and your team that finished 40 points behind the Rangers. Get a life.

 

[Tawnos]

I have no problem with these non-public microstats, but they need to tell us what they've found the correlation to future goals, future goals for percentage, and wins for each of them is.

The reason people like CF% and xGF% are because they've been tested to have a higher correlation to future goals and goals for percentage than current goals or goals for percentage do.

All of those slices of data are interesting to have, but if you can't show me that they're more correlated to goal differential and wins over time, then why do I care beyond pure curiosity?

Suffice it to say, when someone asks how a team got where it got when they have poor public-data model analytics, the microstats show you how it happened. CF% and xGF% show you what happened, which is a totally different question.

I will tell you this though. Because Valiquette is also an intermission analyst on MSG during Rangers games, he also often shares game reports produced by CSA. Before anyone says his connection makes him biased, CSA itself isn't and they have NHL teams as clients (not the Rangers). Those game reports are very often better for the Rangers than, for example, NST's reports for the same game. There's a common theme among the CSA reports. High % chances the Rangers are often equal or better than opponents. Medium % chances, the Rangers usually have the edge, sometimes by a lot. Low % chances, the Rangers often get killed.

That explains a lot about why the public models, which basically only care about shot volume and location, are worse for the Rangers than the CSA model which accounts for pre-shot movement, screens, etc. Context is important.

 

[FoxysExpensiveNYDigs]

Data analysis techniques can be helpful in identifying patterns and trends in data, but if the data being analyzed is not correlated to the outcome of interest, then the results may not provide any meaningful insights. For example, if a particular statistic is not predictive of future goals or wins, then focusing on that statistic may not lead to a meaningful impact on future outcomes.

To address this concern, it's important to first understand why certain statistics are more predictive of future goals and wins than others. For example, Corsi and expected goal statistics can be more predictive because they take into account a wide range of shot attempts, not just the number of goals scored. These statistics can help to capture the overall offensive and defensive tendencies of a team, as well as their ability to generate and prevent high-quality scoring chances.

To evaluate the predictive power of particular statistics, it's important to conduct statistical analyses to determine the correlation between the statistic and future goals and wins. This can involve using techniques such as regression analysis, which can help to determine the statistical significance of the relationship between the statistic and the outcome.

I find it sad but also predictable how people are attacking the devils in this post. We have the brightest future of any team in the league and a brighter history, pretty much any team would kill for.

Lol. Why not just claim the Debbies are 2025 Cup contenders? It worked out so well for you guys this year.

 

[AhosDatsyukian]

I can't shake the feeling that Washington is going to beat them in 7 games leading to much soul searching.

would be amazing. I expect Rangers in 5 or 6, but man an old, believed to be washed in the first half of the year Ovi and a bunch of scrubs upsetting them would be crazy to see

 

[JaegerDice]

Suffice it to say, when someone asks how a team got where it got when they have poor public-data model analytics, the microstats show you how it happened. CF% and xGF% show you what happened, which is a totally different question.

I will tell you this though. Because Valiquette is also an intermission analyst on MSG during Rangers games, he also often shares game reports produced by CSA. Before anyone says his connection makes him biased, CSA itself isn't and they have NHL teams as clients (not the Rangers). Those game reports are very often better for the Rangers than, for example, NST's reports for the same game. There's a common theme among the CSA reports. High % chances the Rangers are often equal or better than opponents. Medium % chances, the Rangers usually have the edge, sometimes by a lot. Low % chances, the Rangers often get killed.

That explains a lot about why the public models, which basically only care about shot volume and location, are worse for the Rangers than the CSA model which accounts for pre-shot movement, screens, etc. Context is important.

That's all well and good. On an intuitive level, I understand the argument.

I still want to see the math that demonstrates those specific advantages in the microstats translate into a greater correlation to future goal differential and wins than CF% and xGF% do.

That's the benefit of public stats. Like anything open-source, they can be tested and retested by anybody.

 

[DFAC]

Yes, no, maybe - but who cares?

They got the most points this season so they won the President's trophy. This just seems like a weird attempt to take a dig at the Rangers tbh

 

[Tawnos]

That's all well and good. On an intuitive level, I understand the argument.

I still want to see the math that demonstrates those specific advantages in the microstats translate into a greater correlation to future goal differential and wins.

The problem is that it doesn't matter if it correlates on a wider level, because if it works for the Rangers then it works for the Rangers.

 

[Megustaelhockey]

Yes, no, maybe - but who cares?

They got the most points this season so they won the President's trophy. This just seems like a weird attempt to take a dig at the Rangers tbh

The Metro division rivalries are particularly objectionable.

 

[HatTrick Swayze]

Data analysis techniques can be helpful in identifying patterns and trends in data, but if the data being analyzed is not correlated to the outcome of interest, then the results may not provide any meaningful insights. For example, if a particular statistic is not predictive of future goals or wins, then focusing on that statistic may not lead to a meaningful impact on future outcomes.

To address this concern, it's important to first understand why certain statistics are more predictive of future goals and wins than others. For example, Corsi and expected goal statistics can be more predictive because they take into account a wide range of shot attempts, not just the number of goals scored. These statistics can help to capture the overall offensive and defensive tendencies of a team, as well as their ability to generate and prevent high-quality scoring chances.

To evaluate the predictive power of particular statistics, it's important to conduct statistical analyses to determine the correlation between the statistic and future goals and wins. This can involve using techniques such as regression analysis, which can help to determine the statistical significance of the relationship between the statistic and the outcome.

I find it sad but also predictable how people are attacking the devils in this post. We have the brightest future of any team in the league and a brighter history, pretty much any team would kill for.

Is there really an NJD ChatGPT bot now on HF? Lmao

 

[JaegerDice]

The problem is that it doesn't matter if it correlates on a wider level, because if it works for the Rangers then it works for the Rangers.

We're not talking about it working for the Rangers, we're talking about it working for hockey.

As long as the Rangers are playing hockey, then it matters if it works a) at all, b) repeatedly

 

[Fitzy]

I feel like I read one of these type of threads every time NYR go into the playoffs with any kind of expectations whatsoever.

Real 6 goalie system energy emanating from OP

 

[HatTrick Swayze]

That's all well and good. On an intuitive level, I understand the argument.

I still want to see the math that demonstrates those specific advantages in the microstats translate into a greater correlation to future goal differential and wins than CF% and xGF% do.

That's the benefit of public stats. Like anything open-source, they can be tested and retested by anybody.

Serious q, how predictive is CF%? Have never actually seen that

 

[Tawnos]

We're not talking about it working for the Rangers, we're talking about it working for hockey.

As long as the Rangers are playing hockey, then it matters if it works a) at all, b) repeatedly

Maybe *you're* talking about it working broadly and not for the Rangers specifically. I am not talking about the broader picture and never was.

 

[TGWL]

Rangers were a bottom 12 team during Dec 1st - Jan 31st. More than 1/3 of their season played. If anything, they should have ran away with the presidents trophy rather than having to win their final game. Hurricanes finished with a slightly higher PP%, so why is that used again NYR? With that said, sure, they have a lot of flaws.

 

[TGWL]

I probably am totally wrong but it’s one of the less frightening Rangers teams I can recall. Even when the Caps had a better regular season and the Caps played the Rangers regularly in the postseason there were multiple years where I felt the Rangers were better suited for playoff hockey despite a worse record. This year feels a bit like smoke and mirrors to me for the Rangers but since I said that the Rangers will now slaughter on their way to a Cup so you’re welcome, Rangers fans.

It's probably also the "we weren't expected to be here" approach taking over for you. It's like the anxiety of the first round matchup against NYR is lessened by a "whatever happens" approach.

I'm not expecting us to sweep the caps. We have flaws. They have flaws. It should be a close series for the most part.

 

[JaegerDice]

Serious q, how predictive is CF%? Have never actually seen that

Depends on the sample of games provided vs the number of games to be predicted.

CF% after 10 games for the next 72 games is far less predictive than CF% after 40 games for the next 42 games.

Obviously, this is also true for stats like goals and shots.

The R-squared (correlation) for CF% and xGF% is about double the R-squared to future goals and future goal differential than current goals or current goal percentage for, given any X games played and Y games to be predicted.

 

[super6646]

Imagine for a second if the Rangers had Skjei-Fox as their top defensive pair.

Just f***ing imagine it because it was all but gifted to this team, and they pissed it away like their cup aspirations since 1994. The Bruins missed out on a decade of Orr-Park because of knee injuries, but the Rangers decided to miss out because they're run by incompetent failures.

Seriously, this team could've had 140 pts this season if they just didn't shoot themselves in the nuts. Oh well.

 

[The Crypto Guy]

Imagine for a second if the Rangers had Skjei-Fox as their top defensive pair.

Just f***ing imagine it because it was all but gifted to this team, and they pissed it away like their cup aspirations since 1994. The Bruins missed out on a decade of Orr-Park because of knee injuries, but the Rangers decided to miss out because they're run by incompetent failures.

Seriously, this team could've had 140 pts this season if they just didn't shoot themselves in the nuts. Oh well.

Yea because the Rangers couldn't afford him and we got a first for him. It's no a brainer, especially since he wasn't anything more than a top 4 dman for us.

Oh and that first ended up landing us Braden Schneider. So no Ranger fan is disappointed.

 

[HolyHagelin]

Is there really an NJD ChatGPT bot now on HF? Lmao

I was thinking the same thing lol

 

[GlitchMarner]

The 2011 Canucks was the best statistical team in the league, they were first in basically every stat that was tracked at the time and they were one of the most complete teams built in the salary cap era. They made it to game 7 of the finals. They also had a 10 point margin over the second place team.

If you're referring to the 2012 Canucks, they lost in the first round but to a Kings team that won the cup, the only President's Trophy team winner who's upset led to a cup win by the 8th seed. They also didn't have Daniel Sedin because Duncan Keith headshot him right before the playoffs started.

Yeah, sorry. I did mean the 2012 Canucks. Not saying they were terrible by any means, but I think the 2012 spring was the beginning of the end for that era/core of the team.

 

[HolyHagelin]

Imagine for a second if the Rangers had Skjei-Fox as their top defensive pair.

Just f***ing imagine it because it was all but gifted to this team, and they pissed it away like their cup aspirations since 1994. The Bruins missed out on a decade of Orr-Park because of knee injuries, but the Rangers decided to miss out because they're run by incompetent failures.

Seriously, this team could've had 140 pts this season if they just didn't shoot themselves in the nuts. Oh well.

The Rangers D had 200 pts this year bud

 

[PuckLuck3043]

Imagine for a second if the Rangers had Skjei-Fox as their top defensive pair.

Just f***ing imagine it because it was all but gifted to this team, and they pissed it away like their cup aspirations since 1994. The Bruins missed out on a decade of Orr-Park because of knee injuries, but the Rangers decided to miss out because they're run by incompetent failures.

Seriously, this team could've had 140 pts this season if they just didn't shoot themselves in the nuts. Oh well.

Yea ok. Incompetent failures that have had 110, 107, and 114 points the last 3 seasons. Skjei is good but since when did he become the second coming of Bobby Orr.

 

[GlitchMarner]

How did you include the 2011 Canucks? They dominated in so many stats and are deemed one of the best teams to never win a cup...

Meant the 2012 team. I just feel like they fizzled out toward the end of the season and in the playoffs. I know having Daniel Sedin injured didn't help.

 

[PuckLuck3043]

The Rangers D had 200 pts this year bud

Don't let facts get in the way in this thread. It's all about hyperbole.

 

[Svenhart2008]

As the old adage goes, you make your own luck. Objectively, in a field of 31 other teams, they beat out every for the most points. Everyone had the same playing field.

I was going to say all of the above, but then I saw the account and all I can do is laugh.