I have been swayed a lot towards the worthiness of analytics, primarily by the constant drumming of
@Machinehead.
However, the
ONLY reason the Rangers are in the semis is because of Shesterkin.
If Shesterkin was on Carolina and the Rangers had Andersen in the Carolina series, the Rangers would likely have won zero games.
So, how does goaltending figure into the analytics model being discussed in this thread?
Well, for starters, I don't think that series was that lopsided.
The Hurricanes only had an xG advantage of 14.47-13.49 at 5v5 in the series. Considering that Carolina more or less specializes in the current publicly available analytics, I would say we played absolutely fantastic.
My stance on goaltending has always been that it's exceedingly important to get good goaltending in the playoffs, but that a cavalcade of bad goaltenders have gotten hot for the 24 or so games.
More bad ones have Cups than elite ones.
Would I play the way we do without Shesterkin? No, but if we didn't have him, we wouldn't play this way. It's a non-starter.
You say terrible at offense and use lack of scoring. That's true. The scoring is low. Can't argue that.
But you also have eyes. How many GRADE A chances has he given Wennberg? He can't score for the guy. The SAME thing was happening with Mika and Kreider. Maybe he's just gonna be snake bit for his entire life. But the talent is clearly there.
This is where I disagree, and it's whatever, because you know what I think about the eye test.
But just in my opinion, I don't think Kakko produces all these great chances like people say. I think it's just more frustrating and more memorable when he or one of his linemates shank a chance, because he never scores.
The Panarin-Lafreniere-Trocheck line biffs a good chance every other shift. They generate more, they blow more, they score more.