GDT [RS] (#16) Rangers vs Montreal Canadiens — Bunch of Guys Eat Poutine

[Shane Falco]

9 minutes ago, ThirtyONE said:

Some people just absolutely refuse to enjoy anything. I'll never understand it. 

Rangers are fucking sick, man. They're fun to watch. What more do you want (other than to be right about a take you had months ago that nobody cares about)?

 

[josh]

12 minutes ago, Drew a Penalty said:

What do you mean Rooney/McKegg doesn't matter? Yes it does. They're not the same player. Their contributions aren't equivalent.

What scoring chances? The ones that NaturalStatTrick literally says they get.

The links show practically the same stats, in a different order. They include w/ and w/o for that reason.

 

Maybe I am looking at something else... the eye test shows no scoring chances (which is NOT the same as forechecking or offensive zone time) and the link you provide shows they are getting beat in SCF% in every combination except went Hunt is away from them.

[Drew a Penalty]

5 minutes ago, josh said:

The links show practically the same stats, in a different order. They include w/ and w/o for that reason.

 

Maybe I am looking at something else... the eye test shows no scoring chances (which is NOT the same as forechecking or offensive zone time) and the link you provide shows they are getting beat in SCF% in every combination except went Hunt is away from them.

You're trying to evaluate the effectiveness of the lines as a unit, right? So, no, the stats aren't equivalent.

McKegg has 5:45 played with Hunt and Reaves compared to Rooney's 66:55. In those nearly 6 minutes played, McKegg's 4th line had equivalent shooting opportunities but 2 scoring chances versus 1 for. Of those 2 scoring chances, 1 was high danger and led to a goal.

Hunt-Rooney-Reaves has -14 CF differential but CF is comprised of goals, shots, blocks and misses. When we look at SF, goals and shots without misses and blocks, they're 34 SF and 32 SA. What that means is 19 attempts were blocked and another 18 missed against while 11 of their shots were blocked and 10 missed. That tells us that while other teams attempt more opportunities, the Rangers fourth line is better at getting shots on net than opposition without wasting chances.

Let's take a look at SCF. They're negative in SCF by -6 chances against. That's not great, but that's not a disparity that can't be overcome. What's encouraging is their HDCF. Of their 27 scoring chances, 14 of them have been considered high danger versus 10 high danger against on 33 chances. Their xGF% is positive and their PDO .938 which implies that they've been unlucky. So, yeah, they're actually pretty good at generating offense in addition to zone time.

[josh]

31 minutes ago, ThirtyONE said:

Some people just absolutely refuse to enjoy anything. I'll never understand it. 

Rangers are fucking sick, man. They're fun to watch. What more do you want (other than to be right about a take you had months ago that nobody cares about)?

Which opinion that I posted on a forum are you criticizing now?

[josh]

5 minutes ago, Drew a Penalty said:

You're trying to evaluate the effectiveness of the lines as a unit, right? So, no, the stats aren't equivalent.

McKegg has 5:45 played with Hunt and Reaves compared to Rooney's 66:55. In those nearly 6 minutes played, McKegg's 4th line had equivalent shooting opportunities but 2 scoring chances versus 1 for. Of those 2 scoring chances, 1 was high danger and led to a goal.

Hunt-Rooney-Reaves has -14 CF differential but CF is comprised of goals, shots, blocks and misses. When we look at SF, goals and shots without misses and blocks, they're 34 SF and 32 SA. What that means is 19 attempts were blocked and another 18 missed against while 11 of their shots were blocked and 10 missed. That tells us that while other teams attempt more opportunities, the Rangers fourth line is better at getting shots on net than opposition without wasting chances.

Let's take a look at SCF. They're negative in SCF by -6 chances against. That's not great, but that's not a disparity that can't be overcome. What's encouraging is their HDCF. Of their 27 scoring chances, 14 of them have been considered high danger versus 10 high danger against on 33 chances. Their xGF% is positive and their PDO .938 which implies that they've been unlucky. So, yeah, they're actually pretty good at generating offense in addition to zone time.

what I'm saying is all that is on the link I sent. Not sure why you are caught up on the link

Dryden Hunt

w/o Greg McKegg

Ryan Reaves

[Drew a Penalty]

1 minute ago, josh said:

what I'm saying is all that is on the link I sent. Not sure why you are caught up on the link

Dryden Hunt

w/o Greg McKegg

Ryan Reaves

You're not interpreting the information properly so you're not saying anything.

[josh]

1 minute ago, Drew a Penalty said:

You're not interpreting the information properly so you're not saying anything.

maybe my posts have been unlucky. xPostF%

 

"Theyre generating more offense.. .it just doesnt show on the stats or during the game"

Again, not the conversation I was getting into. The line can certainly be better and needs to show up when its not New Jersey or Montreal. These guys were brought in for playoffs and big games against top teams. Let's hope the play from the last few games continues. Toronto should be another good test.

[Drew a Penalty]

5 minutes ago, josh said:

maybe my posts have been unlucky. xPostF%

 

"Theyre generating more offense.. .it just doesnt show on the stats or during the game"

Again, not the conversation I was getting into. The line can certainly be better and needs to show up when its not New Jersey or Montreal. These guys were brought in for playoffs and big games against top teams. Let's hope the play from the last few games continues. Toronto should be another good test.

Then what was the conversation you were getting into?

You literally said:

Quote

 I dont see this line as a tone setter. Sure, theyll have 1 or 2 shifts a game where they are in the offensive zone, but I cant remember a single scoring chance that line has had. Rooney scored once. McKegg and Reaves still with 0 points, all minus players.

There have certainly been games where this line was a detriment. I dont expect a 4th line to score every game, but they need to contribute. They arent hard to play against either. Sure, Reaves throws a hit, but the majority of the game he's chasing the puck. He looks like a 7 year old that hasnt figured out that he'll never catch up when the guys pass the puck around.

You said they don't generate scoring chances. They do. Higher quality chances than their opposition.

My eye test disagrees with your eye text because I think they look pretty good. That's confirmed to me by the fact that they're generating equal shots for, not attempts. I know that they haven't scored any goals as a unit but that's probably coming considering the chances they generate. They're also annoying enough that they have a combined 13 penalties drawn (Rooney 5, Reaves 5, Hunt 3). So they're clearly hard enough to play agains that they're getting under oppositions skin to draw penalties.

I'm not concerned about this line. Should they be more productive? Yes. Are they generating chances that should've led to that production? Yes. So what's the complaint here? 

[Phil]

36 minutes ago, josh said:

Which opinion that I posted on a forum are you criticizing now?

Yes.

[josh]

31 minutes ago, Drew a Penalty said:

Then what was the conversation you were getting into?

You literally said:

You said they don't generate scoring chances. They do. Higher quality chances than their opposition.

My eye test disagrees with your eye text because I think they look pretty good. That's confirmed to me by the fact that they're generating equal shots for, not attempts. I know that they haven't scored any goals as a unit but that's probably coming considering the chances they generate. They're also annoying enough that they have a combined 13 penalties drawn (Rooney 5, Reaves 5, Hunt 3). So they're clearly hard enough to play agains that they're getting under oppositions skin to draw penalties.

I'm not concerned about this line. Should they be more productive? Yes. Are they generating chances that should've led to that production? Yes. So what's the complaint here? 

A few tweaks and they could be much better, including having an identity, setting a tone, and scoring a few goals. If they are not scoring and not killing penalties, they will need to do a bit more, especially against top opponents. 

I think the 4th line has been so putrid the last few seasons that we see these guys and think "great! They forechecked, hot someone, and there's no Howden!"

[josh]

30 minutes ago, Phil said:

Yes.

 

[Scott]

Reavo saying who wants some more of this?

 

Dad of the year yelling walk it off. #clown

 

Edited November 17, 2021 by jsrangers

[Drew a Penalty]

4 minutes ago, josh said:

A few tweaks and they could be much better, including having an identity, setting a tone, and scoring a few goals. If they are not scoring and not killing penalties, they will need to do a bit more, especially against top opponents. 

I think the 4th line has been so putrid the last few seasons that we see these guys and think "great! They forechecked, hot someone, and there's no Howden!"

Given what I’ve seen and what the stats say, I think time will help more than tweaks. Rooney and Hunt play games that complement each other as both are slightly more skilled than the average fourth liner but still well below playing in the top nine. Rooney is on the first PK unit. Hunt gets spot opportunities. So they’re capable of contributing there. It’s really just offense that they’ve missed out on.

I’ll agree that the pressure from them hasn’t been consistent enough but what’s the barometer we’re setting? They’re not the Islanders 4th line. Nothing else is. But they’ve gotten better as the season has progressed and we’re only 16 games into the season. I don’t think there’s an alternative available with Blais out and he quickly played himself to a bigger role.

[ThirtyONE]

1 hour ago, josh said:

Which opinion that I posted on a forum are you criticizing now?

I didn't quote you. The comment was not left after yours. I'm talking to the wider, whiney base of complainers as a whole. You want to lump yourself into that pile, go ahead.

[Karan]

3 hours ago, siddious said:

Incidentally I was just thinking how much Goodrow has grown on me since the first few games. Over paid? yes probably but hardly a guy I am ever going to complain about.

He'll grow on you even more in the playoffs (when they get there). 

[Albatrosss]

1 hour ago, ThirtyONE said:

I didn't quote you. The comment was not left after yours. I'm talking to the wider, whiney base of complainers as a whole. You want to lump yourself into that pile, go ahead.

Keep walking. You want a rah-rah, everyone sucks each others dicks forum, go attend a Trump rally. 

[Pete]

3 hours ago, ThirtyONE said:

Some people just absolutely refuse to enjoy anything. I'll never understand it. 

Rangers are fucking sick, man. They're fun to watch. What more do you want (other than to be right about a take you had months ago that nobody cares about)?

The Rangers aren't sick.

They are fun to watch tho.

They get chances but aren't scoring, they bleed chances but aren't getting scored on (thanks Shesty!)

They are entertaining but they're not good. Those things aren't diametrically opposed, you don't have to be boring to be good...but being exciting also doesn't make you good.

So far this season, when I look at the most fun games to watch, they've been against bad teams. Last night included. And it was still close. 

[ThirtyONE]

4 minutes ago, CCCP said:

Keep walking. You want a rah-rah, everyone sucks each others dicks forum, go attend a Trump rally. 

I think my brain just exploded.

I love how the complainers think just because it's a forum, that give them and them alone carte blanche to voice their opinions, but when called out for being negative all the time they tell people to "keep walking." 

You voiced your opinion, prepare for push back. It is after all a forum, no?

[Albatrosss]

7 hours ago, Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc said:

If he'd headshot Subban and get a 5 minute major that made them lose the game you would be pissed aswell. I understand that you may want him to do more, but he's being smart about it aswell. We play Wilson and Subban many times, why go for it right away? Let it be in the back of their heads for a while before going for the kill. Just like a predator.

And how is he being a clown? The team seems to love him, the coach love him, the media loves him, most of the fanbase loves him. Just bacause you don't like his attitude he's a clown?

What was he brought here to do? Forecheck? He’s not deterring anyone from taking liberties with his teammates. Subban injured two players in two games, and one of them is out for the season. Did Reaves deter him? And yes he should’ve bashed Subban’s face in for what he did to Reaves himself and to Blais. Yes, we might’ve lost that game but would’ve won a lot more in the long run because opposing players would thought twice about slewfooting and running our goalies. 
 

 

[Albatrosss]

2 minutes ago, ThirtyONE said:

I think my brain just exploded.

I love how the complainers think just because it's a forum, that give them and them alone carte blanche to voice their opinions, but when called out for being negative all the time they tell people to "keep walking." 

You voiced your opinion, prepare for push back. It is after all a forum, no?

You started with personal attacks. Dont like someone’s opinion, either be an adult and have a conversation or ignore. 

[Keirik]

5 hours ago, Pete said:

The Rangers aren't sick.

They are fun to watch tho.

They get chances but aren't scoring, they bleed chances but aren't getting scored on (thanks Shesty!)

They are entertaining but they're not good. Those things aren't diametrically opposed, you don't have to be boring to be good...but being exciting also doesn't make you good.

So far this season, when I look at the most fun games to watch, they've been against bad teams. Last night included. And it was still close. 

It’s funny. Seems like there are two camps on opposite ends for the same reasons. Camp one is saying “fuck it who cares, look where we are and look where we used to be in prior years.” Camp two is saying “ great I’m happy for where we are but look at how lucky we aren’t where we used to be.” 
 

    I can see both. I tend to think of it as we are very fortunate that our many mistakes haven’t led to losses. That’s totally a positive because we all know we can grow. Remember, this team has had spurts in the last two years at separate times where we unlocked success mid to late season . Under our new coach we have unlocked success day 1 basically. I see that as positive gains because we are growing. Shesty is saving us in quite a few games just as much as the opposition is not punishing us in quite a few games. However, we are going to grow on that. I have the utmost faith that our current coaching staff has the ability to see the problems and guide us through to further success.

 

LGR! 

[Pete]

1 hour ago, Keirik said:

It’s funny. Seems like there are two camps on opposite ends for the same reasons. Camp one is saying “fuck it who cares, look where we are and look where we used to be in prior years.” Camp two is saying “ great I’m happy for where we are but look at how lucky we aren’t where we used to be.” 
 

    I can see both. I tend to think of it as we are very fortunate that our many mistakes haven’t led to losses. That’s totally a positive because we all know we can grow. Remember, this team has had spurts in the last two years at separate times where we unlocked success mid to late season . Under our new coach we have unlocked success day 1 basically. I see that as positive gains because we are growing. Shesty is saving us in quite a few games just as much as the opposition is not punishing us in quite a few games. However, we are going to grow on that. I have the utmost faith that our current coaching staff has the ability to see the problems and guide us through to further success.

 

LGR! 

I guess it's all perspective, I don't believe success and results are the same thing. 

They have had positive results, but there are very few successes beyond individual performances.

20th in GF/GP, 21st in GA/GP, 30th in shots for, 7th worst in shots against.

There is no discernible difference between how they play now under Gallant versus how they played under Quinn. The main difference is personnel, which has nothing to do with coaching when the personnel are largely being deployed the same as they were last year and facing the same problems they faced last year. Can anyone sit there and say that this team is harder to play against because they have a new coach now? I'm not seeing "coaching" falling into the "improvements from last year" bucket.

They're a disorganized team that is feasting on other disorganized teams at the moment, and we all know that's kind of unsustainable over a full season and playoffs.

What I find funny is there was a Rangers under Torts team who basically went wire to wire as a president's trophy team, and a lot of people complained about that team when it was actually a good team, specifically because they weren't "fun to watch".

I just think it's a case of your mileage may vary... And how you measure success. If success for you means the team is fun to watch, that's a valid point, but we shouldn't say the team as good when they're at the bottom of the league in most statistical categories.

 

[RJWantsTheCup]

Everyone can discuss whether the team is a good team or lucky team, whether they are a fun team or not, but the main thing is the standings and right now that says they are a good team.  If it's sustainable or not the way they are playing is a whole other question.  It more than likely isn't, but I don't think they've played their best yet either.

[Pete]

1 minute ago, RJWantsTheCup said:

the standings and right now that says they are a good team

Well that's the debate isn't it?

The standings say they've beaten the teams in front of them, not that they're a good team. 

I'd actually argue that the stats column say if a team is good or not. At this point of the season I'll take a team performing well and losing over a team eeking out wins.

[RichieNextel305]

Brendan Gallagher may be the dumbest player in the league.

Basically said Goodrow sold the call and that some players have too much pride than to pull what Goodrow did there.

Hey dumbass. You wear a letter for one of the most prestigious franchises in the sport. You’re down a goal late in the 3rd. Sell job or not, you can’t just sucker punch someone and expect a no-call. He ended the game for the Habs because Goodrow got under his skin; just call it for what it is.

How a dumb fuck like this whiny little dwarf even wears a letter is absolutely beyond me. 

Edited November 18, 2021 by RichieNextel305