Pete

12 minutes ago, RangersIn7 said:

I’m of the opinion that in any playoff series that analytics don’t matter at all. 
Those are stats that matter and play well over the course of an 82-game, 6 month season. 
 

You can dominate a team in puck possession and shots and all that good stuff, and get goalied. 

Or just outplay a team at 5v5, but you take a bad penalty late in a tie game and they cash in and beat you. 
 

Or you make a horrible change on a PP and they come down and score short handed and take the momentum and the game from you.

 

Or you can lose one key matchup.

 

Or…

Or…

Or…

 

The only thing that matters in the playoffs is the ability of teams and coaches to find ways to win games. 

I completely agree.

I like the POV from that article because it's from an exec, a coach, and a player and how they view the numbers inclusive of analytics. 

POVs from guys like Dom who just stare at spreadsheets and make up models based on what they think is true don't carry as much weight IMO. 

Quote

If what we’ve seen through the regular season and first round of the playoffs holds, the Hurricanes will have the puck a lot more, they’ll generate more shots, more offensive zone time and more chances than New York, but that won’t be enough for them to win. The Rangers don’t need the volume of shot attempts and opportunities that the Hurricanes do to score. If Carolina is going to make this a series, its top offensive guys are going to have to be very good and better than they have been against the Rangers.

Quote

Canes’ penalty kill wasn’t as good against the Islanders as it was in the regular season (Carolina was 8-for-11 on the PK, 72.7 percent). Discipline is going to be crucial in this series because both power plays can bite you if you start taking penalties, the Rangers probably more than Carolina.

Quote

The Hurricanes have played that man-to-man on D for a long time and it’s brought them a lot of success, but not over the hump — you can break them down at times because once they lose a guy, it can be a bit of a scramble. And the Rangers have some skilled players who could force the issue there.

https://theathletic.com/5471828/2024/05/05/rangers-hurricanes-nhl-playoffs-predictions-odds?source=user-shared-article

Some great points made there, especially the first quote. 

Lots of "experts" pointing at how much "better" the Canes are at 5v5, despite naturalstattrick having Carolina at 30 more expected goals than the Rangers, they actually only scored three more at 5v5.

Carolina generates a lot at 5v5, but they don't cash at the same rate the Rangers do. The Rangers score at a much more efficient clip, they don't need as many chances to score as Carolina does. So this will be another series where xGF% isn't going to be very relevant. 

Amazing depth to this Rangers team, their 3rd line center leads the team in first round scoring! 7pts in 4 games! How are they underdogs?!?

15 minutes ago, Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc said:

Don't know yet, but it looks like he will.

 

 

11 hours ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

That was that person's first post. You're such a miserable person lmao

And yet here you are, in love with me anyway. Following me around like a little puppy dog. 

Toccchet's to lose. 

13 minutes ago, Red White and Brew said:

We can also recognize that Carolina plays a very aggressive forecheck that could give the Rangers trouble. It’s well known the Rangers are not a dominant 5v5 team and the Hurricanes are the one team that can go toe to toe with them on Special Teams. 

Some will point to the Rangers sweeping the regular season. Well that was true two years ago against the Lightning too and we lost in 6 after leading 2-0 in the series. 
 

The Hurricanes also acquired Guentzel at the deadline, who has lit up the Rangers throughout his career and could be the scoring threat they need to take the next step. 

 

Will give the Rangers the tie breaker based on the way Igor is playing of late and the relative health. Have to win at least 1 of the first 2. Win both and we probably win in 5. Want Panarin to keep shooting.

 

Whoever wins the series (and Eastern Conference) will certainly have earned it 

We can also recognize that You keep saying "we" Even though you're a hurricanes fan. 

But fuck the hurricanes. 

How do you like them apples?

40 minutes ago, Br4d said:

 

They didn't show up twice at the end of the season and were still playing for the President's Trophy in game 81 as a result.

I'm sure that's what it looked like for you, but I don't really agree. 

5 hours ago, Morphinity 2.0 said:

Knies is an animal.

For random shifts at a time, he's dope. 

5 hours ago, Br4d said:

We still had weeks this last season where the Rangers no-showed. 

A few weeks, in the middle of the season, that ultimately cost them nothing. Let's not act like you're pulling a lottery ticket every time they take the ice. 

Blake should be fired for this. Completely emptying the coffers in terms of talent and cap space for a guy who's previous 2 teams were more than happy to see him go is a massive miscue. 

Plus he traded Brock Faber for Fiala...just blunders all around. 

46 minutes ago, Blue Heaven said:

I hope he's wrong, I want a 3 PM game so I can go.  

 

I want a 3:00 p.m. game so I can go play in my own game that night. 

Nah. You know what team is going to show up. That inconsistent shit was a Hallmark of GG. Lavvy has them organized, prepared, and dialed in.

7 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

And see what happens? I know what will happen. He’ll try to give me the aids he got from another board member whose username rhymes with Albatross, and I’ll decline

 

You sound pretty jelly…“no cap” as the kids say these days

Funny, he said he got aids from you.

25 minutes ago, RangersIn7 said:

 

 

 

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!

 

 

 

Between him, and the guy that already gave him aids, they have a sick obsession with me.

40 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

I don’t create the narrative either. The linkage between 5v5 analytics and Cup winners is not something I conjured up myself. Hate the game, not the player.

 

Yeah, you keep repeating things that aren’t accurate or don’t actually refute anything, and you know that. Instead of recognizing the strong linkage between 5v5 analytics and Cup winners, you try to galaxy brain it why it’s totally different for this team. I don’t agree and your counter argument is flimsy. Deal with it!

Nah. Argument stands up just fine. Your attempt to discredit it just shows you don't actually have a counterpoint. 

But go on girl, do you. 

22 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

It’s not my view. I don’t make the stats.

You don't make the stats, but you create a narrative based on which you think are meaningful for the narrative, while simultaneously ignoring a ton of other metrics. Hence not seeing the forest for the trees.

Quote

The last two years you observed and recognized the same stats. This year you ignore them and pretend they don’t mean anything. I know why you do, and it’s funny.

You keep repeating this, and I keep repeating why it's different, and you keep ignoring it and pretending it doesn't mean anything. I know why you do, and it's funny.

What you also ignore is that by the time the playoffs started in each of the last 2 years, I've said the same thing I've said this year: Once your in it's a race to 16 wins and it doesn't matter how you get there.

You think it's too simple, yet that's what it is. It doesn't need to be complex.

26 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

the Rangers profile as a pretender.

In your view, maybe, because you're not seeing the forest for the trees.

They went first place wire to wire. They won a President's Trophy. They are a special teams juggernaut. They are deep. They are well coached. They have the best goalie left in the playoffs.

But sure, they don't pass some obscure analytical filter you're setting up.

1 hour ago, LindG1000 said:

 

 

The flaw with xGF as a ratio is that it fails to account for shot quality. So, when you have teams that are great at forecheck pressure and great at just...shooting pucks, they're going to hold the xGF% every single time. And truthfully - having the puck, pressuring puck carriers, shooting the puck - these are generally things that help you control a game and win them.

 

Think about how xGF "accrues" throughout a game - look at the way Vally pushes that data, for example. The "Corsi Canes" love, and I mean love, to shoot the puck. We've heard the term "chuckers" a few times here, and that might be accurate. An "everything to the net" approach is great for accruing low-danger xGF - those only really become high-danger chances when there's a rebound, so the Canes get in the zone, shoot low, and crash the net. And they maybe do this 30 times a game, so let's say that's .05 xGF a chance with three spiking into mid-high danger - those moments ALONE accrue ~1.7 xGF. It's a really smart formula, and it works often, but even if you consider the Islanders series - they needed goalie mistakes to get out of the series in 5, because that's how the system works.

 

So, yeah, of course, they're going to hold that "constant" 55%-45% xGF advantage - but when you can keep them off the counter and keep them to the outside, you're not going to have to worry about that advantage because it's volume shooting at low-quality and you've got Igor back there.

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.

9 hours ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

Of course it makes sense, you just don't like seeing your north star stat crumbled. 

12 minutes ago, Abe Froman said:

Oilers are 9 for 18 on power plays this series. That's insane.

Feels like the Rangers penalty kill. 

3 hours ago, RodrigueGabriel said:

I'm still trying to get my mind around the expected goals stuff. How's this for a paradox? NYR played 3 games against CAR this season. In the 1st and 3rd, they were well underwater for 5v5 xGF% (40.22 and 41.70) and in the 2nd they cleared 50% (50.39) according to NST. 

 

Except they won the 1st and 3rd games 2-1 and 1-0 respectively and lost the 2nd 6-1 (which was during the Rangers' January slump). So, when they had the best xGF%, they got completely blown out, while at a significant xGF% deficit they won 2 gutty defensive slogs (as I remember them) where the two teams were roughly even in high danger chances at 5v5 (8-8 and 10-11).

 

In the 1st game (11/2), NYR and CAR each had a PPG and Cuylle scored the only other goal at 5v5. Total SOG were 27-26 CAR. In the 3rd (3/12), Fox scored the only goal of the game at 5v5 and the Rangers were outshot 28-24. So it's not like Igor had to stand on his head and make 45 saves in either game.

 

The Rangers were 5-2 vs COL, CAR and DAL, three of the top five NHL teams in xGF%. That's roughly the same winning% vs that group as the rest of the league. Their 2 best games for 5v5 xGF% - by a fairly wide margin - were the two they lost, by 6-3 and 6-1 margins.

 

Go figure.

 

There is something about what makes the Rangers good at winning hockey games that is not captured by these numbers - whether or not xGF% has correlated to success. We'll see if it plays out differently in the Playoffs. 

 

Here's the easy answer, that stat is a nice retrospective to kind of get a sense of who carried play, but it is in no way an indicator of who will win a future game. 

Anyone who's using that stat as a predictor of how a series will go is doing it wrong. In that sense, it's pointless. 

8 minutes ago, Br4d said:

 

So Rempe doesn't start and the Rangers lose game one and Laviolette has to deal with that pressure now also.

 

The easy answer is start Rempe and then if he creates conditions where you want Chytil instead you dress Chytil instead.

 

This team looks different when Rempe is playing.

Rempe should play the home games, unless he's ridiculously out over his skis in game one.

3 minutes ago, phillyb said:

These guys are in the middle of a fucking playoff run. Why is this coming out now? Seems weird. Also, word - say no to NJ, Rod. 

Because fuck the Canes.

33 minutes ago, siddious said:

Not really a vote of confidence 

He still had a year on his deal, according to Elliot, so this gives him another year. At the end of this contract he will have been the Lightning's coach for close to 14 years. 

I think this makes sense. One of the reasons why he was so successful when he came in is because he coached a lot of the Tampa players in the AHL. That's not the case anymore, and his message may start to lose its impact as the veterans go out and the young players come in.

There's not really a reason to sign him longer than that. They can always extend him again.