Post-Game Talk: Habs @ Rangers 1/29/15 Mod warning in post #8

[Doctyl]

Another brilliant counter-point.

No one is afraid of either of those players. Dorsett isnt exactly a feared fighter. Carcillo is a clown who can easily be baited into a penalty.

 

[LieutenantLackluster]

Hank can stop 50/50 shots in 1 game and guess what we still wouldnt win unless we scored at least 1 goal. Saves dont win games.

If you think thats some sort of a straw man i dont know what to tell you.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Oh **** Boyle and Pouliot. Im shaking in fear

That response is pretty brain dead given how much better the bottom 6 was last year, in large part because of those 2.

 

[offdacrossbar]

Sather isn't stupid. Zuccarello is a nice story, but he isn't very effective in the NHL at his size. I want the Rangers to get BIG, FAST, and MEAN. This is the recipe for success in the new NHL.

wait.

weren't we in the scf last season ?

while all of those things are good, we went out west and rolled all 3 of those west coast teams that are just that. big fast mean.

seemed like we were ok then? an zuke was part of that.

we need to play better and score some mfing goals.

were pretty big, were very fast and were um.... well..... tanner glass and um..... kevin klein looks mean.

 

[Raspewtin]

There really isn't.

There actually is. "Snarl" is taking reckless runs at players, pushing and shoving after the whistle, a general willingness to push other players around.

"Grit" is willing to fight for every inch of space, taking a hit to make a play, driving the net, and battling on the boards.

So is Glass, and he's our only physical forward outside of Kreider. So that's a moot point.

What does Glass have to do with my comment on Morrow being useless?

A "physical battle" isn't made up solely of face punching and hitting. It's all of the crap that goes on between the whistles, and the amount of work that's put into fighting for the puck. The Rangers lost that battle last night.

The between whistles crap doesn't directly (hell, or indirectly) quantify to winning so I don't know what that matters.

Why did the Rangers match Montreal in scoring chances, out hit them, and generally be the better team outside of a few stretches if they were just wilting physically?

 

[Doctyl]

That response is pretty brain dead given how much better the bottom 6 was last year, in large part because of those 2.

Talking toughness wise, neither is much of a force to be reckoned with. Im not sure if the bottom 6 would be that much worse if AV would just play the right people.

 

[Raspewtin]

The bottom 6 this year has been a big ****ed up science experiment. It's not as good as last year personnel wise, but AV is playing a large part on why it's so bad.

 

[Trxjw]

No one is afraid of either of those players. Dorsett isnt exactly a feared fighter. Carcillo is a clown who can easily be baited into a penalty.

Who said anything about fear? You don't have to be afraid of a guy to wince when he staples you to the boards on the forecheck.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

Okay, slept on it and feel better. It was an even game against a very high quality opponent. Hank doesn't blow that Richter-esque joke of a goal and we've got at least one point, perhaps two. Both squads are near the top of the league and were defending tenaciously - and I would argue that the Rangers had more of the real scoring chances, by a good margin.

Remember, they laid two eggs coming off of the west coast trip as well. Let's see if this spirals into some sort of major slump, and I'll change my tune, but as of right now, it's no big deal. Stay the course. Smart, opportunistic deals only.

Oh, and get Tanner Glass the **** out of the lineup.

 

[OverTheCap]

Winning physical battles includes being strong along the boards, protecting and holding onto the puck when pressured, establishing a forecheck and cycling the puck, and outmuscling opponents around the net on both ends of the ice. The team has been pretty lousy at those things the past few games with the exception of Staal's performance last night.

 

[Trxjw]

There actually is. "Snarl" is taking reckless runs at players, pushing and shoving after the whistle, a general willingness to push other players around.

"Grit" is willing to fight for every inch of space, taking a hit to make a play, driving the net, and battling on the boards.

Your own definitions are interchangeable. How is "a general willingness to push people other players around" any different than your definition of grit? Unless there's a way to drive to the net, take a hit, or battle on the boards without engaging with pushing players around that I'm not aware of.

What does Glass have to do with my comment on Morrow being useless?

Because our most physical player is also a useless player, and yet the Bolts have players in addition to Morrow who fill that void. We do not.

The between whistles crap doesn't directly (hell, or indirectly) quantify to winning so I don't know what that matters.

Why did the Rangers match Montreal in scoring chances, out hit them, and generally be the better team outside of a few stretches if they were just wilting physically?

I'm going to stop this debate if you're going to try and "quantify" this and hide behind metrics. No, there is no "stat" that correlates between the whistles play to winning, but you'd be hard pressed to find a single hockey player who would tell you it doesn't have a major impact on the game while it's occurring. You're never going to find a radar graph about it, but that doesn't mean you can dismiss it.

"Scoring chances" is a open to interpretation. You don't even need an actual shot on goal to create a scoring chance in the eyes of many stats officials. You'd be hard pressed to say the Rangers were the better team, even "generally."

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Talking toughness wise, neither is much of a force to be reckoned with. Im not sure if the bottom 6 would be that much worse if AV would just play the right people.

I disagree. I dont know how any sane person can make an argument the bottom 6 is equal to last year.

Regarding toughness, I think Boyle and Pouliot's level of toughness was underrated, because I think it goes beyond clown show antics like fights and big hits.

 

[Trxjw]

Hank can stop 50/50 shots in 1 game and guess what we still wouldnt win unless we scored at least 1 goal. Saves dont win games.

If you think thats some sort of a straw man i dont know what to tell you.

No, your argument implying we shouldn't blame Hank for his bad goal because the team couldn't score is a straw man. While saying you need to score more goals than the other team to win may indeed be a fact, it's not actually the same thing.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

No, your argument implying we shouldn't blame Hank for his bad goal because the team couldn't score is a straw man. While saying you need to score more goals than the other team to win may indeed be a fact, it's not actually the same thing.

Agreed. Hank is not bulletproof despite being a future HOF'er.

Woulda been nice to have a point, which they could've gotten without scoring.

 

[Off Sides]

If McD scored 3 goals in a 3-3 game, and then totally made a bad turnover to allow the winner for the other team, does he still get flack?

Is that different than Lundqvist stopping two or three sure goals in a 0-0 game and then allowing the game winner on a soft shot?

Seems like the whole body of play in the game should count for something?

Not saying it was not a bad goal to give up at a bad time, it certainly was but had he not stopped a bunch of those other really tough shots prior we would not even really be talking about it.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

We need to score to won, but 1 point is better than 0 and we should have had at least one last night.

 

[Raspewtin]

Your own definitions are interchangeable. How is "a general willingness to push people other players around" any different than your definition of grit? Unless there's a way to drive to the net, take a hit, or battle on the boards without engaging with pushing players around that I'm not aware of.

I generally equate pushing players around to being mean. Like a Lucic or non-vegetable Clowe type.

Because our most physical player is also a useless player, and yet the Bolts have players in addition to Morrow who fill that void. We do not.

Well I wasn't talking about the Rangers relative to Tampa Bay. I was talking about just Tampa Bay.

I'm going to stop this debate if you're going to try and "quantify" this and hide behind metrics. No, there is no "stat" that correlates between the whistles play to winning, but you'd be hard pressed to find a single hockey player who would tell you it doesn't have a major impact on the game while it's occurring. You're never going to find a radar graph about it, but that doesn't mean you can dismiss it.

Between the whistles scuffles are useless unless it's clearly frustrating a player or players into being more likely to take a penalty. Winning board battles, being hard on the puck, protecting the puck, those are all important, because they go into puck possession. It's not hard to figure out, definitions of "momentum" and what changes it aside.

"Scoring chances" is a open to interpretation. You don't even need an actual shot on goal to create a scoring chance in the eyes of many stats officials. You'd be hard pressed to say the Rangers were the better team, even "generally."

Barely open to interpretation. They're all "above average chances to score" by definition. And all scoring chances had to have at least an attempted shot or they won't be counted (ex. a player hitting the crossbar from ten feet out).

 

[SnowblindNYR]

If McD scored 3 goals in a 3-3 game, and then totally made a bad turnover to allow the winner for the other team, does he still get flack?

Is that different than Lundqvist stopping two or three sure goals in a 0-0 game and then allowing the game winner on a soft shot?

Seems like the whole body of play in the game should count for something?

Not saying it was not a bad goal to give up at a bad time, it certainly was but had he not stopped a bunch of those other really tough shots prior we would not even really be talking about it.

A defenseman scoring 3 goals is not even close to a goalie making 26 saves for a shutout in a defensive game.

I mean, a defenseman getting a hat trick is much more impressive.

 

[Off Sides]

A defenseman scoring 3 goals is not even close to a goalie making 26 saves for a shutout in a defensive game.

I mean, a defenseman getting a hat trick is much more impressive.

Okay so two goals in a 2-2 game? 1 goal in a 1-1 game?

To me it's just strange, I am not a person who defends Lundqvist no matter what, in fact I still think he is overpaid and for too long, and I agree he gives up soft goals here and there.

All the same in this particular game he made saves that a lesser goalie probably lets in way prior to the one he actually did. So when he floundered the game winner, to me by that point he already got the Rangers to a place that most other goalies would not have. So in my mind that puts the loss just as much if not more so on the play between his great saves and the point where he did let up a weak one on the rest of the team for their lack of scoring.

 

[Trxjw]

I generally equate pushing players around to being mean. Like a Lucic or non-vegetable Clowe type.

Then that's just a difference of opinion.

Well I wasn't talking about the Rangers relative to Tampa Bay. I was talking about just Tampa Bay.

The whole point was that the Rangers are ineffective against teams who can play a physical game. Morrow might be a borderline NHLer, but that's not really evidence against what I said.

Between the whistles scuffles are useless unless it's clearly frustrating a player or players into being more likely to take a penalty. Winning board battles, being hard on the puck, protecting the puck, those are all important, because they go into puck possession. It's not hard to figure out, definitions of "momentum" and what changes it aside.

You're arguing with yourself here now. I already said that: "A "physical battle" isn't made up solely of face punching and hitting. It's all of the crap that goes on between the whistles, and the amount of work that's put into fighting for the puck." Despite not being quantifiable in terms of the holiness of puck possession, I stand by my point that it does have an impact on the game aside from just trying to agitate people. If a goalie gets run and nobody does anything about it, that's certainly not going to impact someone's Fenwick, but it sure as hell does a lot for the team emotionally.

Barely open to interpretation. They're all "above average chances to score" by definition. And all scoring chances had to have at least an attempted shot or they won't be counted (ex. a player hitting the crossbar from ten feet out).

An "attempted shot" that hits a defender square in the shins is from the hashes is a "scoring chance" by the standards set. That could just as easily fall under the "wasted opportunity" bucket. As do the number of odd-man rushes that result in nothing, but are still counted as a scoring chance.

 

[haveandare]

Then that's just a difference of opinion.



The whole point was that the Rangers are ineffective against teams who can play a physical game. Morrow might be a borderline NHLer, but that's not really evidence against what I said.




You're arguing with yourself here now. I already said that: "A "physical battle" isn't made up solely of face punching and hitting. It's all of the crap that goes on between the whistles, and the amount of work that's put into fighting for the puck." Despite not being quantifiable in terms of the holiness of puck possession, I stand by my point that it does have an impact on the game aside from just trying to agitate people. If a goalie gets run and nobody does anything about it, that's certainly not going to impact someone's Fenwick, but it sure as hell does a lot for the team emotionally.



An "attempted shot" that hits a defender square in the shins is from the hashes is a "scoring chance" by the standards set. That could just as easily fall under the "wasted opportunity" bucket. As do the number of odd-man rushes that result in nothing, but are still counted as a scoring chance.

It's not physicality that gives them trouble IMO, it's depth, and more specifically teams with depth that forecheck hard on all 4 lines.

They've beat big, physical teams handily a few times. I'm not sure they've beat a four line team that pressured them for 60 minutes yet.

 

[BroadwayBlues]

He IS 2nd on the team in points, 2nd on the team in goals and 3rd on the team in assists. If you can replace that, then I'm all for it.

What I am stating is that his play today is not as a generational talent.

Right.

MSL overall play has not been great. I think those stats are a byproduct of the the Rangers lack of elite talent on the wings.

 

[Trxjw]

It's not physicality that gives them trouble IMO, it's depth, and more specifically teams with depth that forecheck hard on all 4 lines.

They've beat big, physical teams handily a few times. I'm not sure they've beat a four line team that pressured them for 60 minutes yet.

I include forechecking as being physical. Sure, they beat the Ducks and the Kings on the west coast trip, but I wouldn't call the win over the Kings an easy one. They're also not the only physical teams to consider. The Leafs are a bad team, but they're physical and have taken us down twice. The Jets are a physical team and we lost a tough game to them as well.

I do think the point about deep teams is a good one, and I agree with you there.

 

[TheTakedown]

Dorsett would have went a long way in solidifying the bottom 6... he absolutely would have been a staple on his line

 

[Raspewtin]

It's not physicality that gives them trouble IMO, it's depth, and more specifically teams with depth that forecheck hard on all 4 lines.

They've beat big, physical teams handily a few times. I'm not sure they've beat a four line team that pressured them for 60 minutes yet.

AV is getting a lot less blame than he should for how he's handled the bottom 6.