RangersIn7
-
Posts
7,004 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
14
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by RangersIn7
-
-
3 hours ago, JJ in VA said:
In real numbers it's just sad. I told CanesFanRandy, less than 3% of the time on my balls is not sufficient. Use your head and hand, forget the heart. Work the twig and berries Randy.
Randy???
Awww C’mon Sharon!
-
Watch out for Fox this series.
Canes are good all around, and if they’re healthy, their group of 6 on D is very , very good.
But the best defensemen in this series is Adam Fox.
He was meh vs Washington. For him.
Didnt have to be great.
He certainly wasn’t bad.
But no goals.
No points at ES.
Yet a +4 regardless.
He’s going this series.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Br4d said:
3 of the 6 original teams were on a different plane than the other 3. This is because the owners of those groups were in cahoots to keep the other 3 down.
It was all regional scouting rights.
And all the players in those days came mostly from Ontario and Quebec provinces and they inherently belonged to Toronto and Montreal.
And also… no players from Europe. No Russians. And very few American players.
The U.S. teams got screwed in a rigged system in a 6 team league.
It just wasn’t fair.
Rangers, Red Wings, Bruins, and Blackhawks had to settle for other parts of Canada to find players and hopefully get some luck.
It all started to change in the late-60’s and early-70’s with expansion, the advent of the NHL Draft, and the end of regional rights scouting.
I don’t want to devalue the accomplishments of what those teams in Montreal or Toronto did in those days….
But they had maybe the most grossly favorable circumstances in which to build teams and the league did nothing about it for 40 years. So those teams built dynasties with absolutely nothing to stop them and no obstacles in their path.
-
1 hour ago, JJ in VA said:
In real numbers it's just sad. I told CanesFanRandy, less than 3% of the time on my balls is not sufficient. Use your head and hand, forget the heart. Work the twig and berries Randy.
It’s 4 goals at ES over 82 games in 6 months.
Yet they’re “so much better at even strength.”
Its bullshit.
Freddie Andersen is the key.
He played out of his mind ungodly good hockey in 16 starts down the stretch vs non-playoff teams in 2/3 of those games.
Hes never played that well in his career.
-
39 minutes ago, Long live the King said:
It's not an actual real numbers translation. "Expected" goals is just a guess. That said the Canes 5v5 juggernaut, 9th in xGF% (53.65), scored 4 more 5v5 goals than the Rangers, 16th in xGF% (50.15), over 82 games. Carolina was expected to score 194 goals to the Rangers 167. Carolina really scored 171 to the Rangers 167.
Now you're gonna hear that the Canes are just unlucky and the Rangers squeaked into the playoffs because they got lucky in 1 goal games.
I’ll clarify…
I know it’s a guess. It’s “expected goals.”
That star is inherently implying that it’s just what’s expected. It’s speculative but based on something real.
The numbers for expected goals are based on real numbers and they derive the expected goals number from those base stats.
But you answered my question.
It’s 4 goals at ES over 6 months and 82 games.
That’s nothing.
-
15 hours ago, Abe Froman said:
How do players know it's a commercial break after a game stoppage?
Most arenas have a red light that comes on at ice level near the penalty box area to indicate that this particular stoppage is a commercial break
-
1
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, Pete said:
That's the flaw with the way the data is collected. There's also a flaw with the way it's being utilized as a data point.
Using completely made-up numbers, here's an example of smart use: "In their last 5 games, the Rangers went 2-3, but in their losses, they had an xGF% of 52, 55, and 53 percent so it looks like they're playing well, they just got goalied in a few games".
Here's an example of bad use: "This season the Rangers xGF% at 5v5 was 49.9% so they have no chance of beating the Canes who were at 52.8% all season".
That's not how this shit works.
What’s the less than 3% difference equate to in real numbers?
-
This series has been great.
-
1
-
-
Just now, Kick save and a beauty said:
Toronto will be out soon I think. The other four teams are separated by next to nothing and while I agree we have fared the best against the Bruins it is not clear that any of the four are appreciably worse than the others.
All fair.
Still…. I’d rather have Boston than Carolina.
Carolina would’ve played Tampa in round 1 in 1-8 seeding though. So who knows how that series would have gone.
-
13 hours ago, Kick save and a beauty said:
Not sure that 1-8 seeding is all that much different than what we have now. You really only see weak teams in the first round and not always even then. We happened to get one this year. When the dust settles we are looking at Rangers, Canes, Florida and Boston as the most likely final four in the east. No weak sisters in there.
Not saying there’d be weak sisters.
But top seeded teams should get the lowest remaining seed.We aren’t. We’re getting what would be the 3 as opposed to 4 or 5.
Carolina is better than Toronto or Boston
-
On 4/27/2024 at 11:29 AM, Br4d said:
Ovechkin should shave his beard. It makes him look older.
Laf too but that's because it makes him look like a rebellious teenager.
You shave your ass!
-
4 hours ago, RJWantsTheCup said:
They use to do 1-16 seeding. I remember back in 81' I believe the Rangers played the Kings in the first round, then the Blues before losing to the Islanders. It was cool to play different teams. Regular season seemed to mean a bit more back then, but even just conference seeding 1-8 is better than the current format.
1-8 seeding is so much better.
Not this bracket nonsense trying to force matchups on people and invent rivalries.
-
2
-
-
14 minutes ago, Pete said:
He was also playing against...The Islanders.
That and the fact that of his 16 starts in the regular season, 11 came vs non-playoff teams.
-
Carolina will be tough. No doubt about it.
Everyone loves them because of the analytics which is why they’re favored this postseason.
Couple things though:
The Rangers have handled them well over the past 2+ seasons dating back to that playoff series in ‘22.
Rangers are 9-5 against them in that span.
Also… Carolina has played so well down the stretch in large part due to how good Guentzel has been since they acquired him, and how well Freddie Andersen has played since he came back.
Here’s the thing that no one seems to be mentioning though, and it’s odd:
In his career Freddie Andersen HAS NEVER played this well. Ever.
Eventually you have to think they’ll be some sort of deviation back to the norm for him.
This is a series they can win.
-
40 minutes ago, Phil said:
Hear you both. I can see the argument for Tavares being "the" mistake in that he was the first, and a luxury. I still think their were multiple off ramps since that deal was signed, though, and the Leafs missed both.
Oh there were absolutely other “off ramps”, as you put it, since then.
No argument from me on that at all.
We are likely fast approaching another one of those this summer Phil.
It’s near the Mitch Marner Service Plaza I think!
Theres a kiosk in there that gets you a one way ticket out of town.
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, LindG1000 said:
Debates around Lafreniere versus Kreider may not be the issue here. Looking around the league, you can see that the 2020 draft class got railroaded by COVID game loss, and they're just figuring it out now. Stutzle and Lundell were the exceptions - and the reason is clear - they played overseas during the pandemic and didn't "lose the season" the way others did.
The 2020 class went off this year. Lafreniere, obviously, but Byfield, Raymond, Jarvis, Peterka, and maybe one or two others really made big impact steps forward. Then there are guys like Schneider, Guhle, Sanderson on D, and a few goalies to come, but it feels like this class was a year behind the curve.
That was definitely a big factor for all of those guys you mentioned.
-
1 hour ago, Pete said:
For them to move Kadri and not add a player that could actually defend should have gotten Dubas fired.
For me, it's that Tavares didn't address a need. They didn't need more offense. They needed defense and/or goaltending, and players that were hard to play against because they're soft.
So it's not that I disagree with your logic on the timetable, they just went after the wrong player who didn't fill a need for them. They chased the name.
They needed a stalwart stay at home guy on D for the top-4.
They needed a high quality 2C at an affordable price.
Those adds would’ve established that “core” everyone is looking for with Toronto.
They could’ve had both with perhaps still some money to spend.
They went for the shiny thing instead of filling two premium spots and still having money and flex.
In Summer of 2018, they could’ve acquired guys like Ekholm and Trochek and still had $2.5 million to spend.
And probably at not too bad a cost in assets either. Which they had to spend and could have done so without killing their roster.
Im saying a move like that was the move.
Not 1 huge signing.
But 2-3 lower level moves that manifest in a team that is better, deeper, and more versatile.
-
24 minutes ago, Phil said:
Appreciate that. I'm not trying to be flippant with how short my response is, but the counter to that is simple: You can't pick and choose when elite players become available. You move when they do and you figure things out once they're secured (just like the Rangers did with Panarin when they were also shitty). I can't blame them for not seeing how this could maybe/possibly go poorly six years later when they're facing the opportunity to go Matthews-Tavares-Kadri down the middle. On paper, that's a power move. Certainly a bigger power move than not trading woefully performing, high-priced wingers when they actually had the opportunity to.
But they didn’t need a 1C with droves of offense.
Or for that matter, another premium offensive forward.
They needed a true 2C, another top-4 D, a good quality bottom-6 forward and a goalie.
And in 6 years they couldn’t get those things.
Cause they ain’t got the paper to do it.
Guess what happened 6 years ago?
Oh… that’s right…. They gave Tavares 80 million bucks to be their top C when at that point, they had some kid by the name of Matthews who in his first 140 games had 75 goals, and was at the ripe old age of 21
-
21 minutes ago, Phil said:
That same cap space would have been available to them via trade if they moved Marner (and/or Nylander).
I just don't really see the reason to blame it all on him given how the biggest contract players have performed. Only one has truly, deservedly, been heavily criticized for being unable to play big stakes playoff hockey. Hint: it's not Tavares.
I’m not “blaming” anything on Tavares.
Certainly not putting it all on him.
I guess I should articulate better Phil, so here goes:
Their depth has been the issue. In the bottom-6.
But more importantly at DAnd Freddie Anderson is the best goalie they’ve had in I don’t know how long.
They’ve lacked quality players on D and depth, grit, and scoring punch in terms of guys who can really contribute in their bottom 6 for years.
Tavares is a top C
But they already had a better one in Matthews
Plus two premium wingers.
And they weren’t close 6 years ago.
Go get yourself a 2C and another top-4 D and maybe even a good bottom-6 forward for that money. Or maybe a goalie.
They could achieve that now by moving Marner or Nylander, yes.
Im saying that the best way to build around this core 6 years ago wasn’t by adding Tavares.
It was spending that cap space differently.
And if you’re asking for specifics, 6 years ago they had the cap space and the assets to go get many players who filled the roles they needed filled.-
1
-
-
15 minutes ago, Phil said:
The core you cited also needed to be paid. Namely Kadri and Hyman, who were direct casualties of the Tavares decision.
I guess I just don't understand your argument. It feels like you want to have your cake and eat it too, without ever having to actually use a single name to anchor any of it. Who were they going to pay instead of Tavares in order to get better?
I don’t know.
Neither do you.
They didn’t HAVE to pay any of them at that time.
Could’ve just let the young guys develop and go from there.
But with that cap space, who knows who might’ve been available to them. There’s so many possibilities
Im not suggesting a specific solution or player(s).Clearly it hasn’t worked with Tavares.
Stands to reason they might do things differently if they had another whack at that piñata
-
1 hour ago, Phil said:
In this scenario, what you're actually asking for them to do is keep Kadri (who was routinely getting suspended in the playoffs and basically run out of town for it). There was no cache of impact centers beyond Tavares they could have tapped into instead. That years' free agent class went:
Tavares
Fifty feet of crap
32-year-old Paul Stastny
38-year-old Joe Thornton
32-year-old Tyler Bozak
Everyone else.
Would keeping Kadri and Hyman have been better for them? Maybe. Probably. But it's unfalsifiable, and Marner's playoff performance is at the forefront of why fans want him gone.
I’m not at all suggesting that they keep Kadri
Im merely suggesting that the core I cited, for the most part, would have been better served by spending that money on 2-3 players, as opposed to 1 player named Tavares.
-
55 minutes ago, Phil said:
We're talking about two different timelines. I'm not saying they need to deal both, I'm saying they had two opportunities to "fix" this. Both times, arguably, they made the wrong call. Now they're gonna pay for it, dearly.
32 minutes ago, Morphinity 2.0 said:In a vacuum Tavares was fine. His contract was signed with the assumption the cap was going to increase by $4M or so ever year, which was a healthy assumption. No one foresaw a flat cap for 4 years due to a pandemic shutting down the season. Even Marner and Matthews were signed before all of that, under the same assumption.
As Phil said, not trading one of them to give them some breathing room is what has fucked them.
I get the argument you fine Gents are making…. But it’s misplaced and you’re missing the bigger point.
Go back to 2018 when they signed him.
Marner
Matthews
Nylander
Reilly
Kadri
Gardner
Kapanen
Johnnson
Hyman
Freddie Andersen
All already in house.
Then they spent 80 million on JT.
Instead of whacking that money up between 2-3 guys that could’ve been huge in their depth, which is what they’ve lacked.
Now they could have achieved that subsequent with a deal of Marner or Nylander.
Or they could have just not created the problem in the first place.
-
37 minutes ago, Phil said:
This. He's old and slow. This is just what happens to guys when they get to this point. He went like half the season with eight goals, or something like that.
He’s just a secondary scorer at this point.
The whole league knows it.
He’s playing out the string to break a record.
That’s all
-
Tavares was the mistake
Rangers-Hurricanes — Round Two General Series Thread
in New York Rangers
Posted
The only thing that will fix this is for the two of you to just take a long weekend up to Brokeback Mountain and see what happens.
You’ve clearly got it for each other, which is totally fine.
Love you both regardless.
But seriously… go do stuff in the forest together. Cause the rest of us can’t listen to this anymore.
Entertaining as it is… cause it is. But this affection you have for one another shouldn’t be denied.
Embrace it fellas!