Jump to content
  • Join us — it's free!

    We are the premiere internet community for New York Rangers news and fan discussion. Don't wait — join the forum today!

IGNORED

Rangers Manage Expectations After Adding Panarin, Trouba, Kakko


Stephen

Recommended Posts

Again, I wouldn't put too much stock in the 75 pt projection.

As they say themselves, rookies are rated as replacement level players. That means a 40-50 point season from Kakko, 30ish from Kravtsov and Fox would have a pretty significant positive effect on the projected points total.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 356
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It's the dumbest, most irrelevant projection ever. First, they use a baseball stat that shouldn't come within 100 miles of hockey, that's the foundation. In fact, in baseball, they don't give rookies a replacement level rating, they don't tell you Vladdy Jr or Pete Alonso is replacement level, that's asinine. Then, they predict the lines for the season.. In August. LMAO.

 

They seem to understand the underlying ridiculousness of this but then go ahead anyways. It's absurd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don’t need any fancy system to come up with a projection. The people writing the articles try to use these metrics to give their projection merit. That’s all. Rookies and guys that are under22 are not finished products. Some take longer than others to figure it out, some never do. That is the reality to me, so my expectation and my thought on what success looks like has nothing to do with the playoffs.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don’t need any fancy system to come up with a projection. The people writing the articles try to use these metrics to give their projection merit. That’s all. Rookies and guys that are under22 are not finished products. Some take longer than others to figure it out, some never do. That is the reality to me, so my expectation and my thought on what success looks like has nothing to do with the playoffs.

 

Not sure if you're an Athletic subscriber (if you're not, you're missing out), but the article literally says "take this with a grain of salt because the projection doesn't work well with young talent". It's not like they're not acknowledging the obvious flaw in the model - a model that has rightfully gained popularity in front offices around the league. Hockey advanced stats are incredibly fascinating, and with the upcoming player tracking, will undoubtedly get way, way cooler.

 

That said, I kind of wish these articles threw in Vegas odds during the speculative season. Their whole job is to get people to bite on 50.5/49.5 bets and collect as much as they can on the bigger skew. They've got the Rangers at 87.5 - so basically a bubble/sell team. I think that might be just a hair high; the Metro is basically a Spartan arena at this point, and I feel as though even if we see good progress from youth, we'll get outscored or outdefended pretty frequently. Fun team to watch, future is there, but in a place where they're just going to need to take their punches and earn their stripes this season.

 

Season is weird, and for all we know Panarin, Kakko, and Kravtsov come in and light it up, Chytil, Andersson, and Howden solidify our middle, Fox, Hajek, and Trouba stabilize the D, Hank runs back to form, and we're right there. I'm not betting on that being the outcome, though. Not yet, anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A projection of 90 points with a wide +/- 10 points would not be too much to ask for. 80 points should be the bare minimum. Anything lower than 80 should indicate that Quinn doesn't have the coaching/development skills needed in the modern NHL. This is just my personal opinion as of today. He would definitely get a pass if circumstances beyond his control like key injuries were responsible.

 

Sent from my SM-N900T using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A projection of 90 points with a wide +/- 10 points would not be too much to ask for. 80 points should be the bare minimum. Anything lower than 80 should indicate that Quinn doesn't have the coaching/development skills needed in the modern NHL. This is just my personal opinion as of today. He would definitely get a pass if circumstances beyond his control like key injuries were responsible.

 

Sent from my SM-N900T using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

 

Why's that? We're going to have 11 players with fewer than 100 games NHL experience on this team, including four players with zero NHL experience - two of whom will be slotting into our top 6 in all likelihood. We're in the toughest division in the NHL. If he gets 80 points out of this team, it's an accomplishment.

 

Look for growth over outcomes this year, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What will really be interesting is how long of a leash Quinn gives all of these young players. Last year he had some, like Chytil, on a short leash, and others, like Howden, on one of those 30 foot long extended leashes. Could there be an element of Colin Campbell here, with a shorter leash for young Europeans? We'll see.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quinn's Leash-Length Power Rankings

 

1. Zibanejad

2. Howden

3. Fast

4. Zibanejad playing right point on the PP

5. Strome

6. winger Smith

7. Staal

8. Boo Nieves

9. engaged Chytil

10. Georgiev

11. Skjei-ky D

12. Kreider

13. Lundqvist 2018

14. out of shape Lemieux

15. Namestnikov

16. "Good" Skjei

17. defenseman Smith

18. Deangelo

19. 4th line Chytil

20. Hajek

21. waffles

22. Andersson

23. sad Buchnevich

 

Removed: #1 Neal Pionk, #2 Jimmy Vesey, #3 his former player Kevin Shattenkirk, #7 training camp Vinni Leteiri

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They used replacement level players for rookies. Meaning Kakko, Kravtsov, Fox etc were given WAR ratings equalling bog standard plugs.

Not quite.

For rookies and prospects outside the NHL, Tierney used Emmanuel Perry?s prospect data for his projections and, given how these players can be evaluated, their WAR values should be taken with a grain of salt

It's a WAR projection based on how prospects with similar pre-NHL careers have fared in the past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not quite.

 

It's a WAR projection based on how prospects with similar pre-NHL careers have fared in the past.

 

Right. I was probably guilty of skimming a bit there.

I read this

If a rookie or prospect outside the NHL wasn’t included in our WAR data set, we used the value of a replacement level player – so there’s obviously room for improvement there

 

Then this

Rangers: This is one of the rankings that likely comes with a grain of salt as the Rangers are likely another victim of young talent impacting WAR valuation

And took it to mean they’d used replacement level players, but reading it back that may not be the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right. I was probably guilty of skimming a bit there.

I read this

 

 

Then this

 

And took it to mean they’d used replacement level players, but reading it back that may not be the case.

Lol yea. I had to read it a few times before I knew what they were talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quinn's Leash-Length Power Rankings

 

1. Zibanejad

2. Howden

3. Fast

4. Zibanejad playing right point on the PP

5. Strome

6. winger Smith

7. Staal

8. Boo Nieves

9. engaged Chytil

10. Georgiev

11. Skjei-ky D

12. Kreider

13. Lundqvist 2018

14. out of shape Lemieux

15. Namestnikov

16. "Good" Skjei

17. defenseman Smith

18. Deangelo

19. 4th line Chytil

20. Hajek

21. waffles

22. Andersson

23. sad Buchnevich

 

Removed: #1 Neal Pionk, #2 Jimmy Vesey, #3 his former player Kevin Shattenkirk, #7 training camp Vinni Leteiri

 

This is just..... Gold!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of the projection doesn't work well, it doesn't work. Why am I paying for the athletic?

Not sure if you're an Athletic subscriber (if you're not, you're missing out), but the article literally says "take this with a grain of salt because the projection doesn't work well with young talent". It's not like they're not acknowledging the obvious flaw in the model - a model that has rightfully gained popularity in front offices around the league. Hockey advanced stats are incredibly fascinating, and with the upcoming player tracking, will undoubtedly get way, way cooler.

 

That said, I kind of wish these articles threw in Vegas odds during the speculative season. Their whole job is to get people to bite on 50.5/49.5 bets and collect as much as they can on the bigger skew. They've got the Rangers at 87.5 - so basically a bubble/sell team. I think that might be just a hair high; the Metro is basically a Spartan arena at this point, and I feel as though even if we see good progress from youth, we'll get outscored or outdefended pretty frequently. Fun team to watch, future is there, but in a place where they're just going to need to take their punches and earn their stripes this season.

 

Season is weird, and for all we know Panarin, Kakko, and Kravtsov come in and light it up, Chytil, Andersson, and Howden solidify our middle, Fox, Hajek, and Trouba stabilize the D, Hank runs back to form, and we're right there. I'm not betting on that being the outcome, though. Not yet, anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of the projection doesn't work well, it doesn't work. Why am I paying for the athletic?

 

The model being discussed is not intended to be prescriptive (i.e. a projection), it's intended to be descriptive (i.e. a situation). I used the wrong word there.

 

The model works less well for teams that are heavy on rookies because - wait for it - you can't actually describe someone who has no past precedent at the proper level of competition. It's also pretty rare to see a team with so little NHL experience; basically, the model hasn't got a past precedent, so it's going to to go replacement level players.

 

Also - if you're going to rail on a model that works 95%+ of the time as being nonfunctional, you can take that bone up with literally every statistician on the planet; they live in a world where 95% certainty is the "must pass" line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure if you're an Athletic subscriber (if you're not, you're missing out), but the article literally says "take this with a grain of salt because the projection doesn't work well with young talent". It's not like they're not acknowledging the obvious flaw in the model - a model that has rightfully gained popularity in front offices around the league. Hockey advanced stats are incredibly fascinating, and with the upcoming player tracking, will undoubtedly get way, way cooler.

 

That said, I kind of wish these articles threw in Vegas odds during the speculative season. Their whole job is to get people to bite on 50.5/49.5 bets and collect as much as they can on the bigger skew. They've got the Rangers at 87.5 - so basically a bubble/sell team. I think that might be just a hair high; the Metro is basically a Spartan arena at this point, and I feel as though even if we see good progress from youth, we'll get outscored or outdefended pretty frequently. Fun team to watch, future is there, but in a place where they're just going to need to take their punches and earn their stripes this season.

 

Season is weird, and for all we know Panarin, Kakko, and Kravtsov come in and light it up, Chytil, Andersson, and Howden solidify our middle, Fox, Hajek, and Trouba stabilize the D, Hank runs back to form, and we're right there. I'm not betting on that being the outcome, though. Not yet, anyway.

 

The 87 1/2 is fair. They actually should be about 9-10 points better if all things go close to expectations. If there are some career years and/or rookies and young guys contribute a little more than expected, then maybe they?re at 90 or so points and legitimately near the playoff bubble. Anything over that is probably not too reasonable of an expectation and they?d need lots of things to go right.

 

I think I?d take the over on them, but it?s close. They set that well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The model being discussed is not intended to be prescriptive (i.e. a projection), it's intended to be descriptive (i.e. a situation). I used the wrong word there.

 

The model works less well for teams that are heavy on rookies because - wait for it - you can't actually describe someone who has no past precedent at the proper level of competition. It's also pretty rare to see a team with so little NHL experience; basically, the model hasn't got a past precedent, so it's going to to go replacement level players.

Well obviously LOL, hence the reason the entire thing is bogus. If you're doing a league wide rating and saying it doesn't work for a handful of teams, it's not a league wide rating.

 

Also - if you're going to rail on a model that works 95%+ of the time as being nonfunctional, you can take that bone up with literally every statistician on the planet; they live in a world where 95% certainty is the "must pass" line.
Does it really work 95% of the time?

 

As Dunny said, I agree WAR really has no place in hockey anyway. It's a baseball stat, because baseball is more of an individual game that relies way less on chemistry. There really is no such thing as a "replacement level" player in hockey. You might be able to replace 30 points on a line, but if you're replacing Ryan Strome with Michael Grabner then the entire dynamic changes because they aren't the same player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 87 1/2 is fair. They actually should be about 9-10 points better if all things go close to expectations. If there are some career years and/or rookies and young guys contribute a little more than expected, then maybe they’re at 90 or so points and legitimately near the playoff bubble. Anything over that is probably not too reasonable of an expectation and they’d need lots of things to go right.

 

I think I’d take the over on them, but it’s close. They set that well.

 

Yup. I'd take the under - I think too many things have to go too perfectly for the over to look good.

 

I kind of pin us as the post-Barkov pick Panthers - it's there, it's obviously there, but it's going to take a little time to get to where there is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well obviously LOL, hence the reason the entire thing is bogus. If you're doing a league wide rating and saying it doesn't work for a handful of teams, it's not a league wide rating.

 

If it works for like....28 out of 31 teams, and the caveat on those three teams is "not enough data on the players to make it work" - it's a pretty damn good model. Every model has uncertainty. It's acceptable.

 

Does it really work 95% of the time?

 

As Dunny said, I agree WAR really has no place in hockey anyway. It's a baseball stat, because baseball is more of an individual game that relies way less on chemistry. There really is no such thing as a "replacement level" player in hockey. You might be able to replace 30 points on a line, but if you're replacing Ryan Strome with Michael Grabner then the entire dynamic changes because they aren't the same player.

 

Seems to be about the case, yes.

 

I suppose WAR in hockey is a relatively new (and of note, evolving) concept and I think it would be interesting to revisit something like this in April. If I'm remembering correctly, it's an amalgamation of a few fancy stats - shot shares, xGF% (which I believe is somewhat more heavily weighted since there's an obvious direct correlation between scoring goals and winning games), drawn penalties, and so on. So when you replace Ryan Strome with Michael Grabner, for example, you're likely losing some small share of things like won faceoffs and whatever the hell else it is that Strome (who I'd bet is like....a .5 WAR player) is good at, and replacing it with things like PK defense and high danger chances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it works for like....28 out of 31 teams, and the caveat on those three teams is "not enough data on the players to make it work" - it's a pretty damn good model. Every model has uncertainty. It's acceptable.

 

 

 

Seems to be about the case, yes.

 

I suppose WAR in hockey is a relatively new (and of note, evolving) concept and I think it would be interesting to revisit something like this in April. If I'm remembering correctly, it's an amalgamation of a few fancy stats - shot shares, xGF% (which I believe is somewhat more heavily weighted since there's an obvious direct correlation between scoring goals and winning games), drawn penalties, and so on. So when you replace Ryan Strome with Michael Grabner, for example, you're likely losing some small share of things like won faceoffs and whatever the hell else it is that Strome (who I'd bet is like....a .5 WAR player) is good at, and replacing it with things like PK defense and high danger chances.

So after all this, do you still think the Rangers getting 2 more points this year is still an accomplishment as long as there is "growth" ? And how would you judge the growth if their record is no better then last season? I know that we should be able to see individual growth like Zib last season, but how would you determine team growth if they compile the same points as their shitty team last season ? I hope my wording doesn't come across as accusitory or dickheaded, I just want to understand your thought process.

 

Sent from my SM-N900T using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So after all this, do you still think the Rangers getting 2 more points this year is still an accomplishment as long as there is "growth" ? And how would you judge the growth if their record is no better then last season? I know that we should be able to see individual growth like Zib last season, but how would you determine team growth if they compile the same points as their shitty team last season ? I hope my wording doesn't come across as accusitory or dickheaded, I just want to understand your thought process.

 

Sent from my SM-N900T using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

 

I'd argue it this way: our roster on opening night last year looked something like this:

 

Kreider-Zibanejad-Buchnevich

Vesey-Hayes-Zuccarello

Spooner-Chytil-Fast

Namestnikov-Howden-Lettieri

 

Sjkei-McQuaid

Smith-Shattenkirk

Staal-Pionk

Claesson-DeAngelo

 

Our roster in October probably looks something like this:

 

Panarin-Zibanejad-Buchnevich

Kreider-Chytil-Kakko

Strome-Howden-Kravtsov

Lemieux-Andersson-Fast

 

Trouba-Skjei

DeAngelo-Hajek

Staal-Fox

 

It's hard to figure apples to apples here, but even losing McQuaid, Hayes, Zucc, Spooner, Pionk, and Lettieri - you're losing a lot of experience and frankly, a lot of points. As garbage as Pionk was as a defender, he put up decent scoring numbers.

 

I reckon you're asking Panarin, Kakko, Kravtsov, and Trouba to replace Zucc, Hayes, Lettieri, and Pionk. While we weren't so high on the latter two, the former two were damn good players. Hard to replace, even with the big splashes.

 

Further, UFAs, RFAs, rookies - they need to adjust. Even Kakko and Kravtsov, as highly touted as they are, stepping in and nailing down 50 points right away is a tough ask. It's much more likely that they're going to start slow and "figure it out" around the midway point of the year.

 

Had the division around us not gotten as good as it has, I'd maybe be a hair more bullish. The Devils had just as good an offseason, the Islanders basically kept the band together, the Penguins aren't any worse or better - but they're healthier, the Caps are basically the same team, the Flyers got better. Even the Jackets are not a bad team.

 

Long answer - but what's growth this year? Fight. Compete in every game. Learn to win. Have our rookies and sophomores get close to or over 40 points. Show the promise. Maybe feel like a bubble team, but don't buy.

 

I'm really, really happy to be wrong about this. There is nothing I'd like more than to see Panarin absolutely go off this year and score 100 points, or Trouba take the next step into true 1D territory, or Kakko come in like the next Alex Barkov, or Kravtsov rock it, or Fox look like the next Brian Leetch, etc.

 

I'm just not expecting it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I should state that I was never a big fan of Hayes. I thought moving on from him was an addition by subtraction. I just didn't like his lack of physicality and his effort was too sporadic. As far as I'm concerned Zucc was the team changing move that hurt the team overall. Yes, he messed up the first part of the season but his playmaking will be sorely missed. Everyone else were players I could do without, including Vesey.

 

Sent from my SM-N900T using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...