article: NHL Offseason by the Numbers: Which Teams Have Improved the Most (and Least)?

[Flynn]

I've never been a fan of Dom Luszczyszyn as I'm more of the mindset that analytics are a tool in the box rather than a religion.. Needless to say ol' Dom not a big fan of the off season so far.

 

27. New York Rangers

 

Wins Added: -3.6 wins

 

Salary Added: $1.1 million

 

In: Barclay Goodrow, Dryden Hunt, Sammy Blais, Patrik Nemeth, Ryan Reaves, Jarred Tinordi

 

Out: Pavel Buchnevich, Tony DeAngelo, Colin Blackwell, Philipp di Giuseppe, Brendan Smith, Brett Howden

 

No team had a more baffling offseason as the front office seems to have gone all-in on the tougher to play against mandate. The Rangers spent an extra $1.1 million to be nearly four wins worse. Not a single player brought in is a significant needle mover and that includes Barclay Goodrow who will look much worse when not playing next to Gourde and Coleman. Ryan Reaves, at this stage of his career, hurts much more than he helps while neither Sammy Blais nor Patrik Nemeth offers much value above replacement.

 

It’s a whole pile of nothing but toughness. It has a place, but the Rangers should prefer players who are actually good on top of being in tough, like Wilson, to solve their Wilson problem. They overpaid to curb a hyper-fixation on one player and arguably set the team back to do it.

 

The Rangers should still be in the playoff mix after this, they had a strong base to begin with, but they didn’t make things any easier for themselves trading away Pavel Buchnevich. That’s a legitimate top line forward traded for a low pick and someone who hits. Great work.

 

https://theathletic.com/2753099/2021/08/05/nhl-offseason-by-the-numbers-which-teams-have-improved-the-most-and-least-2/

[josh]

I can understand being disappointed in the Buchnevich return. I could understand being upset with the Goodrow contract. I might be able to see why someone wants to complain about the Reaves acquisition. But overall, there is no question that these moves absolutely addressed the Rangers issues in being hard to play against. So many bloggers want the Rangers to do a typical Rangers move and trade prospects for a big fish, but that's not what the team needs.

 

This doof even contradicts himself by saying the rangers will be in the playoff hunt - which they werent last season. So he can see the Rangers improved, but his stupid little charts can show that.

[ThirtyONE]

This is just so annoying and snarky. If this fool actually watched the games over the last two seasons, they'd know why the Rangers did this. Boiling it down to "the Tom Wilson problem" is just so fucking lazy and ignorant. Great work.

[fletch]

From a talent perspective, I have to agree with the article's premise. We have increased our toughness, and the hope is that with this infusion of toughness/veteran presence, a new coach/structure, that this will translate to more wins. But if you look at what the individuals are expected to produce on the ice, none of the additions will provide a substantial boost to offensive productivity.

[ThirtyONE]

From a talent perspective, I have to agree with the article's premise. We have increased our toughness, and the hope is that with this infusion of toughness/veteran presence, a new coach/structure, that this will translate to more wins. But if you look at what the individuals are expected to produce on the ice, none of the additions will provide a substantial boost to offensive productivity.

 

This premise is assuming that the only thing that matters when determining wins and losses is individual player stats... And, as we've seen, you can have three superstars put up a billion points and the team still stinks, so obviously there's more to it.

[Ozzy]

I can understand being disappointed in the Buchnevich return. I could understand being upset with the Goodrow contract. I might be able to see why someone wants to complain about the Reaves acquisition. But overall, there is no question that these moves absolutely addressed the Rangers issues in being hard to play against. So many bloggers want the Rangers to do a typical Rangers move and trade prospects for a big fish, but that's not what the team needs.

 

This doof even contradicts himself by saying the rangers will be in the playoff hunt - which they werent last season. So he can see the Rangers improved, but his stupid little charts can show that.

 

Toughness is a stat you can only seem to measure mentally.

 

We all knew, and even begged for this team to change that "one-way" finesse game we played for the last couple of seasons. We also knew that some guys had to get dealt to do that. Buchnevich was really the only casualty of any significance and I think not too many of us were surprised by that. I know I wasn't.

 

I don't know about you guys, but I'm fucking foaming at the mouth waiting to see this team play this year! ...Probably more than any year in recent memory.

 

Josh, you're right dude...Drury made the moves to fill the needs that addressed the main issue with this team. I'm cool with it, too!!

[Long live the King]

From a talent perspective, I have to agree with the article's premise. We have increased our toughness, and the hope is that with this infusion of toughness/veteran presence, a new coach/structure, that this will translate to more wins. But if you look at what the individuals are expected to produce on the ice, none of the additions will provide a substantial boost to offensive productivity.

 

The additions weren't intended to boost offensive productivity. The development of Laf, Kakko, and Krav will more than make up for the loss of Buch.

[RangersIn7]

That had to get tougher to play against.

They had to bring in some forwards who can play defensive hockey

They needed guys to bring physicality.

 

They added those things.

 

I don’t think anyone is happy about the return on Buch.

Nor should they be.

 

But the off-season isn’t done yet. I do believe more is to come so it’s too early to be entering grades and closing the book.

[LindG1000]

Yeah. It's worth noting that Dom's model LOVES Buchnevich, so basically the whole of his negative is "you subtracted Buch and did not add back". Buch in his model is like...2.5 of the 3.6 win gap; most of the rest is DeAngelo+Blackwell. He also considers Reaves and Tinordi below replacement - but they're not there for that.

[TwoMinutesForNothing]

Nailed it. Lost something good, added nothing good and Goodrow is just not a very good player who was fortunate enough to have just been a part of two cup teams.

[Pete]

Good thing they play the game on an ice sheet and not a spreadsheet.

[Long live the King]

Nailed it. Lost something good, added nothing good and Goodrow is just not a very good player who was fortunate enough to have just been a part of two cup teams.

 

Yea, just gifted two cups by playing 17-18 minutes a night in 40+ playoff games.

[Vodka Drunkenski]

The additions weren't intended to boost offensive productivity. The development of Laf, Kakko, and Krav will more than make up for the loss of Buch.

 

This, obviously it’s expected that the younger guys will increase their production. Especially with one or all getting more minutes with the subtraction of Buchnevich.

[josh]

I can understand hesitancy, but I have high hopes for Kakko, Lafreniere, Kravtsov... sucks losing Buch, but his stats can be replaced.

[Phil]

Good thing they play the game on an ice sheet and not a spreadsheet.

 

Seriously. It's amazing these models continue to get the press they do like they're some kind of unflappable prognostication.

 

You know who else scored poorly with Dom's model? Two of the final four teams in the playoffs last season. Funny how that works.

 

Oh, and just for shits and gigs, a bunch of fucking lottery teams added "wins" according to his model last year, too. The Devils (4.8 wins), The Wings (5.9 wins), etc. all scored "well." Look what good it did them.

 

Meanwhile, Montreal (0.5 wins) and the NYI (-1.7 wins) laughed all the way to the "Conference Finals."

 

It's almost like calculating every single player/team by a universal role of "scorer" is a shitty way to "model" a successful team, eh? Who'd have thought.

 

I hope the Ranger snuff out every analytics darling this year and punch their way to the Cup like the Ducks did, just to watch all these blue bar good red bar bad robots melt down.

[Pete]

Yea, just gifted two cups by playing 17-18 minutes a night in 40+ playoff games.

 

On the heels of Tampa being swept by CBJ the year before, specifically because they had no push back.

[Pete]

Seriously. It's amazing these models continue to get the press they do like they're some kind of unflappable prognostication.

 

You know who else scored poorly with Dom's model? Two of the final four teams in the playoffs last season. Funny how that works.

 

Oh, and just for shits and gigs, a bunch of fucking lottery teams added "wins" according to his model last year, too. The Devils (4.8 wins), The Wings (5.9 wins), etc. all scored "well." Look what good it did them.

 

Meanwhile, Montreal (0.5 wins) and the NYI (-1.7 wins) laughed all the way to the "Conference Finals."

 

It's almost like calculating every single player/team by a universal role of "scorer" is a shitty way to "model" a successful team, eh? Who'd have thought.

 

I hope the Ranger snuff out every analytics darling this year and punch their way to the Cup like the Ducks did, just to watch all these blue bar good red bar bad robots melt down.

 

It's amazing that he hasn't defended or adjust his model, either, and the rest of the shitbag writers at the Athletic just treat it like Gospel and write entire articles based on those stats, alone.

 

Talk about group think.

[Phil]

Complete hive mind, and it's numbingly regurgitated — again, like gospel — by the majority of Twitter users.

[Ozzy]

Seriously. It's amazing these models continue to get the press they do like they're some kind of unflappable prognostication.

 

You know who else scored poorly with Dom's model? Two of the final four teams in the playoffs last season. Funny how that works.

 

Oh, and just for shits and gigs, a bunch of fucking lottery teams added "wins" according to his model last year, too. The Devils (4.8 wins), The Wings (5.9 wins), etc. all scored "well." Look what good it did them.

 

Meanwhile, Montreal (0.5 wins) and the NYI (-1.7 wins) laughed all the way to the "Conference Finals."

 

It's almost like calculating every single player/team by a universal role of "scorer" is a shitty way to "model" a successful team, eh? Who'd have thought.

 

I hope the Ranger snuff out every analytics darling this year and punch their way to the Cup like the Ducks did, just to watch all these blue bar good red bar bad robots melt down.

 

You know what, Chief...

 

When I think back at all the past dynasty teams from years back, seems not too much has changed when it comes to the playoffs. Teams pretty much live or die based on their bottom 6. I think back to guys like Cournoyer, Lambert, Kindrachuk, Saleski, and even when I think back to the Islanders days they had Tonelli, and look who pots the big one in OT in '80...Fucking Bobby Nystrom.

 

This thing is all about chemistry, I still think.

 

...even the Red Wings when they had the Russian 5 had McCarty, Kocur...and Grimson ('97) for a little while.

 

It has to be a good mix, with a team having more than one way to win a game.....or it will eventually fizzle when it counts.

 

We're going to be a much more "involved" team this season, and I really see these kids having a little more innitiative to get their noses dirty knowing full well that they have one of the all time heavyweights behind them, along with a couple of others that are ready willing and able to throw down when needed. (Blais/Goodrow/Tinordi)

[RangersIn7]

It's amazing that he hasn't defended or adjust his model, either, and the rest of the shitbag writers at the Athletic just treat it like Gospel and write entire articles based on those stats, alone.

 

Talk about group think.

 

This is the inherent problem with advanced metric statical models.

They skew based upon what the designer places value on in many instances, and other areas are hard to quantify statistically, so they get little to no representation and value.

 

It’s just nonsense that uses mathematics as it’s cloak.

[LindG1000]

Seriously. It's amazing these models continue to get the press they do like they're some kind of unflappable prognostication.

 

You know who else scored poorly with Dom's model? Two of the final four teams in the playoffs last season. Funny how that works.

 

Oh, and just for shits and gigs, a bunch of fucking lottery teams added "wins" according to his model last year, too. The Devils (4.8 wins), The Wings (5.9 wins), etc. all scored "well." Look what good it did them.

 

Meanwhile, Montreal (0.5 wins) and the NYI (-1.7 wins) laughed all the way to the "Conference Finals."

 

It's almost like calculating every single player/team by a universal role of "scorer" is a shitty way to "model" a successful team, eh? Who'd have thought.

 

I hope the Ranger snuff out every analytics darling this year and punch their way to the Cup like the Ducks did, just to watch all these blue bar good red bar bad robots melt down.

 

It's amazing that he hasn't defended or adjust his model, either, and the rest of the shitbag writers at the Athletic just treat it like Gospel and write entire articles based on those stats, alone.

 

Talk about group think.

 

Complete hive mind, and it's numbingly regurgitated — again, like gospel — by the majority of Twitter users.

 

If only there were a long series of articles about the evolution of the model, what he got right and wrong and how he has adjusted his model in years past.

 

...you can guess where this is going.

[Dunny]

OK, virgin.

[Keirik]

If they traded Buch to elevate the you gins WITHOUT adding toughness and protection, they'd have been doing nothing. Telling the youngins "it's your time to take that step" without adding "and don't worry we have your back physically" would have been criminal and detrimental to their careers.

[Phil]

You know what, Chief...

 

When I think back at all the past dynasty teams from years back, seems not too much has changed when it comes to the playoffs. Teams pretty much live or die based on their bottom 6. I think back to guys like Cournoyer, Lambert, Kindrachuk, Saleski, and even when I think back to the Islanders days they had Tonelli, and look who pots the big one in OT in '80...Fucking Bobby Nystrom.

 

This thing is all about chemistry, I still think.

 

...even the Red Wings when they had the Russian 5 had McCarty, Kocur...and Grimson ('97) for a little while.

 

It has to be a good mix, with a team having more than one way to win a game.....or it will eventually fizzle when it counts.

 

We're going to be a much more "involved" team this season, and I really see these kids having a little more innitiative to get their noses dirty knowing full well that they have one of the all time heavyweights behind them, along with a couple of others that are ready willing and able to throw down when needed. (Blais/Goodrow/Tinordi)

 

The Lightning won their second Cup with their "third line" — "fourth liners" by Twitter standards — playing just shy of 20 minutes a night.

[Phil]

If only there were a long series of articles about the evolution of the model, what he got right and wrong and how he has adjusted his model in years past.

 

...you can guess where this is going.

 

And the average fan is meant to understand this without a degree in advanced mathematics? My fucking eyes glazed over just scrolling through this looking for the word "wrong."