Didn't read it. Didn't click on it. Not going to. The summary the OP provided was enough. Don't want to help pay for a moron to keep writing drivel.
You realize who you were quoting, right?
You realize who you were quoting, right?
News Article: Puck Daddy: Rangers are a "team that just isn't good"
- Thread starter Nash Money
- Start date
You should read his articles on the Flames. All he does is trash them, but at least everyone gets it equally.
Hard to argue that Boyle isn't bad. The eye test should say it all, as he's a turnover machine and absolutely brutal in his own end. People with a minuscule understanding of advanced stats will point to his slightly above average Corsi as proof he's actually good, but any deeper look at those stats just confirms what anyone who's watching the games is seeing.
The guy started 40.6% of his shifts in the offensive zone this season (4th among all defensemen with 40+ games). For a guy with 40+% of his zone starts to have a CorsiAgainst/60 to be 51.6 is just brutal.
The guys with 40%+ in the OZ are: David Rundblad, Matt Dumba, Brian Campbell, Aaron Ekblad, Tim Erixon, Keith Yandle. If you need me to explain why this isn't good company, you're not really paying much attention to the league.
By the way, Yandle's 40% OZ starts yielded 52 points--mostly with a Phoenix team that was one of the worst I've ever seen. Ekblad at 18 had 39. Boyle had 20 (yes I know he had an injury but even PPG he's not close).
Last edited:
What's misinformed about it? Please argue that Dan Girardi is a top-pairing defenseman after reading any sort of evaluation of his game. When over a 5 year period it's statistically proven that he makes whoever he skates with perform below their mean, you have no basis on saying he's a good player and worth his contract.
Again, Rick Nash wasn't a world beater in the playoffs (how many players are?) but was STILL 2nd on the team in points. Here are a few of the factors that were more important to the Rangers not winning the Rick Nash only scoring 7 points in the ECF:
1) the injuries that led to Staal and McDonagh being horrible
2) the disappearing act St. Louis put on
3) the coaching decision of not moving Miller back off the 4th line before it was too late
4) the fact that Tanner Glass is the most useless forward in the NHL
5) Dan Boyle's 4.5 million dollar ineptitude in his own end
6) Girardi being a pylon
7) Kreider's inconsistency
8) Zucarello's injury
Maybe it was easier to shut Nash down after the Zucarello injury because he was playing with a 40 year old winger that literally no one is scared of (because he's ineffective). It's amazing how you put JT Miller on that line and Nash starts performing, because there's another offensive threat there with him.
I bet you people also talked about how bad Crosby was after the last two playoff series' he played in too, right?
KingDeathMetal
Registered User
There needs to be a meme with Dave Chappelle dressed like Rick James saying, "WE SHOULDA NEVER GAVE YOU MUTHAF****** CORSI!"
Corsi is a good, valuable stat. But to use shot differential to judge teams (and especially individual players) as good or bad, is lazy. Even when considering that it only accounts for 5v5 play, cutting out a ton of a minutes per game.
Hunwick, Boyle, and John Moore were our best Corsi defensemen last season. Yeah...
Rangers are usually a good shot differential team, except last year where, whatever we did, we compensated for less shots and worse shot suppression with more goals. Call it luck - I call it smarter playmaking and more confidence as a unit - but to do that over 82 games is no accident. Some really good Corsi teams, even teams who were great at shot differential in the playoffs, lost out.
Meanwhile, most everyone considers our defense to be the best in hockey, or right up there. Face it, we're VERY comfortable at handling pressure when pinned in our own end. Makes for crappy shot differential, yeah, but if we can make life difficult for shooters so that Hank doesn't have to make too many difficult saves or face too many rebounds, then the puck stays out and we win the game, end of story. The shot-spamming Islanders don't get pinned too much, they just let up odd-man rushes and fail to kill penalties. YAY CORSI!
Same line of reasoning we always get from Puck Daddy writers, but if there was a Corsi for writing ability, they would be Dan Girardi to TSN's Jake Muzzin. Yahoo plays them too many minutes.
Corsi is a good, valuable stat. But to use shot differential to judge teams (and especially individual players) as good or bad, is lazy. Even when considering that it only accounts for 5v5 play, cutting out a ton of a minutes per game.
Hunwick, Boyle, and John Moore were our best Corsi defensemen last season. Yeah...
Rangers are usually a good shot differential team, except last year where, whatever we did, we compensated for less shots and worse shot suppression with more goals. Call it luck - I call it smarter playmaking and more confidence as a unit - but to do that over 82 games is no accident. Some really good Corsi teams, even teams who were great at shot differential in the playoffs, lost out.
Meanwhile, most everyone considers our defense to be the best in hockey, or right up there. Face it, we're VERY comfortable at handling pressure when pinned in our own end. Makes for crappy shot differential, yeah, but if we can make life difficult for shooters so that Hank doesn't have to make too many difficult saves or face too many rebounds, then the puck stays out and we win the game, end of story. The shot-spamming Islanders don't get pinned too much, they just let up odd-man rushes and fail to kill penalties. YAY CORSI!
Same line of reasoning we always get from Puck Daddy writers, but if there was a Corsi for writing ability, they would be Dan Girardi to TSN's Jake Muzzin. Yahoo plays them too many minutes.
- May 30, 2013
- 42,931
- 18,300
It takes effort to jam as many misconceptions and strawmans in one post as you did. Congratulations.
Machinehead
GoAwayTrouba
Fewest turnovers on the Rangers D per 60 minutes this year AINEC. So I stopped reading there.
Please submit a revised version of your post without the fairy tales you made up, and I'll consider a thought out response at that time.
Glen Sathers Cigar
Sather 4 Ever
People see what they want to see. Boyle could make one poor play all game and it's all anyone will ever focus on.
He's been a whipping boy since day 1 mainly because he replaced Stralman. We all wish we kept Anton, but Boyle has done his job. He's played well. It's unfair that he got lumped in with MSL during the playoffs simply because of his age. He was not a problem at all. Not one bit (aside from a few rough shifts during the Washington series).
Why is everyone so against advanced stats. Haven't you noticed that you watch a game and Nash is dominant or McD is amazing, then you look at the stats and they both had advanced stats through the roof? These stats aren't the be all end all of evaluation but they are incredibly important tools that contribute to the evaluation.
i wont even click the article. this guy is obviously a tool who doesnt deserve 2 minutes of my time. the window is closing on hank, we all know that, even hank knows that. but looks who is playing in the finals right now. crawford and bishop. and hank at 60 percent, in my opinion, is a better goalie than both of those guys
YoSoyLalo
me reading HF
I don't see anything worthy of a response this disrespectful, unlike that guy before. I think it's a good post.
KingDeathMetal
Registered User
It's not difficult when the writer in question lives up the stereotypical bad use of analytics to knock a team. And I'm a fan of shot differential analytics, just not somebody who thinks they tell the whole story of what happens on the ice like the Puck Daddy bloggers are (and have been for a while).
Machinehead
GoAwayTrouba
I don't think they tell the whole story. The Kings dominate these stats every year, and I think the Kings suck to put it bluntly.
But we all watch the Rangers every night, and I think we all have valid ideas as to what the deal is on eye test alone. The stats are just supplements.
Based on my eyes, I don't know how anyone can watch the 2014-15 Rangers play defense and think it's anything but a disaster. That's just my opinion and the stats just so happen to agree with me. That doesn't mean you have to agree with me or the stats.
But we all watch the Rangers every night, and I think we all have valid ideas as to what the deal is on eye test alone. The stats are just supplements.
Based on my eyes, I don't know how anyone can watch the 2014-15 Rangers play defense and think it's anything but a disaster. That's just my opinion and the stats just so happen to agree with me. That doesn't mean you have to agree with me or the stats.
offdacrossbar
misfit fanboy
the presidents trophy isn't usually awarded to the team that has the worst defense. usually.
and if you look at the numbers, our team defense was actually pretty good. like, very good.
look at the teams with the worst ga. the worst winning % and the least shutouts.
they are mostly the worst defensive teams.
thats not us. if we are arguing who's got the prettiest defense, the most talented defense or maybe even the youngest defense, we won't win that contest.
but as an effective unit, its hard to argue with the results this season. our top 7 and hank together were pretty damn good. calling them a "disaster" is kinda misguided.
now that goal scoring thing....
KingDeathMetal
Registered User
I just don't know how a "disaster" of a defense winds up allowing so few goals, even with superb goaltending. We allowed an identical number of shots on goal this year compared to last (29.4 in 2014 and 29.5 this year). Those numbers basically put us in the middle of the pack. SV% aside, in terms of just how many pucks get to Hank/Talbot, we're obviously good at shotblocking, deflectings, closing off shootings lanes and whatnot. If defense is strictly defined as play without the puck, we're a good defense.
On the shots for side...the difference in play between this year's defense and last year's, to me, was that AV seemed to have them joining the rush a lot more this year, which should have equaled more shot attempts but didn't, because as I saw it, we rarely get shots from the point. No clue if that's BS or not, it was just my takeaway. We seem to use the points to enhance the constant cycling, and instead of firing off as many shots as possible we take a lot of time setting up plays or finishing with a weak shot from the margins. I get the feeling that our points are apprehensive to see a blocked shot turn into an odd-man rush from the other side. We were also 6th in penalty killing pct, so that has to factor in how you judge the D as well.
Would we have sucked without great goalies? Yeah, but it's been like that for a decade. Name me a good defense that doesn't also have a good goalie. Our guys have made Hank good plenty of games. I think our starting 6 are as good or better than anyone in the league, honestly, outside of a few teams.
Machinehead
GoAwayTrouba
I don't care about blocking or deflecting shots. If we're doing that, the other team is still attempting shots. Attemping more shots means more scoring chances. I've proven this. Don't make me get the chart again, I think we've all seen enough of it.
Goals against is a horrible, horrible, horrible measure of the quality of defense. The goaltender is responsible for at least 50% of that number, probably more, and in our case sure as hell more because we allowed the 2nd most shot atttempts, 2nd most scoring chances, and 2nd most high-danger scoring chances in the league.
Our penalty kill is excellent but that's a different world from 5 on 5 defense.
Oh and you want me to name you a good defense without a good goalie? Los Angeles. Top 10 in goals against every year behind Jonathan Quick's laughable .915 career sv%.
As far as team success, 2011 and 2013 Boston Bruins: Stanley Cup and Finals appearance; worst defense in the league both years. Goaltending goes a long way. Rangers fans should know that better than anyone.
Goals against is a horrible, horrible, horrible measure of the quality of defense. The goaltender is responsible for at least 50% of that number, probably more, and in our case sure as hell more because we allowed the 2nd most shot atttempts, 2nd most scoring chances, and 2nd most high-danger scoring chances in the league.
Our penalty kill is excellent but that's a different world from 5 on 5 defense.
Oh and you want me to name you a good defense without a good goalie? Los Angeles. Top 10 in goals against every year behind Jonathan Quick's laughable .915 career sv%.
As far as team success, 2011 and 2013 Boston Bruins: Stanley Cup and Finals appearance; worst defense in the league both years. Goaltending goes a long way. Rangers fans should know that better than anyone.
What is this based on? Shots against? CA? It's hard to imagine a core that featured Chara, Boychuk, Hamilton, Seidenberg (when he was still decent) and the best defensive forward in the game bar none, Bergeron, to have the worst defense in the NHL.
Machinehead
GoAwayTrouba
In 2011 and 2013 Boston allowed the most shots attempts, most chances, and most high-qaulity chances, by so far and away that nobody even came close to them.
Now this doesn't tell the whole story. If you look at some other teams on these charts, plenty of good teams and good defensive teams had below average stats. I believe that if you play good, aggressive hockey, you will concede your fair share and that may lead to a below average CA.
But there's below average and then there's getting run out of the building...
Machinehead
GoAwayTrouba
The fact that in 2013, Boston is worse off on that chart than Toronto, widely regarded as the worst possession team since the stats were invented, says a whole hell of a lot.
Boston was #2 and #3 respectively in TOI while Leading in those years. In 2013, being #3 in Leading TOI coupled with the fact that they were #2 in total 5v5 TOI, the raw corsi against is skewed toward looking like Boston gave up a ton of shots. If you look at CA/60, they're not even in the bottom 10. And if you adjust for score, they're top 5 in CF% and top 10 in CA/60.
I think that was just a case of fancy stats telling an incorrect story.
Last edited:
- May 30, 2013
- 42,931
- 18,300
I'm not defending Ryan Lambert and his over-the-top arrogance.
But your post just had so many things that were not true of statistics.
KingDeathMetal
Registered User
I should have remembered Los Angeles, since I've been on the "Quick is overrated" bus since it pulled up to the stop.
Everything you say is true, but I don't think shot attempts against is an automatic indictment on a defense. Generally speaking, high shot attempts against does translate into more high scoring chances against. But that can vary depending on the team. Anaheim had a Corsi against of 53.0, but they had the 6th lowest high danger scoring chances allowed per-game in the league. Let's leave out the value or non-value of blocked shots since the Rangers had a mediocre Fenwick that was in line with their mediocre Corsi. And unlike Anaheim, what you said about high-scoring chances held true for the Rangers, because we were also middle of the pack in high-danger chances per game. So it comes down to missed shots, and the Rangers had the 7th most Missed Shots Against Total.
It's not something I'm proud of, but I'm not going to kill this team because people are missing the net against us. Discussion around misses always centers around the possibility of a scoring opportunity, but nobody looks at the flip side of the coin, which is the advantages a miss can confer on the defending team. Deflections into the crowd allow for a line change. Missed against the boards gives defenders the chance to gain possession. If our players are making life difficult for the opposition by closing off lanes, deflecting shots, and generally making them force opportunities that just aren't there, I say that's not a bad thing.
Even by the standard Corsi/Fenwick against numbers, we were at worst mediocre, and that's just 5v5. Debating only 5v5 defense is useless. If our special teams were great, that counts in our D's favor.
- May 30, 2013
- 42,931
- 18,300
It's funny that this exact logic is why nobody thinks Montreal even has a top 10 defense, but this logic is just foolproof regarding the Rangers.
KingDeathMetal
Registered User
Statistics, or the available hockey shot differential stats? Because what we call "advanced stats" in hockey are really just infancy numbers that don't accurately capture the nuances of each play, especially on the offensive side. They tell us almost nothing about offensive efficiency, the way other sports advanced stats do. The generally correct statement that more attempts equals more quality scoring opportunities doesn't hold true for every team, which makes sense because teams have specific identities and traits. They tell us nothing about neutral zone play. And without any real good data on shot type and range, we really don't know which teams are using their possession time intelligently.
This all makes me sound anti-stats; I'm not. I'm just stating the limitations of stats that, by all measures carry no context but have some pretty solid correlations to success. And to that point, there may be some explanations for why, in spite of bad shot differentials, the Rangers were still a great team. Corsi's great, but a lot of lazy writers use it to sound brilliant, and every non-Corsi related success is just "luck" or goaltending. Good thing that's not true, otherwise hockey would be...kind of a simplistic, poorly designed sport.
Gardner McKay
RIP, Jimmy.
This gutless pile of feces has a signature that has at times read something along the lines of "proud Rangers hater".
His content should be taken as serious as a 1st grader who is writing their first paper.
His content should be taken as serious as a 1st grader who is writing their first paper.
NYR94
Registered User
Ad
Latest posts
-
-
Rumor: 2024 Trade Rumors and Free Agency Thread: Post Deadline- Latest: Pierce Hawthorne
