Post-Game Talk: Rangers @ Panthers - January 2

[Hunter Gathers]

I think Maloney should be the replacement. Not sure how good Vally is with color.

If he can't do color then the only thing he can do is be an intermission guy.

 

[Idlerlee]

I think he's very, very off whenever he talks about skaters. I don't think he really adds anything. If they kept him around to purely talk about goaltending, it'd be passible analysis. I get that you're (once again) sticking up for a goalie, but the guy is a good talker who really doesn't add much to the game.

Can you cite any examples of what he's so often wrong about? I think Valiquette takes appart a play very well and puts it together nicely for the viewers. Its obvious that he knows what he's talking about. Of course there can be other solutions to a situation but that doesn't mean he's wrong.

Valiquette has every chance of working with a NHL team. Your merits as a player does not have to reflect your ability as a coach, GM, analytics guy at all. Understanding the sport however will, and he does

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Can you cite any examples of what he's so often wrong about? I think Valiquette takes appart a play very well and puts it together nicely for the viewers. Its obvious that he knows what he's talking about. Of course there can be other solutions to a situation but that doesn't mean he's wrong.

Valiquette has every chance of working with a NHL team. Your merits as a player does not have to reflect your ability as a coach, GM, analytics guy at all. Understanding the sport however will, and he does

I thought last night he was off about the scoring chances and shots from the Rangers. They did not play a terrible game at all offensively. He's been off a number of times on other things (I don't keep a running tally on what he says that I disagree with because I don't really give too much of a **** either way what an intermission guy and former back-up goalie has to say).

I think the guy speaks very, very well and makes a good impression in that manner. I just find myself disagreeing with him roughly half the time.

Certain guys fall for a smooth talker who comes off well. I don't.

 

[Ail]

Some people will write off Vally because he uses analytics to back-up his opinions rather than shooting from the hip or talking about **** that is no longer even relevant in a modern NHL game.

 

[nevesis]

I thought last night he was off about the scoring chances and shots from the Rangers. They did not play a terrible game at all offensively. He's been off a number of times on other things (I don't keep a running tally on what he says that I disagree with because I don't really give too much of a **** either way what an intermission guy and former back-up goalie has to say).

I think the guy speaks very, very well and makes a good impression in that manner. I just find myself disagreeing with him roughly half the time.

Certain guys fall for a smooth talker who comes off well. I don't.

A few posts ago you said 0 goals on 39 shots was atrocious yet here you claim they didn't play a terrible offensive game.

I know you said you watched the game in a bar (not exactly a prime environment to pay attention to a game, etc) but Vally's whole analysis about how the amount of shots they had in the game didn't mean much because they had less than 5 actual scoring chances. Chances where the puck had a high percentage of actually going in the net. (He tracks all of these, and over time) Which anyone watching the game closely, you would know this being the truth.

His analysis again backed up with analytical evidence yet some (yourself included) seem to disagree with it.

Puzzling indeed.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

A few posts ago you said 0 goals on 39 shots was atrocious yet here you claim they didn't play a terrible offensive game.

I know you said you watched the game in a bar (not exactly a prime environment to pay attention to a game, etc) but Vally's whole analysis about how the amount of shots they had in the game didn't mean much because they had less than 5 actual scoring chances. Chances where the puck had a high percentage of actually going in the net. (He tracks all of these, and over time) Which anyone watching the game closely, you would know this being the truth.

His analysis again backed up with analytical evidence yet some (yourself included) seem to disagree with it.

Puzzling indeed.

It is atrocious. They still didn't play a bad game scoring chance wise. They played a bad game finishing wise. Not sure what you were missing about that.

Also, legitimate (and non snarky) question. Have you never watched a game at a bar? It's pretty easy to watch and pay attention when it's a bar that turns on TV volume (which many will do if you go to a bar showing hockey games). I suggest you try it, actually. It can be a great environment for a game.

And what is this five scoring chances nonsense? What game were you watching? The stats don't even back that up. I've seen this number parroted around a few times and it's flatly incorrect. I see that you got it from Valley, and it is most definitely incorrect.

Yes. Puzzling indeed.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Maybe Valley has some insane system that is laughably hard on scoring chances to come up with this five number, though. Or maybe he meant five scoring chances after about 25 minutes of game play. Or maybe he just forgot to keep up his charting after 25 minutes. Or, I don't know. Maybe he was just wrong again.

 

[offdacrossbar]

they were terrible. when you dont generate scoring chances and the other team doesnt turn pucks over in bad spots or make bad passes (like we do), then you played bad.

tampa sat back and suffocated us pretty much after they went up by 3. they played rope a dope which will tend to give up shots. sure we battled for pride but still got shut out and to me, there is no need to try to find a silver lining in that loss.

lots of shots mean nothing. its like rick nash taklng lots of shots. with his weak ass shot, it mean zero. lots of shots does not mean we carried the play, played well, or anything positive really. scoring chances matter, and anyone who speaks of them gets it. scoring chances are a good measure of how well you played.

we sucked. period.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

they were terrible. when you dont generate scoring chances and the other team doesnt turn pucks over in bad spots or make bad passes (like we do), then you played bad.

tampa sat back and suffocated us pretty much after they went up by 3. they played rope a dope which will tend to give up shots. sure we battled for pride but still got shut out and to me, there is no need to try to find a silver lining in that loss.

lots of shots mean nothing. its like rick nash taklng lots of shots. with his weak ass shot, it mean zero. lots of shots does not mean we carried the play, played well, or anything positive really. scoring chances matter, and anyone who speaks of them gets it. scoring chances are a good measure of how well you played.

we sucked. period.

Well, they did generate scoring chances. They doubled the Panthers at ES in scoring chances. But they didn't generate enough second chances. That was my big issue with the offense.

 

[TheDirtyH]

Maybe Valley has some insane system that is laughably hard on scoring chances to come up with this five number, though. Or maybe he meant five scoring chances after about 25 minutes of game play. Or maybe he just forgot to keep up his charting after 25 minutes. Or, I don't know. Maybe he was just wrong again.

Or maybe you're being too generous. Vally isn't the only one saying the Rangers failed to generate much of anything last night.

 

[DanielBrassard]

He probably meant HDSC

 

[Hunter Gathers]

He probably meant HDSC

He could have, but he'd still be wrong. We had 7 at ES according to WoI.

ES chances --

Rangers: 21 scoring chances. 7 high danger.

Panthers: 10 scoring chances. 5 high danger.

Or maybe you're being too generous. Vally isn't the only one saying the Rangers failed to generate much of anything last night.

No, he's just incorrect.

 

[bernmeister]

no time to read it all
disaster across the board
however if we again, do as I say and keep the young care and move most vets, we can reasonably expect improvement, IMO, and at least we will be less hampered by cap

Somebody needs to give Kreider a wedgie and hang him on a lamp post with it. The guy is a waste of air.

Kreider was not the source of all problems.

At least some of these penalties are for sticking up for teammates, which is more than some.

Also, it is getting predictable a bit since he is the only one apparently big/strong enough to get planted in the crease.

Tank.....sell off at the deadline and go for the lottery. Maybe we can get one of those Finnish kids. This group was shamefully outworked again from the goal out. 3 goals against on 10 shots to start. No heart or guts. Outskated and outworked. Poor Ranger fans who showed up. They deserved better.

Yes, sell of the vets, keep our young core, add a new core

 

[Chimpradamus]

Well, how are the statistics created? Most often by humans, making interpretations. They can also be wrong. Just because someone has plotted his interpretations on a chart, it doesn't make them more legit.

What is a turnover in one arena, isn't one in the other. What is calculated as a high quality scoring chance, might not be a high quality scoring chance.

It was Valiquette's evaluation of the game that the Rangers peppered Luongo with low quality, unscreened perimeter shots, praying they would go in. That's a classic recipe of yet another loss from a desperate team that doesn't think hockey.

 

[Ola]

Well, how are the statistics created? Most often by humans, making interpretations. They can also be wrong. Just because someone has plotted his interpretations on a chart, it doesn't make them more legit.

What is a turnover in one arena, isn't one in the other. What is calculated as a high quality scoring chance, might not be a high quality scoring chance.

It was Valiquette's evaluation of the game that the Rangers peppered Luongo with low quality, unscreened perimeter shots, praying they would go in. That's a classic recipe of yet another loss from a desperate team that doesn't think hockey.

I am not saying that the stats on scoring chances are baseless if you look at a mega-sample size.

But, someone correct me if I am wrong, they are mostly just based on from where on the ice a shot is taken. IE., if the goalie is on his arse behind the net and player takes a slapper from the blueline against an empty net but misses it, its not a scoring chance. It has to be from the slot. If a D makes a pass to someone at the far post for a tap-in but it hops over the stick last millisecond, its not a scoring chance. A breakaway were the goalie pokechecks the puck is not a scoring chance. A shot that hits both posts is not a scoring chance. All this while the 5 most easy saves a goalie made all night could be labeled high scoring chances if they are taken in the slot.

So it is what it is...

 

[Ori]

Also, why aren't any of the reporters questioning why Etem is playing? There is one reason and one reason only he is playing, because he is Gortons move and this team is solely about protecting Gorton nowadays. Anyone think Etem would be on the ice if Gorton had "inherited" him from a predecessor?

As long they get their salary - it`s the same tedious questions.

AV mentioned less traffic/screens, and the execution was off - so probably an easy win.
I didn't watch the game - so I can`t really comment on it.

 

[Badko]

Get McIlrath in the lineup. Move Boyle to the wing in place of whatever winger is in the doghouse. We'll be better on both offense and defense.

 

[Deleted member 23124]

Get McIlrath in the lineup. Move Boyle to the wing in place of whatever winger is in the doghouse. We'll be better on both offense and defense.

Isn't it bad enough he can't keep up with a defense that's now known for being "fleet of foot" -- now you want him to keep up with those "speedy" forwards.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Well, how are the statistics created? Most often by humans, making interpretations. They can also be wrong. Just because someone has plotted his interpretations on a chart, it doesn't make them more legit.

What is a turnover in one arena, isn't one in the other. What is calculated as a high quality scoring chance, might not be a high quality scoring chance.

It was Valiquette's evaluation of the game that the Rangers peppered Luongo with low quality, unscreened perimeter shots, praying they would go in. That's a classic recipe of yet another loss from a desperate team that doesn't think hockey.

Yet he's just flat out incorrect. The stats literally show that. He said that they had less than 5 high scoring chances. They had 7. So he's off by a almost 1/2. And that doesn't even include the other scoring chances to get to the over 20 that the Rangrers had overall that he never addressed.

So it's not interpretation. He's just wrong. I find myself consistently disagreeing with him, so it's not surprising to see him be objectively wrong on something like this.