East Coast Bias
Registered User
Except those numbers really don't line up
There's no correlation between zone starts and CF%
Look at Capt Dan holding down the lower left quadrant. Snow angels 4 life.
Post-Game Talk: Sabres @ Rangers | 1/25/16
- Thread starter Machinehead
- Start date
- Status
Look at Capt Dan holding down the lower left quadrant. Snow angels 4 life.
Especially with quotes like this...
“@AGrossRecord: AV said he liked how Rangers responded after Sabres tied game at 3 "after Hank had been just average."â€
Joe Fortunato hit the nail on the head with this one...
“@BlueshirtBanter: Gave up one bad goal. The fourth line and 5/18, though? Apparently they're struggles aren't worth a public comment.
silverfish
got perma'd
EDIT - I've actually done some pretty extensive research on zone starts and relative corsi. Ras, Ail, and Machinehead can attest to that in our days fighting in the advanced stats thread...
What I remember discovering, off the top of my head and memory, is that it is highly dependent.
If you're a player receiving -5 to +5 relative zone starts, it has essentially no effect on your relative possession. However, the further to the outside you go, the more of an effect it has. Unfortunately for you, and for my past self, it's not as much as you think.
I'd recommend looking into it. Plot all the Rangers from last night's game, their zone starts to their possession percentage. See what that looks like on a scatter plot. The best way to back up your thoughts is to test them
Thanks for the shout-out!
Last edited:
Mac n Gs
Gorton plz
- Jan 17, 2014
- 22,592
- 12,920
Oscar Lindberg
Registered User
The win was nice, and it was good to go into the break with some momentum, but Buffalo isn't a good team. If the Rangers get three goals scored against them versus a team with a good goalie, they aren't going to be so lucky.
Megustaelhockey
"I like hockey" in Spanish
- Apr 29, 2011
- 21,670
- 14,365
Made Dan
Registered User
^
Well, they didn't implode after Zemgus scored two quick ones. Baby steps.
Staal and Klein tho. Brutal stuff.
Easily Klein's worst game of the season.
I have to be honest. The Yandle deal has been a complete screw up. Not because he isn't good, but because his usage is about as screwy as I have ever seen. He gets third pairing minutes when you would think he is at least better than Staal.
Ok fine, say he isn't better than Staal. Staal Klein are bad, Staal Boyle are on par with Staal Klein, and Staal Girardi are possible the single worst pairing in the entire league.
McD is playing rather well you can probably pair him with a cone and he would be good.
So basically he has one good pairing (McD) and one that makes everyone puke (Staal).
Yandle finally has a partner that AV can move up a pair to #2, to ease up on Staal, and AV won't use them. It's so odd.
So he won't use Yandle with a player that's perfect compliment to him, and he sure as **** won't give him top billing on the pp. Why on earth did they trade for the ****ing guy?
Life's little mystery. Someone help me understand that trade.
Edit I was referring to this chart when critiquing defense pairings: thank you Aufheben for this fantastic chart.
haha the staal-girardi pairing is sooo bad. that's an awesome chart btw.
Glen Sathers Cigar
Sather 4 Ever
Klein has been bad for a while now, it's been under the radar though because all of the anger is focused on Staal and Girardi (not saying they don't deserve it, just saying it's allowed Klein's poor play to go largely unmentioned).
Gardner McKay
RIP, Jimmy.
silverfish
got perma'd
Oscar Lindberg
Registered User
Klein has been good at making moves in the offensive zone and sometimes neutral zone lately but his play in the defensive zone and sometimes getting caught trying to do too much in the offensive zone has come back to bite him and the team way too much. lol at him getting caught on the Sabres tying goal and then falling down trying to get back to help defend a 2 on 1. He wasn't even very deep he just floated in too far and and then fell down trying to get back. And maybe I'm being too picky and this is more on AV's system but on the Sabres second goal, where the hell was Klein? Staal was on Eichel (and I'm not convinced that Eichel meant to step on the puck and kick it to the net, that looked more like a happy accident) but you had two forwards down deep and yeah Kreider did a poor job picking up the man in front but on the other hand where the hell is the other defenseman whos job it usually is to protect the net?
I like Klein but he needs to tighten up his game quite a bit.
The ultimate head shake with the defense will be if the Rangers ditch Yandle one way or the other and then trade McIlrath so they can try to bring in a puck moving right handed defenseman to replace Yandle because "we need a guy like that on the roster" and it's like letting Stralman go and signing Dan Boyle all over again (kind of).
silverfish
got perma'd
Sometimes you see a player do that to another player to sort of give them a little boost, right? This isn't sarcasm, I swear I've seen it before.
Naturally, with Glass involved, this ended miserably.
Hilarious, but miserable.
I'd love to see the Rangers move Boyle or Staal or Girardi somehow, but the problem being who is going to take them? The Rangers would probably have to take back garbage in return so it'd be purely for cap purposes. I could see a team with a bunch of young players on defense being interested in a vet like Staal or Girardi in a situation where that team also needed to be able to reach the cap floor and needed a larger contract, and might be willing to take a trade where they give up little in return, but that's a stretch. Someone might take Boyle for a mid round draft pick just in case but I think AV likes Boyle somewhat in terms of thinking he provides effective puck movement (though I'm pretty sure there isn't a player in the league that Boyle can win a battle for the puck against)
So...no, really the biggest thing I hope for is the Rangers figure out a way to re-sign Yandle, and replace Boyle with McIlrath for next year and not try to go nuts replacing Boyle with an UFA or something and benching McIlrath.
If Gorton can find a way to move Girardi or Staal and re-sign Yandle then wow, that's great, but it wouldn't be easy and also requires management identifying that it's overall in the best interests of the team to keep someone like Yandle and ditch someone like Girardi or Staal. I think this is all complicated by the tenure of Girardi and Staal...teams find it hard to part with guys who have been a big part of the team for so long, even when their play is going downhill. You can see it all over the league over many different coaches, struggling to make the decision to bench or trade the vet player who has been a stalwart for years and years with the team. It's not unique to the Rangers, it's just that in their case they essentially have two of those guys who are making a huge chunk of the cap spent on defense.
Something's gotta give where either the coaching staff realizes that they can't rely on those players like they used to, or management needs to come down and say "look, this isn't working with these guys, we need to trade them or limit their icetime because they're hurting us more than helping".
Also, while it's not like this is the first year that Girardi has been real bad in a lot of ways, I think it's hard for coaches to transition away from vets like that in the middle of the year. But again, it requires someone in the organization realizing that this isn't working the way it should or the way it used to.
This is AV's 3rd year, following two wildly successful years in which the Rangers achieved more than any of us ever thought they would be able to. A down year is unlikely to get him fired unless all the players turn on him and go to management, which honestly would worry me more than AV's coaching, as it would be the 2nd coach they did that with and I would have some serious reservations about the core group of players on the team in that circumstance.
I'm a little less worried about this year and more worried about the future years because ultimately if the organization can't figure out how to handle the defense we are going to be in for some very bad times in 2-3 years. Girardi and Staal can't continue to be core parts of the defense and block other players who are outplaying them.
haveandare
Registered User
I have no issues with the players "turning" on a coach if the coach isn't doing a good job. They turned on Torts and then got a new coach who fit their desires more and they had a ton of success. Now the team has changed and that coach is wearing out his welcome. If they feel he's not going a good job with them, they can and should talk to management about it. Hank is in his mid 30s, there's not a ton of time to sit around losing trying to be polite to ineffective staff.
DanielBrassard
It's all so tiresome
The only correlation on this graph is that everyone in the bottom left corner sucks ass.
No I've definitely seen it done with success before. Tanner and success aren't really associated though.
It's a big damn deal if essentially the same group of players demands to have 2 coaches fired in 4 years time. A big damn deal. That's when you start looking at the team and thinking about rebuilding.
You can't go around firing coaches every 2-3 years because your players keep coming back to you and saying "we know we said that last coach sucked and we wanted someone else, but now this one sucks can you fire him too?"
haveandare
Registered User
You absolutely can if they're right about it.
Would you say they were wrong about torts? Cup finals and ECF game 7 with the new coach. Winning is the goal, not being some archetype of good guys who suffer under ineffective coaching for the sake of being nice.
I'd be more concerned that two different GMs aren't able to notice when a team isn't buying what the coach is selling anymore.
OverTheCap
Registered User
- Jan 3, 2009
- 10,454
- 184
Yeah, quitting on coaches repeatedly is a not exactly a desirable characteristic. The decision to hire/fire coaches is usually up to the GM and front office to assess, so when players take matters into their hands, they may be overstepping their bounds. Just look at what's going on with Lebron in Cleveland.
The most important thing for players to do when they disagree with a coach is to communicate with them first and try to work things out. Sometimes coaches don't know what every player is thinking, I remember Torts said he was surprised by some of the players' complaints when he was fired. If the players and coaches can't work things out, then it may be time to alert the GM. But if the initial reaction of the players is to quit on a coach and try to get him fired the moment things go south, that's a problem.
- Status
