News Article: The Hidden Potential of the 3-6 New York Rangers

[hi]

I did. And he brought up some good points of how statistically, the Rangers' transient factors are bad right now, and history says that they'll get better, so therefore, they shouldn't be written off yet. And he actually gives explanations for it.

A better explanation than the meaningless retort you just gave.

According to you, the article gave "good in-depth analysis". In the article the author mentioned the +/- stat. Therefore, both of your opinions can easily be dismissed in the future.

 

[haohmaru]

According to you, the article gave "good in-depth analysis". In the article the author mentioned the +/- stat. Therefore, both of your opinions can easily be dismissed in the future.

Plus/Minus stats are actually somewhat useful if the person analyzing them understands the roles of the players and their subsequent +/- rating.

 

[ocarina]

According to you, the article gave "good in-depth analysis". In the article the author mentioned the +/- stat. Therefore, both of your opinions can easily be dismissed in the future.

Did you not even see how he mentioned it?

This is not as bad as it looks. First of all, the Rangers have actually attempted more shots than their opponents with Staal on the ice. His minus-9 rating is actually a result of New York scoring on just 3.2 percent of their shots (at even strength) while their opponents are finding twine on 11.9 percent (source: Behind the Net).

He is actually explaining how the +/- stat for Staal is misleading. Did you even understand the article? Or make any effort to read it?

 

[Thirty One]

Did you not even see how he mentioned it?



He is actually explaining how the +/- stat for Staal is misleading. Did you even understand the article? Or make any effort to read it?

lololol

See Bleacher Report -----> Bad article
See +/- ------> Bad article

The critical thinkers of this board I tells ya...

 

[ocarina]

lololol

See Bleacher Report -----> Bad article
See +/- ------> Bad article

The critical thinkers of this board I tells ya...

I don't like Bleacher Report myself, but they are getting some legitimate people to write for them.

 

[hi]

Did you not even see how he mentioned it?



He is actually explaining how the +/- stat for Staal is misleading. Did you even understand the article? Or make any effort to read it?

You actually needed him to explain to you why the +/- stat was misleading?

 

[Miller Time NYR]

Lol the negativity around this team is comical, can't wait to pull this article out of the basement at the end of the season.

 

[hi]

I'm guessing that ocarina and -31- both write for Bleacher Report.

 

[ocarina]

You actually needed him to explain to you why the +/- stat was misleading?

What does that matter? He's writing for a general audience, and a lot of fans are still unaware of the flaws of +/-.

Plus, why are you trying to change the direction of the conversation? Did you actually understand the points he was making? Because I honestly wouldn't hold it against anyone if they didn't. The advanced stats he mentions are pretty new.

 

[hi]

What does that matter? He's writing for a general audience, and a lot of fans are still unaware of the flaws of +/-.

Plus, why are you trying to change the direction of the conversation? Did you actually understand the points he was making? Because I honestly wouldn't hold it against anyone if they didn't. The advanced stats he mentions are pretty new.

lol

Have fun receiving your in-depth analysis from Bleacher Report articles.

While you're at it, make sure to let the rest of us know if Eklund mentions any Rangers trade rumors over at hockeybuzz.

 

[ocarina]

lol

Have fun receiving your in-depth analysis from Bleacher Report articles.

While you're at it, make sure to let the rest of us know if Eklund mentions any Rangers trade rumors over at hockeybuzz.

Are you actually going to try to have a discussion? Because this kind of response tells me that you don't know what you're talking about, so out of desperation, you're trying to insult me.

 

[hi]

and a deep set of talented forwards that are soon to be unleashed by coach Alain Vigneault's proven system.

I can't wait!

 

[JohnC]

According to you, the article gave "good in-depth analysis". In the article the author mentioned the +/- stat. Therefore, both of your opinions can easily be dismissed in the future.

lol

Have fun receiving your in-depth analysis from Bleacher Report articles.

While you're at it, make sure to let the rest of us know if Eklund mentions any Rangers trade rumors over at hockeybuzz.

 

[HatTrick Swayze]

So by this logic we are just banking shooting percentage and the floodgates should open in the back half of the season.

Never mind the fact that the Rangers have created an abysmally low number of quality scoring opportunities because they are simply not that good.

 

[hi]

Explain

 

[Ail]

Explain

He read your post and a Dr. immediately diagnosed him with cancer. Do you really need someone to explain cancer to you?

 

[hi]

He read your post and a Dr. immediately diagnosed him with cancer. Do you really need someone to explain cancer to you?

I'd like him to explain the pluses and minuses.

 

[ocarina]

So by this logic we are just banking shooting percentage and the floodgates should open in the back half of the season.

Never mind the fact that the Rangers have created an abysmally low number of quality scoring opportunities because they are simply not that good.

It's going to be more than that, the team needs to figure out it's offensive identity, and sooner rather than later.

I don't think they lack forward depth as much as they lack top-end talent, and it really hurts that two of their three best forwards offensively are hurt (Nash and Callahan) and one is simply lost right now (Stepan, and it really hurt to miss training camp with a new coach coming in), so we're seeing guys like Boyle play bigger roles then they should be playing.

I felt that tonight, they outplayed Montreal at even-strength. They just couldn't finish, partly because of bad luck (Budaj was outstanding), the lack of skill, and probably more important, the confusion over how to play in the offensive zone. This team looks stuck between trying to play spread-out creative hockey and crashing the net. A lot of times tonight, I saw point shots that Budaj had no problem seeing, and that has to change.

It's just a combination of the team being in disarray right now and just being unlucky.

 

[Kel Varnsen]

The bleachers better go change their fanboy blog post to, "The Hidden Potential of the 3-7 New York Rangers"

 

[Ail]

I'd like him to explain the pluses and minuses.

Of cancer?

 

[ocarina]

The bleachers better go change their fanboy blog post to, "The Hidden Potential of the 3-7 New York Rangers"

I don't even like Bleacher Report for the most part. I'm just smart enough to actually read the article and form my own opinion of it rather than just assume that it's worthless because of the source.

 

[Kel Varnsen]

I don't even like Bleacher Report for the most part. I'm just smart enough to actually read the article and form my own opinion of it rather than just assume that it's worthless because of the source.

I already pointed out how terribad the content is on the first page of this thread...

 

[Ail]

I already pointed out how terribad the content is on the first page of this thread...

Yeah with an incredible amount of objective opinions and thoughtful debate.

 

[JohnC]

I don't even like Bleacher Report for the most part. I'm just smart enough to actually read the article and form my own opinion of it rather than just assume that it's worthless because of the source.

He's not assuming it's worthless because of the source, he's assuming it's worthless because it isn't a pro John Tortarella article

 

[ocarina]

I already pointed out how terribad the content is on the first page of this thread...

Let's take a look at the post:

Objectively it's not a news article. Bleacher Report is like a giant blog. As for the actual substance, it's basically just saying everything will get better. Here's a shortened version of the "news article":

Team Start: it's been bad but it'll get better, they're better than this
Rationalizing the start: it's been bad but it'll get better, they're better than this
Goaltending: it's been bad but it'll get better, they're better than this
Defense: it's been bad but it'll get better, they're better than this
Offense: it's been bad but it'll get better, they're better than this

And you conveniently left out the part where for every part, he analyzes his point and gives evidence and reasoning for his thoughts. And it actually makes sense, especially if you have an understanding of the statistics he's taking about.

Doesn't seem like the "fanboy" type of blog post that you so badly want to characterize it as.

Best (read: most laughable) quotes:
"There's absolutely no reason why that system won't work in New York. The Rangers are just as deep in gritty, defensively responsible forwards as the 2010 Canucks."
"One thing that is clear throughout this analysis is that the Rangers have great depth up front, giving him lots of options."
"... a deep set of talented forwards that are soon to be unleashed by coach Alain Vigneault's proven system."

Bleacher Report, killin' it.

And for some reason, you don't provide reasons as to why they are "laughable" quotes. And somehow, you are questioning what Vollman wrote despite this?