article: The Athletic NYR 2020-21 Season Preview

https://theathletic.com/2291511/2021/01/04/new-york-rangers-2020-21-season-preview/

For all four teams projected to land on the outside of the playoff picture, it?ll be the same story to start each time: this division is hell. The Rangers start the season with just a 34 percent chance at making the playoffs and it?s mostly a result of being in the East Division. New York is pretty close to being considered an average team and the 88-point pace projected for the team is not completely reflective of their true talent level. They get dinged hard by strength of schedule and their chances would get a lot more play in the West Division. Here, the Rangers have to settle for a one-third shot at the playoffs.

 

That?s likely not what fans were hoping for, but the division distribution really says it all as anywhere from third-to-eighth carries at least a one-in-10 chance. For the Rangers, any outcome is completely realistic, whether that?s taking a step back after a surprise season (development isn?t linear!) or vaulting into the playoffs as some expect.

For those of you behind the paywall - the basic gist of the deep-dive is that the Rangers have as much elite talent as they have detriment, and could pretty much land anywhere because young talent could explode and cover the gap...or not. There was also appropriate hyping of how ridiculously good Artemi Panarin and Adam Fox were and will be.

Yeah, I read most of this earlier this morning — seems about right.

I feel like Dom's model tends to be overly harsh, especially in how it weights rookies pretty evenly as replacement players, but the central tenet of the Rangers having a lot to fawn and fret over respectively at both ends of the spectrum is the right one. Basically, they have a really good top-six with two elite-level players (Zibanejad and Panarin), a ROTY candidate (Lafreni?re), a phenomenal, burgeoning 1D (Fox), and a quality RD squad (Trouba, ADA). They also have a terrifying bad left side complete with two below replacement level players (Johnson, Smith), a below replacement level fourth line in its entirety (Lemieux, Howden, Gauthier), and a promising, but undefined starting goalie.

The tl;dr version: they need bottom-six depth that's reliable (not just reliably bad), and need help on the entire left side of the defense. Those are the major gaps to fill to move from "maybe" to "contender."

this quote sums it up

It’s extremely uncommon for a team to be in this position with a strong collection of great players that are rivaled by a strong collection of awful players.

this quote sums it up

Seems really harsh.

the bottom 6 is not horrific. Would a 4th line center and winger be nice? Sure, but that 3rd line has 3 1st rounders including 1OA.

As far as the D goes - they're not bad either. ADA, Trouba, Lindgren, and Fox are pretty fucking good. The bottom pair is a total question mark with Smith, Johnson, Miller, Reuenanen, and whoever else trying to make the team. To call half the roster a "strong collection of awful players" is beyond ignorant, IMO.

Seems really harsh.

 

the bottom 6 is not horrific. Would a 4th line center and winger be nice? Sure, but that 3rd line has 3 1st rounders including 1OA.

By what measure? The current fourth line (Lemieux, Howden, Gauthier?) pretty much fails every statistical category relative to the position. They're ill-defined, too. They're not checkers (and only one kills penalties). They're not scorers. They don't bang. They have no real size or snarl to speak of. It's basically a mediocre center who the org still thinks has upside (Howden) and spare parts.

As far as the D goes - they're not bad either. ADA, Trouba, Lindgren, and Fox are pretty fucking good. The bottom pair is a total question mark with Smith, Johnson, Miller, Reuenanen, and whoever else trying to make the team. To call half the roster a "strong collection of awful players" is beyond ignorant, IMO.

Again, by what measure? I see Johnson and Smith as below replacement level. They fail both eye and stats tests.

It's not ignorant — you just disagree.

By what measure? The current fourth line (Lemieux, Howden, Gauthier?) pretty much fails every statistical category relative to the position. They're ill-defined, too. They're not checkers (and only one kills penalties). They're not scorers. They don't bang. They have no real size or snarl to speak of. It's basically a mediocre center who the org still thinks has upside (Howden) and spare parts.

 

 

 

Again, by what measure? I see Johnson and Smith as below replacement level. They fail both eye and stats tests.

 

It's not ignorant — you just disagree.

Yep, the 4th line is basically a bunch of leftover spare parts.

"Alright, we got these guys in a trade and we have no idea what else to do with them. Let's put 'em on a line and see what happens."

Yeah, I read most of this earlier this morning — seems about right.

 

I feel like Dom's model tends to be overly harsh, especially in how it weights rookies pretty evenly as replacement players, but the central tenet of the Rangers having a lot to fawn and fret over respectively at both ends of the spectrum is the right one. Basically, they have a really good top-six with two elite-level players (Zibanejad and Panarin), a ROTY candidate (Lafreni?re), a phenomenal, burgeoning 1D (Fox), and a quality RD squad (Trouba, ADA). They also have a terrifying bad left side complete with two below replacement level players (Johnson, Smith), a below replacement level fourth line in its entirety (Lemieux, Howden, Gauthier), and a promising, but undefined starting goalie.

 

The tl;dr version: they need bottom-six depth that's reliable (not just reliably bad), and need help on the entire left side of the defense. Those are the major gaps to fill to move from "maybe" to "contender."

I'm not going to hold my breath, but a Kakko off-season improvement could go a long way to shoring up some of their depth issues.

By what measure? The current fourth line (Lemieux, Howden, Gauthier?) pretty much fails every statistical category relative to the position. They're ill-defined, too. They're not checkers (and only one kills penalties). They're not scorers. They don't bang. They have no real size or snarl to speak of. It's basically a mediocre center who the org still thinks has upside (Howden) and spare parts.

 

 

 

Again, by what measure? I see Johnson and Smith as below replacement level. They fail both eye and stats tests.

 

It's not ignorant — you just disagree.

The quote said there was an equal number of great and horrible players on the roster. That's unfair, IMO.

I mean, Gauthier is a skilled forward, highly drafted, who's starting camp on the 3rd line. Yes, he's out of place on the 4th line but that's not where he is.

Lemieux is a good fourth liner, IMO. He plays the game the way you'd imagine a 4th line to play.

Howden - stinks.

So "a strong collection of awful players" is really just talking about Howden, Smith and Johnson. None of which are guaranteed to even make the starting roster.

The quote said there was an equal number of great and horrible players on the roster. That's unfair, IMO.

It didn't. He said "a strong collection of great players that are rivaled by a strong collection of awful players." A tad hyperbolic, maybe, but not at all unfair IMO.

I mean, Gauthier is a skilled forward, highly drafted, who's starting camp on the 3rd line. Yes, he's out of place on the 4th line but that's not where he is.

He's probably not on the fourth line, right, but when he was, he was unremarkable. He skates fast. Does nothing else. He's Freddy Sjostrom right now, but much less effective.

Lemieux is a good fourth liner, IMO. He plays the game the way you'd imagine a 4th line to play.

He plays the game the way I'd imagine (and want) a fourth-liner to play, yes. He's not a good fourth-liner, though. The only thing he really has in his favor is a positive penalty differential. He's kind of 2020-21 Ryan Hollweg.

Howden - stinks.

Agreed.

So "a strong collection of awful players" is really just talking about Howden, Smith and Johnson. None of which are guaranteed to even make the starting roster.

It's also talking about Gauthier (and probably Lemieux) at the moment. Dom has Gauthier, at the very least, below replacement level. Kakko, too (who was statistically the worst regular forward in the entire NHL last season), but he should improve.

But let's also be honest with ourselves — at least one of those three you listed will make the opening lineup, and all three are likely to be part of the team (even if it means taxi squad).

I'm not going to hold my breath, but a Kakko off-season improvement could go a long way to shoring up some of their depth issues.

Miles and miles. It completely changes the depth of the team down the entire right side and gives the Rangers one of the most potent top-six squads in the league. Their third line could feast by match up nightmares alone.

The quote said there was an equal number of great and horrible players on the roster. That's unfair, IMO.

 

I mean, Gauthier is a skilled forward, highly drafted, who's starting camp on the 3rd line. Yes, he's out of place on the 4th line but that's not where he is.

 

Lemieux is a good fourth liner, IMO. He plays the game the way you'd imagine a 4th line to play.

 

Howden - stinks.

 

So "a strong collection of awful players" is really just talking about Howden, Smith and Johnson. None of which are guaranteed to even make the starting roster.

Agreed. And to basically say those three players, who may not even make the team, "rivals" the good on the team, as if there are equal amounts of bad and good on the team, is just not doing enough research. There's an overwhelmingly amount of good on the team compared to the bad. Every team in this league has player(s) who are labeled as garbage. The difference is how much bad. If we go in saying maybe 3 players, we are in good shape.

Nah, it includes Kakko (top-six) and Gauthier (top-nine) as well. It's five players, not three, which is approximately 27% of would-be skaters. If a quarter of your lineup are below replacement level, I'm not sure what you call it, but I am sure what I call it: not good.

I don't agree you can label those two as bad players, though to be fair you can't label them good either. I'd bet on both bringing more good than bad to the team next year. Would you do the same, except more bad than good? The sample size isn't nearly large enough to make the claim as fact.

And saying "not good" isn't the same as calling it the equivalent of "bad" as Zibanejad, Panarin, Fox, etc. are "good".

I don't agree you can label those two as bad players, though to be fair you can't label them good either. I'd bet on both bringing more good than bad to the team next year. Would you do the same, except more bad than good? The sample size isn't nearly large enough to make the claim as fact.

 

And saying "not good" isn't the same as calling it the equivalent of "bad" as Zibanejad, Panarin, Fox, etc. are "good".

I mean, statistically speaking, Kakko was the worst regular forward in the entire NHL last season. He was god awful everywhere, at everything. Gauthier only played 12 games, so I wouldn't label him at all just yet. He didn't do anything of note, the sample size is clearly far too small. But these are all projections based on what these players have already done, regardless of sample size.

The quote said there was an equal number of great and horrible players on the roster. That's unfair, IMO.

 

I mean, Gauthier is a skilled forward, highly drafted, who's starting camp on the 3rd line. Yes, he's out of place on the 4th line but that's not where he is.

 

Lemieux is a good fourth liner, IMO. He plays the game the way you'd imagine a 4th line to play.

 

Howden - stinks.

 

So "a strong collection of awful players" is really just talking about Howden, Smith and Johnson. None of which are guaranteed to even make the starting roster.

Gotta see the rest of the article to flesh it out - there are few players in the NHL as negatively rated on his model than those 5. Three of them are just kids, and that's something he owns with the variance.

Basically, his argument is that the Rangers have three buckets of players:

Elite players/on-par for their role guys (Panarin, Fox, Zib / ADA, Buch, Kreider)

Elitely bad players (Smith, Johnson, Gauthier, Kakko, Howden)

Rookies and unknowns (pretty much everyone else)

When you realize that Smith and Johnson are quite literally two of the worst five players on his model and singlehandedly knock out the positive benefit of any of those elite players, it's a problem to him.

His model is making a series of assumptions on actual players though - there's a world where K'Andre and Reunanen make the team and get penciled in at just over replacement level and suddenly our defense is top tier. Kakko playing like Kakko and Gauthier figuring some shit out fixes a lot.

I don't agree you can label those two as bad players, though to be fair you can't label them good either. I'd bet on both bringing more good than bad to the team next year. Would you do the same, except more bad than good? The sample size isn't nearly large enough to make the claim as fact.

 

And saying "not good" isn't the same as calling it the equivalent of "bad" as Zibanejad, Panarin, Fox, etc. are "good".

For Smith and Johnson, the sample size is there. They're bad. We know that. Howden's probably there too.

For Kakko and Gauther? Yeah. I'd bet on them doing way more, especially if Kakko's going to get a crack at the Panarin line and Gauthier's getting Lafreniere.

Johnson, like Bitetto and Rooney, was specifically brought in to kill penalties. Those guys either led, or were top pk minute eaters on there teams last season. This was repeated over and over again by Gorton and JD this summer. These guys were brought in to be specialists in specific situations.

To make the argument that we don't know what Johnson's role is is kind of disingenuous. We can make a solid, highly educated, and evidence-based guess.

Agree. While they haven't come out and point blank said "This is Johnson's specific role", it's process of elimination at this point. We know where most of the other defensemen slot in as far as pairings and special teams. All that's left is 6/7 defense and PK time.

 

To make the argument that we don't know what Johnson's role is is kind of disingenuous. We can make a solid, highly educated, and evidence-based guess.

It's not disingenuous, it's pragmatic. It's making as few assumptions as possible. I'd argue it's quite difficult to make "highly-educated and evidence-based" guesses based on a single scrimmage from day one of training camp when a single game hasn't been played yet, and we have no idea who's even made the team.

That said, I certainly hope you're right. With DeAngelo moving to the left, I'm breathing easier re: Johnson and his likely usage, but much of this likely hinges on just how long that experiment lasts. The moment it doesn't, the equation changes. Rapidly. Suddenly Smith and/or Johnson are, as feared, regular minutes-eating players.

It's not disingenuous, it's pragmatic. It's making as few assumptions as possible. I'd argue it's quite difficult to make "highly-educated and evidence-based" guesses based on a single scrimmage from day one of training camp when a single game hasn't been played yet, and we have no idea who's even made the team.

 

That said, I certainly hope you're right. With DeAngelo moving to the left, I'm breathing easier re: Johnson and his likely usage, but much of this likely hinges on just how long that experiment lasts. The moment it doesn't, the equation changes. Rapidly. Suddenly Smith and/or Johnson are, as feared, regular minutes-eating players.

As far as defense goes? Yes, we do. Let's not act like this is all based on camp. There's a body of work called "last season", and the D hasn't changed that dramatically. Removed Staal, inserted Johnson.

ADA - Trouba

Lindgren - Fox

Smith - OPEN SLOT

Even if ADA flames out on the left (and that will be really hard to determine until games start), we can make an informed and educated guess that Smith will reprise that #1LD next to Trouba.

I'm not at all worried that Johnson somehow becomes the de-facto lynchpin of the D.

As far as defense goes? Yes, we do. Let's not act like this is all based on camp. There's a body of work called "last season", and the D hasn't changed that dramatically. Removed Staal, inserted Johnson.

 

ADA - Trouba

Lindgren - Fox

Smith - OPEN SLOT

Yes, based on day one of camp. If, say, someone like Miller impresses the coaching staff greatly, things can change. If Smith outperforms Johnson by miles, things can change.

Even if ADA flames out on the left (and that will be really hard to determine until games start), we can make an informed and educated guess that Smith will reprise that #1LD next to Trouba.

 

I'm not at all worried that Johnson somehow becomes the de-facto lynchpin of the D.

I'm not "all that worried" either. I just refuse to accept that anything is set in stone yet. However unlikely, it's entirely possible/plausible that ADA flames out on the left, moves back to the right, and Smith doesn't impress, paving the path for Johnson to be given an opportunity I am hoping never comes to fruition.

Yes, based on day one of camp. If, say, someone like Miller impresses the coaching staff greatly, things can change. If Smith outperforms Johnson by miles, things can change.

And what won't change is the top 4. Or the PP. So it still leaves us with JMFJ competing for a spot that is 15 mins a night and PK.

Not if ADA flames out and Smith fails. You literally cut out the entire scenario I outlined where this can happen. Again, all of this is about pragmatism and making as few assumptions as possible. Johnson is likely to be competing for a spot that is 15 mins a night + PK, I agree. It's not improbable that Johnson could wind up playing 20~ a night given he did exactly that just a season ago, for the same man the Rangers just hired to coach their defense, of which he is now a part of as well. Both things are entirely plausible. Hence my insistence that we don't know his role yet. We're assuming it. Or, more precisely, you are.

Nah. I'm looking at the only roles left after I see what was said about everyone else.

His role is clearly at the bottom of the barrel. If he's playing 20 mins a night, it's because 4-5 other players are hurt or awful, in which case those 4-5 other players are bigger problems than JJ.