Team defense (11-12 Comparison)

[True Blue]

But yes that team in 11-12 overachieved. There was no reason for them to be 12th in GFA, they didn't put enough offensive pressure and their talent was good but not top 12 in the league. This year's team creates way more opportunities but has like the 28th or 29th worst shot percentage, while our talent IMO is at worst middle of the pack. If they were just average, the team would be in the top 10 in goals scored.

Oh, those pesky, coulda, woulda, shouldas........

11-12=boring style=lucky
12-13=exciting play=unlucky

At some points, facts are facts. And there is no finer fact, then the bottom line.

 

[True Blue]

Exactly. But people still wax poetic because we OMG barely made it to the ECF and got destroyed by the worst cup finalist since 06 or 04.

We wax poetic about it because how many such trips have the Rangers made in 73 years or so? How many times have you had a chance to root for NYR in the conference finals?

I know, style points are VERY important.

In '94, one can state that the Rangers barely made it to the Finals. They could have easily lost to the Devils. So because they could have lost and had a hard time with the Devils and then had a hard time with Vancouver (weren't they the 7th seed?), should that mar the fact that they actually won?

 

[Ail]

AT what point is it just about winning?

We can make stats tell anything. Especially once you start to allow bias to creep in. But no stat is perfect. You can point to puck possession. That can be countered with overpassing. One point to amount of shots. That can be countered with the distance that these shots travel. I am not saying this the debate, just that any stat can be countered with something else. In the end, stats do not matter one whit. Just the results.

Yeah "overpassing" completely counters all possession data. Can you link me to the "overpassing" charts so I can see how they show that having the puck on your stick is overrated and meaningless?

Yeah, I guess you are right, you can counter any valid point with something imaginary and ridiculous, but that doesn't mean it makes the original data meaningless or wrong.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

We wax poetic about it because how many such trips have the Rangers made in 73 years or so? How many times have you had a chance to root for NYR in the conference finals?

I know, style points are VERY important.

Yes, but over those 73 years, how many teams played a style that was "correlated to winning?" LOL

It's always humorous to see when his agenda-driven half-truths get quoted.

 

[Crease]

When are we going to reach a point where we give the benefit of the doubt to actual results vs. perceived results?

I keep hearing how the '11-12 team "overachieved" (still finished 1st in the east and within a point of the President's trophy). I dont care if they overachieved, the reality of the situation is we saw the best Rangers season in 20 years. I dont care if you didn't like their style of play - thats just you being a brat.

As for those playoffs, I apologize that they didn't dominate the first 2 rounds like you would've hoped, but thats the playoffs. You survive and try to advance. That awful Washington team that went to 7 games? Yea, they knocked off the Bruins in the round before. Oh, and getting "destroyed" in the playoffs now apparently consists of losing in game 6 of the conference finals in OT. 1st in the east, 2nd in the NHL, furthest advancement in the playoffs since winning the Cup. These are facts. They are irrefutable unless you start adding agenda-driven drivel and wayward opinions into the discourse like the OP did/seems to do with everything.

Fast forward to this season. Good season. The jury is still out on this team. Unlike '11-12, they seem to be playing their best hockey to close the season, so we'll see what happens. But still, over an 82 game season, less wins, less goals for, and more goals against than 2 seasons ago. And, if you listen to some, one of the unluckiest teams in the history of the NHL, that was almost completely sabotaged by "non-Vezina" Henrik Lundqvist earlier in the year. Hell, the OP even said if this team loses in the 1st round, its still a better season than '11-12. Why? Hell if I know. Seems to center around his bratty preferences for how this team plays the game, even if the results are worse.

When you argue the negative on stone-cold results, and argue with positive on what might be, you're on a slippery slope, as the OP usually is.

Good post, IMO.

Here is what I think is going on in some minds whether they realize it or not: "In one corner we have the 2011-12 team that played a style with which is impossible to win a Cup, as evidenced by their ECF ousting and their hardships along the way. In another corner we have the 2013-14 team that plays a style with which it is possible to win a Cup, as evidenced by the fact they haven't failed to do so yet."

If this team gets ousted short of the SCFs, you're going to see a lot of "They're no 2011-12 team" posts.

Some teams exceed your expectations. Some teams fail to meet your expectations. But results should speak for themselves. The team that gets it done should be put on a higher pedestal than the team that doesn't, regardless of what you expected out of them.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

AT what point is it just about winning?

We can make stats tell anything. Especially once you start to allow bias to creep in. But no stat is perfect. You can point to puck possession. That can be countered with overpassing. One point to amount of shots. That can be countered with the distance that these shots travel. I am not saying this the debate, just that any stat can be countered with something else. In the end, stats do not matter one whit. Just the results. Coulda, shoulda, woulda do not count.

In any meeting in which you point out the "business plan model" that immediately becomes compared to other market comps. And have the data to back it up. And you had better have them ready, or your recommendation will look amateurish. Further, you will need to provide stress analysis. When stressing, if you only stress one market event and shift the analysis of the company, but do not point out how a similar event will affect the income statement of the other comparable companies, again, the such a recommendation and analysis will not be taken seriously.

At what point is it just about winning? I don't know, that applies, if you think the better team in a game always wins in a sport where lots of luck is involved and one guy whose importance transcends the team (goalie). The best team doesn't always win the game, get the Presidents' trophy, and win the cup. The cup winner are still the champions, but it's lazy thinking that saying that they're always the best team. Was our team this year worse than the 05-06 flawed-ass team because they had 4 fewer points? Puck possession has actually been correlated with winning. Overpassing sounds like what the drunk 400s (in the old garden) would ***** about and not actual intelligent debate. There are obviously instances of overpassing (Zucc says hello), but the idea of just rip em as an actual strategy makes me think you listed to Joe too much. Then we get people complaining about all of the weak chances we have. You can't not pass the puck for better opportunities and then complain about weak opportunities. I'll take something that has been correlated to winning rather than something I'd hear from drunk fans at games any day of the week. Besides, we're 2nd in the league in shots on goal, possession doesn't mean that you don't shoot the puck, quite the contrary, it means you possess it and shoot it.

Results are the only thing that matter when it comes to the cup, sure. No winner is giving up their rings to teams because the other team was statistically better. However, the purpose of a message board is to discuss things. Any idiot can say "well that team won the cup", just turn on your TV to watch them lift the cup. But a message board is to have discussions such as "well the 93 Montreal Canadians were the cup winners, but most people feel that the Penguins that year were better". If you just want to look at results, what's the point of being on a message board? Just watch the game and wait for the results. Also results are not made in a vacuum. Last year the Rangers were a huge disappointment because they made it only to the 2nd round and not the ECF. The 11-12 team didn't face one team that was anything close to the Bruins of last year. Hell, if they played the Kings that year you can argue they STILL wouldn't have faced a team as good as the Bruins. BUT BUT RESULTS!

 

[Ail]

We wax poetic about it because how many such trips have the Rangers made in 73 years or so? How many times have you had a chance to root for NYR in the conference finals?

I know, style points are VERY important.

I am willing to admit that '11-'12 team entertained the **** out of me even though I didn't have faith in that play style making the long haul. I cheered and sat on the edge of my seat so many times that season, especially compared to this season, where I spent most of it trying to figure out what the hell this team was. That all being said I can also admit that the '11-'12 team overachieved their heads off and got two points in many games they didn't even deserve one. Thanks for the memories, Henrik.

When it comes down to it this team is better fit to sustain a level of play and go far in the post-season than that one was without hoping Henrik will always be there to clean up their messes. I'd rather have faith in the entire team than one elite player. It has nothing to do with preferred play styles.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Good post, IMO.

Here is what I think is going on in some minds: "In one corner we have the 2011-12 team that played a style with which is impossible to win a Cup, as evidenced by their ECF ousting and their hardships along the way. In another corner we have the 2013-14 team that plays a style with which it is possible to win a Cup, as evidenced by the fact they haven't failed to do so yet."

If this team gets ousted short of the SCFs, you're going to see a lot of "They're no 2011-12 team" posts.

Some teams exceed your expectations. Some teams fail to meet your expectations. But results should speak for themselves. The team that gets it done should be put on a higher pedestal than the team that doesn't, regardless of what you expected out of them.

Heres the thing. I respect the members of this board who use statistical analysis in an attempt to try to answer what will happen next. The OP, however, uses puck possession stats from an altitude of about 50,000 feet in a really strange attempt to discredit the '11-12 team. Its a bizarre argument. The results are in for that '11-12 team. They were an exception to the rule. They advanced further than any Ranger team in 20 years and will very likely have advanced further than this one will.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

I will first give props to the 11-12 team for putting themselves in the position to play weaker teams in the playoffs. That said if you just talk about how they played in the playoffs look at who they played. I think the following Rangers team could have made the ECF with that draw:

06-07
07-08
12-13

Look at who each of those teams lost to. The Presidents' Trophy winning Sabres who made the ECF for 2 straight years and could have easily won the cup the year before. The Pens that made the finals and the Bruins that made the finals. Both of which had cup winning cores.

I'm grateful to be able to watch the Rangers into late May, but let's not pretend that team was some juggernaut in the playoffs.

 

[True Blue]

The best team doesn't always win the game, get the Presidents' trophy, and win the cup. The cup winner are still the champions, but it's lazy thinking that saying that they're always the best team.

At some point, one needs to say that a team won and that is the result. Seems to me like you are looking to somehow always insert a But. They won, but they should not have won. This team does not have as many goals for, has given up more goals, does not have as many wins, but they should have.

Coulda, shoulda, woulda does not get you anywhere.

 

[Thirty One]

Yeah "overpassing" completely counters all possession data. Can you link me to the "overpassing" charts so I can see how they show that having the puck on your stick is overrated and meaningless?

Especially since possession is tracked by shot attempts....
.....
....



...
...

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Oh, those pesky, coulda, woulda, shouldas........

11-12=boring style=lucky
12-13=exciting play=unlucky

At some points, facts are facts. And there is no finer fact, then the bottom line.

No, it's not because of one team being boring and one being exciting. The Kings are the most boring team in the whole ****ing league but pretty damn successful. They have the puck most of the game, they just look awful aesthetically in pretty much every game they play. Actually, I don't think the 12-13 was unlucky. They played a much better team in round 2. They were more pleasing to watch than the 11-12 team, but I wouldn't say they were unlucky.

Since you like to use the term "bottom line", I'll bring back the analogy of investing. Financials aren't the only thing that Wall Street Analysts look at. There's a lot of information that is gathered around the raw numbers to get context, get where the companies are going in the future. Most of the work done by equity analysts is not looking at financial data. Context is extremely important. You don't want to admit to that, because it gives you an excuse to bash this team and worship that gritty tough Rangers team in 11-12.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

At some point, one needs to say that a team won and that is the result. Seems to me like you are looking to somehow always insert a But. They won, but they should not have won. This team does not have as many goals for, has given up more goals, does not have as many wins, but they should have.

Coulda, shoulda, woulda does not get you anywhere.

You could say that a team won and that's it, but then why try to have debate and discussion, just watch the damn games. Seriously, if you don't want to try analyzing how teams play, their trends, their numbers, then why not just turn the game on every other day at 7 o'clock and cheer your team on without getting into a discussion. Seems like your approach is intellectually dishonest. You're trying to repress discussion. It's ****ing dogma.

 

[True Blue]

Since you like to use the term "bottom line", I'll bring back the analogy of investing. Financials aren't the only thing that Wall Street Analysts look at. There's a lot of information that is gathered around the raw numbers to get context, get where the companies are going in the future. Most of the work done by equity analysts is not looking at financial data.

I actually know exactly what an analyst looks at as well as how a meeting looks like in which a recommendation is made. The fundamentals of an underlying investment are important. As well as performance outlook. However, you never stress a potential investment, without subjecting other possible investments to the same stress. You cannot stress one half of a portfolio to a shock for rising rates and present it as if it encompasses the whole. You can say that you only shocked one side and this is the effect on those positions, but it is still part of an overall picture. And when comparing analysis on what a possible investment looks like in a stress scenario, you shock the entire population the same way in order to come to a logical conclusion.

Context is extremely important. You don't want to admit to that, because it gives you an excuse to bash this team and worship that gritty tough Rangers team in 11-12.

Results, results, results. What is the bottom line? That the team you laud for offense, actually scored less goals than the team you decry for a boring style?

I WANT this team to win the Cup. I want EVERY Rangers team to win the Cup. But nitpicking a team that had more success than most in Rangers history, seems rather trivial to me.

 

[True Blue]

You could say that a team won and that's it, but then why try to have debate and discussion, just watch the damn games.

I do. And in the end there is only one winner and one looser. And the rest is excuses.

Seriously, if you don't want to try analyzing how teams play, their trends, their numbers, then why not just turn the game on every other day at 7 o'clock and cheer your team on without getting into a discussion. Seems like your approach is intellectually dishonest. You're trying to repress discussion. It's ****ing dogma.

Wait, my approach is dishonest? You admit to use arbitrary analysis to fudge stats. And I am the one being dishonest?

 

[Thirty One]

I think I have even less patience for Wall Street "analysts" than I do for those who can't see any positives in this team.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

I do. And in the end there is only one winner and one looser. And the rest is excuses.

Wait, my approach is dishonest? You admit to use arbitrary analysis to fudge stats. And I am the one being dishonest?

That really makes it sound like I'm ****ing Enron or something. All analysis is arbitrary analysis, that's why you have a brain and are not just looking at the W and L column.


If all that matters is that there's a winner and "looser" then why are you on a message board? I said "intellectually dishonest". In other words, you can read a number under the W and L columns, YAY YOU! I actually prefer to use my brain once in a while and have a logical discussion. Once again, what's the point of discussion if all you do is read is what's under the W and L column like any 5 year old can do?

 

[SnowblindNYR]

I think I have even less patience for Wall Street "analysts" than I do for those who can't see any positives in this team.

What do you do, if you don't mind me asking?

And yeah I'm not saying the analysts are great or anything, but neither is reading the Net Income line without any context. In fact that's worse.

 

[Thirty One]

What do you do, if you don't mind me asking?

And yeah I'm not saying the analysts are great or anything, but neither is reading the Net Income line without any context. In fact that's worse.

I am an accountant

 

[Ail]

What do you do, if you don't mind me asking?

And yeah I'm not saying the analysts are great or anything, but neither is reading the Net Income line without any context. In fact that's worse.

He's a self loathing Wall Street analyst and former income tax agent for U.S citizens. He will do your taxes though if you ask.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

I am an accountant

Can you balance the ledger of this discussion a bit? I feel like there's a dearth of common sense here.

 

[Steve Kournianos]

When are we going to reach a point where we give the benefit of the doubt to actual results vs. perceived results?

I keep hearing how the '11-12 team "overachieved" (still finished 1st in the east and within a point of the President's trophy). I dont care if they overachieved, the reality of the situation is we saw the best Rangers season in 20 years. I dont care if you didn't like their style of play - thats just you being a brat.

As for those playoffs, I apologize that they didn't dominate the first 2 rounds like you would've hoped, but thats the playoffs. You survive and try to advance. That awful Washington team that went to 7 games? Yea, they knocked off the Bruins in the round before. Oh, and getting "destroyed" in the playoffs now apparently consists of losing in game 6 of the conference finals in OT. 1st in the east, 2nd in the NHL, furthest advancement in the playoffs since winning the Cup. These are facts. They are irrefutable unless you start adding agenda-driven drivel and wayward opinions into the discourse like the OP did/seems to do with everything.

Fast forward to this season. Good season. The jury is still out on this team. Unlike '11-12, they seem to be playing their best hockey to close the season, so we'll see what happens. But still, over an 82 game season, less wins, less goals for, and more goals against than 2 seasons ago. And, if you listen to some, one of the unluckiest teams in the history of the NHL, that was almost completely sabotaged by "non-Vezina" Henrik Lundqvist earlier in the year. Hell, the OP even said if this team loses in the 1st round, its still a better season than '11-12. Why? Hell if I know. Seems to center around his bratty preferences for how this team plays the game, even if the results are worse.

When you argue the negative on stone-cold results, and argue with positive on what might be, you're on a slippery slope, as the OP usually is.

Losing to the Devils was inexcuseable. They lost to a team who missed the playoffs the season prior and after. The 2012 team is stone friggin dead and deserved their fate because they were outplayed, outcoached and outsmarted in all areas of the game. The Devils didnt steal that series the way the 1979 Rangers stole tne Isles series. The 2012 team sucked royally from the top down in the three modt important games of the series and handed it to NJ.

When you finsh first in the conference or division and lose to a lower seed, the season is a failure. Just like 1992. Just like 1990.

 

[McRanger]

Teams get hot and play above their head. Great teams get cold and lose. Sometimes streaks last a long time.

Pitt and Boston got knocked out in the 1st round in '12. Pitt had won the cup 3 years before and went to the ECF the next year. Boston was the reigning SC winner and went to the SCF the year after.

The Devils went to the SCF in '12. They missed the playoffs the year before. They missed the playoffs the two years after.

Do people really believe that there are no flukes in sports?

I mean... really?

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Agenda-driven drivel= Actually trying to analyze a team rather than OMGz WINS LOSSES LOLLIPOPS BUTTERFLIES. Some of you people seem to miss the point of a message board.

 

[Ail]

Teams get hot and play above their head. Great teams get cold and lose. Sometimes streaks last a long time.

Pitt and Boston got knocked out in the 1st round in '12. Pitt had won the cup 3 years before and went to the ECF the next year. Boston was the reigning SC winner and went to the SCF the year after.

The Devils went to the SCF in '12. They missed the playoffs the year before. They missed the playoffs the two years after.

Do people really believe that there are no flukes in sports?

I mean... really?

There are but only when it doesn't apply to a team you were emotionally engaged with.