Post-Game Talk: Capitals at Rangers - March 29 (Moderator advice in OP)

[RangerDude]

Corsi and fenwick count events that happen on the ice just like any other stat. It's not different from counting goals, assists, or shots. Are those fake too?

Goals: real
Assists: real
Shots: real.

Telling us than shots is more important predictor than goals is fuzzy math.

 

[Machinehead]

I love the notion that "real GM's" don't care about analytics.

LA leads the league in corsi every year and has won 11 out of 12 playoff series. If you think their management isn't in on this and building their team based on it, you're being extremely naive.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

I literally, totally, 1000%, don't give a single fraction of a **** what Sam, Joe, Pat Leonard, Larry Brooks, Steve Zipay, Doc Emerick, Pierre McGuire, or anybody else thinks of my team and their defense.

I hope you don't take offense to this, but the truth is that they probably know more about the game than you do.

These are people giving opinions on professional hockey for their job. They might not always be right, but when almost all of them are always singing the praises of our defenseman, it seems to indicate there is a consensus that we have good defenseman. Who should we believe, a few people on a message board or professionals at the highest level of analyzing hockey games?

Tons of statistical evidence is not "nitpicking".

There's probably statistical evidence to say Crosby's not an elite center, Malkin's not an elite center, Weber's not an elite D, Doughty's not an elite D.

I'm sure there's tons more negative statistical evidence that other teams have worse problems than we do.

Our right side is bottom 10 in the NHL and half our D get leprosy when they touch the puck.

That's a rather large weakness.

You are exaggerating both of those things, and plenty of teams have problems. You want to discuss the Habs forward depth or Anaheim's defense?

 

[Machinehead]

Goals: real
Assists: real
Shots: real.

Telling us than shots is more important predictor than goals is fuzzy math.

Shot attemps: real.

And shots are a better predictor than goals. This has been mathematically proven and over, and over, and over, and over, and over.

 

[RangerDude]

Shot attemps: real.

And shots are a better predictor than goals. This has been mathematically proven and over, and over, and over, and over, and over.

Then why are the Rangers ranked top 5 in GF% but #19 in CF%?
some kind of predictor.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

I do think they are, and rightfully so.

So why are we saying we are going to be out early? Even the very best teams in the league, a group which we are among, have major weaknesses. Just ask the neutrals, the majority would probably say we have among the best chances to win the Cup.

 

[Raspewtin]

I hope you don't take offense to this, but the truth is that they probably know more about the game than you do.

These are people giving opinions on professional hockey for their job. They might not always be right, but when almost all of them are always singing the praises of our defenseman, it seems to indicate there is a consensus that we have good defenseman. Who should we believe, a few people on a message board or professionals at the highest level of analyzing hockey games?

From this point on, whenever someone questions Tanner Glass playing, I will defer to Larry Brooks and Pat Leonard's glowing reviews of how he's what a modern enforcer is.

I mean, they probably know the game more than we do.....

There's probably statistical evidence to say Crosby's not an elite center, Malkin's not an elite center, Weber's not an elite D, Doughty's not an elite D.

I'm sure there's tons more negative statistical evidence that other teams have worse problems than we do.

So this team's problems shouldn't be discussed because it could be worse? I don't understand.

You are exaggerating both of those things, and plenty of teams have problems. You want to discuss the Habs forward depth or Anaheim's defense?

This is the Rangers PGT on the Rangers board, I don't care about other teams or their flaws here.

 

[Machinehead]

Then why are the Rangers ranked top 5 in GF% but #19 in CF%?
some kind of predictor.

Great goaltending and great shooting. Hard to sustain playing the same team 7 straight times. Again, proven.

 

[jgimb]

you do realise that teams around the league have hired a number of people just to analyze these stats...

 

[aufheben]

So why are we saying we are going to be out early? Even the very best teams in the league, a group which we are among, have major weaknesses. Just ask the neutrals, the majority would probably say we have among the best chances to win the Cup.

Listen, I still have faith in this team, I'm just a bit concerned.

People are saying we could be out early because this team doesn't carry play like it did last year, at least not as much. Teams like Boston, NYI, and Tampa could give them a LOT of trouble. The downfall of 2011-12 and success of 2013-14 were both predicted by possession numbers, it's not ********.

 

[RangerDude]

Great goaltending and great shooting. Hard to sustain playing the same team 7 straight times. Again, proven.

Great D?

 

[Raspewtin]

I'm so ****ing tired of the sunshine parade, and their overwhelming desire to belittle any legitimate criticism of this team when engaging conversations about this team's flaws are brought up.

It's a message board, differing opinions are allowed.

 

[Machinehead]

Great D?

We don't have that. That's kind of the whole point of the past 2 pages.

 

[Raspewtin]

Great D?

93.20% SV% at ES.

Defense have no ability to affect on ice-sv%

It's way more the goaltending.

 

[RangerDude]

We don't have that. That's kind of the whole point of the past 2 pages.

And my argument for 3 pages. We have great D over the years, the forwards suck at their job recently. no forecheck, floating around the perimeter afraid to get injured.

 

[Tawnos]

I rely on the eye-test quite a bit. I see a team that's in their own zone most of the game.

Me too. But I also see a team that's leading for much of the games they play. The Rangers have spent more time leading games than any other team in the league. Only two teams have positive possession metrics when leading. The Rangers are 10th in CF% and 11th in FF% when leading.

In other words, the Rangers spend a lot of time in their own zone because they're successful early. They've scored 1st more than any team in the league except for the Islanders, who don't defend well. Given that the Rangers also have an 0.800 winning percentage when scoring 1st, an 0.833 winning % when leading after 1 and a 0.970 winning percentage when leading after two, they're also highly successful at defending despite spending so much time in their own zone.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

From this point on, whenever someone questions Tanner Glass playing, I will defer to Larry Brooks and Pat Leonard's glowing reviews of how he's what a modern enforcer is.

I mean, they probably know the game more than we do.....

Why even resort to that type of argument?

Just because they are wrong on a few things doesn't mean that on average, they don't know more about the game than most of us.

So this team's problems shouldn't be discussed because it could be worse? I don't understand.

Thats actually not what I stated. I stated that I don't understand why some are freaking out and saying we are bound for an early exit in the playoffs. Discuss all you want. I think its silly to say things like we are going to be out early like you've been saying for weeks or maybe even months at this point.

Like Auf said, there are reasons to be concerned. I'm concerned as well, but saying things like we are bound for an early exit because we don't move the puck well enough in our own zone is just crazy talk and overreacting for the sake of overreacting to a few losses.

This is the Rangers PGT on the Rangers board, I don't care about other teams or their flaws here.

Then you are doing exactly what I am accusing you of, overreacting for the sake of it. You seem to watch a ton of hockey. Take a look around the NHL and realize that we probably have the least or at least among the least problems of playoff teams. Have some perspective.

 

[Tawnos]

93.20% SV% at ES.

Defense have no ability to affect on ice-sv%

It's way more the goaltending.

There's simply no statistic in existence than can prove that.

 

[Machinehead]

Me too. But I also see a team that's leading for much of the games they play. The Rangers have spent more time leading games than any other team in the league. Only two teams have positive possession metrics when leading. The Rangers are 10th in CF% and 11th in FF%.

In other words, the Rangers spend a lot of time in their own zone because they're successful early. They've scored 1st more than any team in the league except for the Islanders, who don't defend well. Given that the Rangers also have an 0.800 winning percentage when scoring 1st, an 0.833 winning % when leading after 1 and a 0.970 winning percentage when leading after two, they're also highly successful at defending despite spending so much time in their own zone.

That's a good point, but it was the same thing in 2012 and that team was awful in the playoffs. Hank beat Ottawa by himself and kept New Jersey from being a sweep by himself. That's where the concern comes from, the earmarks of the 2012 team.

 

[Raspewtin]

There's simply no statistic in existence than can prove that.

http://hockey-graphs.com/2014/07/07...-no-sustainable-control-over-save-percentage/

http://www.arcticicehockey.com/2014...nse-dustin-byfuglien-ondrej-pavelec-blamebuff

No stats, but observable trends.

 

[Machinehead]

And my argument for 3 pages. We have great D over the years, the forwards suck at their job recently. no forecheck, floating around the perimeter afraid to get injured.

We've scored more than 27 teams (fact) despite having attempted fewer shots than 18 teams (fact) but clearly it's the forwards who suck.

 

[Raspewtin]

Why even resort to that type of argument?

Just because they are wrong on a few things doesn't mean that on average, they don't know more about the game than most of us.

What don't you understand about this?

Thats actually not what I stated. I stated that I don't understand why some are freaking out and saying we are bound for an early exit in the playoffs. Discuss all you want. I think its silly to say things like we are going to be out early like you've been saying for weeks or maybe even months at this point.

I've had consistent opinions on this defense all year, when we were ripping the league up, and when we're losing now. "You're just overreacting" is a total strawman, I'm not and you know it.

Like Auf said, there are reasons to be concerned. I'm concerned as well, but saying things like we are bound for an early exit because we don't move the puck well enough in our own zone is just crazy talk and overreacting for the sake of overreacting to a few losses.

See above.

Then you are doing exactly what I am accusing you of, overreacting for the sake of it. You seem to watch a ton of hockey. Take a look around the NHL and realize that we probably have the least or at least among the least problems of playoff teams. Have some perspective.

Having a controversial opinion isn't "overreacting for the sake of it".

 

[RangerDude]

We've scored more than 27 teams (fact) despite having attempted fewer shots than 18 teams (fact) but clearly it's the forwards who suck.

Earlier in the year, sure. The term I used was consistently. Lately, the team has been eking out wins in low scoring games. Thanks to the defense.

 

[Machinehead]

Earlier in the year, sure. The term I used was consistently. Lately, the team has been eking out wins in low scoring games. Thanks to the defense.

We're still 3rd in scoring over a 75 game sample. We're 4th since January 2014, which is over 110 NHL games. You can't possibly ask more of our offense.

 

[RangerDude]

We're still 3rd in scoring over a 75 game sample. We're 4th since January 2014, which is over 110 NHL games. You can't possibly ask more of our offense.

We are 3rd in GA/G, you can' possibly ask more of our defense.