Team defense (11-12 Comparison)

[SnowblindNYR]

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?

Nah man, WINS are all that matter. I'm a ****ing competitor! I'm a ****ing tough competitor! If I said that the team that won didn't deserve to win, then I'm not taking wins above all and am really hurting my reputation as a tough competitor and a manly man!

 

[True Blue]

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.

You are the one who tried to make an analysis based on which investment to make.

If all that matters is that there's a winner and "looser" then why are you on a message board?

Why, for the same reason you are, off course. To engage in conversation with my fellow Rangers fans.

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.

Yes, you did say it. The problem with your protestation is that you cannot have a logical discussion when you arbitrarily fudge stats in favor of the Rangers, while not applying any such logic to all of the other teams. That does not make for an intelligent discussion. That makes for a conversation, the roots of which are in fantasy land. If you believe that I am not using my brain because I am not a believer in arbitrary analysis, that is your choice.

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?

What is the point of pretending that some games do not count? And ONLY in the case of the Rangers?

As for the W & L, that goes for your seeming desire to tear down the 11-12 team. That team has come and gone. And has accomplished more than most in Rangers history. That is fact. What this team will do is not yet determined. My sincere, as is with all other fellow Rangers fan, is that they surpass that team.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

My favorite criticism in this thread is that I apply "arbitrary analysis". Like there's such a thing as objective analysis. Analysis is particular to the person analyzing things. I'm sure if my analysis said that this team wasn't very good, the same people wouldn't be complaining.

 

[True Blue]

WINS are all that matter.

Sorry, but in the end, that is all that matters. This is not the new age little league where everyone gets a trophy. In the end, you either win or you do not win.

This is not an example of how the real world works:

Except, there's an actual reason to inflate our stats

 

[Thirty One]

Sorry, but in the end, that is all that matters. This is not the new age little league where everyone gets a trophy. In the end, you either win or you do not win.

Yep, but there has been shown to be factors that are more predictive of future wins than past wins.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

You are the one who tried to make an analysis based on which investment to make.

Why, for the same reason you are, off course. To engage in conversation with my fellow Rangers fans.

Yes, you did say it. The problem with your protestation is that you cannot have a logical discussion when you arbitrarily fudge stats in favor of the Rangers, while not applying any such logic to all of the other teams. That does not make for an intelligent discussion. That makes for a conversation, the roots of which are in fantasy land. If you believe that I am not using my brain because I am not a believer in arbitrary analysis, that is your choice.

What is the point of pretending that some games do not count? And ONLY in the case of the Rangers?

As for the W & L, that goes for your seeming desire to tear down the 11-12 team. That team has come and gone. And has accomplished more than most in Rangers history. That is fact. What this team will do is not yet determined. My sincere, as is with all other fellow Rangers fan, is that they surpass that team.

I have conceded that taking out games from the Rangers, while not taking out games from teams like the Flyers who have a similar excuse is not ideal. But keeping those games in is even less so. I've explained my logic 1,000 different times. Clearly the first 10 games were a team transitioning to a system that was the polar opposite of what they had. I didn't have access to trends (they were later presented and painted a similar picture to what I've been saying), so I showed a rough estimation. The fact that you think there's no logic in taking away a group of games that includes us giving up more goals in 3 games than we gave up in the last 12 games (20 vs. 18), then I don't know who's not being logical. The Rangers allowed 5 goals total to the same 3 teams the next time we played them, vs. 20. If you don't think that there was something amiss in that stretch then I don't know what to tell you.

 

[True Blue]

My favorite criticism in this thread is that I apply "arbitrary analysis". Like there's such a thing as objective analysis. Analysis is particular to the person analyzing things. I'm sure if my analysis said that this team wasn't very good, the same people wouldn't be complaining.

Ahem:

The fact that people call taking out the first 10 games "arbitrary" says all you need to know.

Seems to me that at first you bristle, when being called out for utilizing your judgment in making an arbitrary analysis.

 

[McRanger]

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

Funny thing is I don't remember half as much love when it was happening as there is now.

In what has amounted to one of the best 2nd halves this team has had in decades we have had almost as many posts about Tortorella than we did about how great the team was during the entire '12 run.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1015813

That was a month into the season. And people are really going to say the team didn't overachieve? I am pretty sure no one in the world thought the Rangers were winning the east. Before the season or a month in.

I would be surprised if there was a person on this board that didn't have their expectations blown to bits.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Sorry, but in the end, that is all that matters. This is not the new age little league where everyone gets a trophy. In the end, you either win or you do not win.

This is not an example of how the real world works:

Except, there's an actual reason to inflate our stats

Yes in the end that's all that matters. I agree. That's all that matters in as much as who gets a ring and a day with the cup. That's not all that matters when discussing things on a message board. You can GASP say that the 93 Canadians weren't as good as the 93 Penguins or that the 07 Giants (my team) wasn't as good as the 07 Patriots. Neither the Habs nor Giants are giving away their rings. The fact that you so stubbornly don't want to discuss something on a DISCUSSION board leaves me perplexed. It's like you want to prove to everyone how tough you are, like seemingly 90% of hockey fans, by being all "yeah man that's all that matters". No ****, that's all that matters one team wins the cup, but suppressing discussion is against everything I believe in. God forbid you use your brain to have a discussion. No it's easier to puff out your chest and say "yeah man look at the wins, man!" and shut everyone up who wants to discuss things. There's a Russian saying that goes something like "Have strength, don't need a brain". That's 90% of hockey fans.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Ahem:

The fact that people call taking out the first 10 games "arbitrary" says all you need to know.

Seems to me that at first you bristle, when being called out for utilizing your judgment in making an arbitrary analysis.

I don't know what this post means.

Edit: I see what you mean. I meant random, as I usually use those words synonymously. That was my bad.

 

[McRanger]

Yep, but there has been shown to be factors that are more predictive of future wins than past wins.

Please. No one is interested in THAT.

If you look at raw or underlying number breakdowns as a way of seeing might happen, well then there is a legitimate and obvious point.

Instead let us look at it strictly from a historical perspective. Win or loss, what's done is done. Pointless? Maybe. But easier on the brain.

Maybe we can install a clap-o-meter. People can clap when the team wins and not clap when it loses. We can look back to see which season had the most claps.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Please. No one is interested in THAT.

If you look at raw or underlying number breakdowns as a way of seeing might happen, well then there is a legitimate and obvious point.

Instead let us look at it strictly from a historical perspective. Win or loss, what's done is done. Pointless? Maybe. But easier on the brain.

Maybe we can install a clap-o-meter. People can clap when the team wins and not clap when it loses. We can look back to see which season had the most claps.

Well if people didn't stubbornly "analyze" everything as win "GOOD", lose "BAD" how would they be able to proof what a tough competitor they are?

 

[Steve Kournianos]

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?

How you win in the early rounds rather than just winning seems to be a prerequisite for a Stanley Cup championship.

The NHL switched from five to seven games for the opening round in 1987.

Since 1987, not a single Stanley Cup champion went the distance in each of the first two rounds. In fact, the 1992 Penguins and 2009 Penguins are the only champs to go 13 out of 14 in the first two rounds and still win the Cup.

Every other Cup champ has at least one round where the coast prior to the SCF.

So the 2012 team was doomed before the ECF began. At least historically speaking.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

How you win in the early rounds rather than just winning seems to be a prerequisite for a Stanley Cup championship.

The NHL switched from five to seven games for the opening round in 1987.

Since 1987, not a single Stanley Cup champion went the distance in each of the first two rounds. In fact, the 1992 Penguins and 2009 Penguins are the only champs to go 13 out of 14 in the first two rounds and still win the Cup.

Every other Cup champ has at least one round where the coast prior to the SCF.

So the 2012 team was doomed before the ECF began. At least historically speaking.

I wonder if it's the chicken or the egg.

A team that plays 14 games can't win the cup because they went 14 games (they're tired) or they went 14 games because they can't win the cup (the 14 games was a sign that they weren't good enough). Maybe both?

 

[Tawnos]

I wonder if it's the chicken or the egg.

A team that plays 14 games can't win the cup because they went 14 games (they're tired) or they went 14 games because they can't win the cup (the 14 games was a sign that they weren't good enough). Maybe both?

I have a hard time buying the latter, because there are other teams besides just them.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

I have a hard time buying the latter, because there are other teams besides just them.

Yeah the first one sounds more plausible to me too, especially since the difference between wins and losses is often tiny.

 

[Inferno]

Please. No one is interested in THAT.

If you look at raw or underlying number breakdowns as a way of seeing might happen, well then there is a legitimate and obvious point.

Instead let us look at it strictly from a historical perspective. Win or loss, what's done is done. Pointless? Maybe. But easier on the brain.

Maybe we can install a clap-o-meter. People can clap when the team wins and not clap when it loses. We can look back to see which season had the most claps.

so, because youre too lazy to look at the numbers, or to calculate the numbers, they aren't important?

there are many legitimate predictive metrics that prove out over large sample sizes.

in baseball, in hockey...in all sports. certain things win a lot more than others.

it doesnt guarantee success. but it gives you a better chance to succeed than blind luck does.

 

[Thirty One]

I have a hard time buying the latter, because there are other teams besides just them.

I don't understand.

I agree that it's a combination, but I'd guess the second explanation is more of a factor.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

so, because youre too lazy to look at the numbers, or to calculate the numbers, they aren't important?

there are many legitimate predictive metrics that prove out over large sample sizes.

in baseball, in hockey...in all sports. certain things win a lot more than others.

it doesnt guarantee success. but it gives you a better chance to succeed than blind luck does.

I thought "Pointless? Maybe, but easier on the brain" would be a tip off that he was being sarcastic.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

I don't understand.

I agree that it's a combination, but I'd guess the second explanation is more of a factor.

Really?

So one team wins two series in 6, with game 6 being an OT win in both series and they can win the cup, but another team wins two series in 7, but lose two game 6s in OT and they're not good enough? I tend to gravitate towards both, but the first explanation is better or just the first explanation.

 

[Tawnos]

I don't understand.

I agree that it's a combination, but I'd guess the second explanation is more of a factor.

Well, if you take the absolutely valid concept that if a team loses a playoff round, they weren't good enough to win the Cup, I would say that it's only the rare playoff opponent that is actually easy, and different teams might be hot or cold at different times. The 11-12 Rangers were a good enough team to win the Cup. They happened to be cold through 2 rounds, got by on the superiority, and then lost to a team that was hot. Extra variables is all.

 

[Thirty One]

Really?

So one team wins two series in 6, with game 6 being an OT win in both series and they can win the cup, but another team wins two series in 7, but lose two game 6s in OT and they're not good enough? I tend to gravitate towards both, but the first explanation is better or just the first explanation.

Well, if you take the absolutely valid concept that if a team loses a playoff round, they weren't good enough to win the Cup, I would say that it's only the rare playoff opponent that is actually easy, and different teams might be hot or cold at different times. The 11-12 Rangers were a good enough team to win the Cup. They happened to be cold through 2 rounds, got by on the superiority, and then lost to a team that was hot. Extra variables is all.

I'm not saying that if a team can't finish off an early opponent before Game 7, then they cannot win the Cup. (I think I've been clear on how I feel about absolutes!)

But all things being equal, good teams tend to finish off opponents quicker, and good teams tend to win the Stanley Cup.

So going to 7 games early in the playoffs is correlated to not winning the Stanley Cup, but I'm not sure the causation is there. Like how ice cream consumption is correlated with drowning.

 

[yrrebbor]

The fact that people call taking out the first 10 games "arbitrary" says all you need to know. I guess BRB thinks we're the same team that lost 9-2 to San Jose, jesus.

Actually yes, the New York Rangers did lose to the San Jose Sharks 9-2, but they certainly played A LOT better during the rest of the season.

 

[Crease]

If we're lopping off the first 10 games because they're not predictive, then why don't we just compare our post-trading deadline stats to other teams post-trading deadline stats?

 

[Tawnos]

If we're lopping off the first 10 games because they're not predictive, then why don't we just compare our post-trading deadline stats to other teams post-trading deadline stats?

Yes. The only thing that matters is how the team is playing of late.