Discussion: What sparked the season turnaround?

[Holocene]

Hank, Nash, Stepan, Staal and the PP playing well combined with the team settling into the system.

 

[Kwayry]

Hank, PP but also the wrinkle they added to the D not to front as they were doing before is what helped stabilize the D.

 

[Kwayry]

It's PDO, an approximate measure of puck luck

PDO is an iffy stat to begin with and 15 or so games is such a small sample size. It's more useful over a whole season.

 

[PlamsUnlimited]

It's the approximate measure of the measure that they use to measure the measures over a full measure, of course.

They probably are setting into the system and coaching now.

 

[Machinehead]

I think it's as simple as this: we're scoring.

On the date in question, December 15th, we were 28th in scoring, one goal ahead of 29th. Today we're 19th, having scored a whopping 64 goals in the 21 games since. An average of 3.04 per game.

The average from the beginning of the season til December 15th was 2.27.

A 0.8 GPG increase = wins. Simple arithmetic.

 

[Thirty One]

PDO is an iffy stat to begin with and 15 or so games is such a small sample size. It's more useful over a whole season.

Ummm... that's kind of the point. The Rangers may be able to maintain such terrible percentages over 15 games or so, but they'll even out, as we're seeing now.

 

[mike14]

having a fit Hags, cally ,Nash and Staal who not only got healthy but got their confidence back probably had something to do with it too.

 

[Kwayry]

Ummm... that's kind of the point. The Rangers may be able to maintain such terrible percentages over 15 games or so, but they'll even out, as we're seeing now.

That's a fair point and the chart kinda coincides.

I am glad you used the term "attempt" in your definition.

 

[Cake or Death]

Forwards back checking. When they don't, opposition walks through neutral zone, the D gets blamed for playing like crap, and we give up horrendous scoring chances and have blown coverage all over the place. When they back check it's a major difference. Perfect example... look at the Stralman hit on Greene. Stralman sees Nash coming back and can make that hit. And Stralman's position was such that he was basically forcing Greene toward Nash, so even if Greene gets by Stralman, Stralman slows him down or directs him right into Nash. Great back check by Nash, gorgeous read on the play by Stralman, and really our whole 5 on the ice played that well.

When our forwards don't back check, the D are playing D, forwards trying to score, and it's two non-cohesive disjointed units that end up having horrible break downs and chasing the other team like headless chickens. There are obviously numerous other factors, but that is what glaringly jumps at me as the dominant difference between when this team plays well or looks like ice crapades.

 

[SlingshotVv]

From a player standpoint, that was around the time Pouliot started playing some real good minutes for us. Zuccarello went ballistic, Cally came back, Lundqvist settled, Brassard heated up, the defense looked solid, and Nash is bananas. That many changes at one time must've had a catalyst, I tend to think it was Zucc and Pouliot picking up the scoring and balancing the attack. The NYR right now have three lines that can score. That creates all kinds of problems in a league where bottom pairings generally are projects/prospects and not grizzled vets

 

[BBKers]

Taylor Pyatt dressed and played his last game as a NYR December 12
December 15 came right after
It MUST BE that

The TP Butterfly Effect is a fact

 

[Tawnos]

Even though they won 4 of the 5 games before it, I really think the game against the Penguins really sparked the team. Whatever was said in the meeting after that game was effective. It's like they were fed up with themselves and said "we know we're better than this, so let's be better than this." There's definitely a different quality of determination in the 12 games they've played since then. Their 8-3-1 record reflects that.

We have a determined group of players. We have a healthy and non-rusty group of players.

And of course, the system is finally clicking. I do think that AV has made somewhat minor tweaks to what he's asking of his players to better suit his roster. Minor tweaks can sometimes have a major impact. Things start to click and guys find their roles.

 

[ajdj10]

They got bored of their crap play.

 

[doncherrysgrill]

more jam

 

[mandiblesofdoom]

Forwards back checking. When they don't, opposition walks through neutral zone, the D gets blamed for playing like crap, and we give up horrendous scoring chances and have blown coverage all over the place. When they back check it's a major difference. Perfect example... look at the Stralman hit on Greene. Stralman sees Nash coming back and can make that hit. And Stralman's position was such that he was basically forcing Greene toward Nash, so even if Greene gets by Stralman, Stralman slows him down or directs him right into Nash. Great back check by Nash, gorgeous read on the play by Stralman, and really our whole 5 on the ice played that well.

GREAT comment. Fitting that Nash got that goal. He was skating hard on the backcheck there and sent Greene right into Stralman.

 

[Chimpradamus]

The advantage of facing many teams in weak form has also helped. In january, the NYR have only faced four strong teams (PIT, CHI, TB, STL) and nine teams in currently average or worse than average form (TOR, CLB, DAL, PHI, DET, WSH, NYI, NJ). That has also helped finding their groove.

This team has to prove what consistent performances they can perform against strong teams before any parade can be planned.

 

[Jackson Ranger]

Their best players are playing their best hockey of the season! HL, Nash, Staal and Girardi.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

1. Henrik Lundqvist is playing like the team's best player
2. Rick Nash is playing like the team's 2nd best player
3. The defense has less holes/confusion

This team should be a 3-6 seed in a pretty bad eastern conference. What is the definition of a real contender? This team still seems earmarked to get run over by Boston's size or Pittsburgh's skill. This Rangers team doesn't possess enough of either.

 

[Thirty One]

What is the definition of a real contender?

A team that really contends.

 

[DeadPuck]

Hank, Nash, Stepan, Staal and the PP playing well combined with the team settling into the system.

All hail the PP

 

[Trxjw]

1. Henrik Lundqvist is playing like the team's best player
2. Rick Nash is playing like the team's 2nd best player
3. The defense has less holes/confusion

This. The people who needed to elevate their game have done so, and the support players are playing effectively.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

A team that really contends.

Contends for what exactly?

A trip to the 2nd round with a punchers chance against the better team's in the conference?

 

[we want cup]

1. Henrik Lundqvist is playing like the team's best player
2. Rick Nash is playing like the team's 2nd best player
3. The defense has less holes/confusion

This team should be a 3-6 seed in a pretty bad eastern conference. What is the definition of a real contender? This team still seems earmarked to get run over by Boston's size or Pittsburgh's skill. This Rangers team doesn't possess enough of either.

Everyone's subjective perception of how good the team is at any given point in time. People will say the 11-12 team "wasn't a true contender" if it doesn't fit the narrative that they want to endorse, and even if this team comes within a game of the Cup and loses, others will say "well they weren't a REAL contender anyway" if it suits their purposes in a particular argument.

 

[Inferno]

I'm going to say its a combination of a few things, but i think the 2 biggest are.

the emergence of the 3rd line of Pouliot MZA and Brassard as a line you could play regularly and have produce coupled with all the lines staying relatively the same.

chemistry has built, and it's noticeable.

 

[CharlieCharleschuk]

Forwards back checking. When they don't, opposition walks through neutral zone, the D gets blamed for playing like crap, and we give up horrendous scoring chances and have blown coverage all over the place. When they back check it's a major difference. Perfect example... look at the Stralman hit on Greene. Stralman sees Nash coming back and can make that hit. And Stralman's position was such that he was basically forcing Greene toward Nash, so even if Greene gets by Stralman, Stralman slows him down or directs him right into Nash. Great back check by Nash, gorgeous read on the play by Stralman, and really our whole 5 on the ice played that well.

When our forwards don't back check, the D are playing D, forwards trying to score, and it's two non-cohesive disjointed units that end up having horrible break downs and chasing the other team like headless chickens. There are obviously numerous other factors, but that is what glaringly jumps at me as the dominant difference between when this team plays well or looks like ice crapades.

That's very well put. I wouldn't say it's just the forwards though. It seems like there is a lot more support of whatever player needs it, forward or defense. They make an effort to find the open man and all play with the idea that they'll break out with the help of their open team mates.