GDT [RS] (#57) Rangers at Minnesota Wild — Streaking Down the Road [Trip]

[Pete]

3 minutes ago, Keirik said:

I’ll try to help you understand. Nope, Chytil, Kakko, Blais are not comparable with those guys. But again we beat Boston earlier with them in the lineup. Here, I’ll show ya the box score.

https://www.hockey-reference.com/boxscores/202111260BOS.html

look, no pp goals! 
 

taking our guys out of the lineup though that normally would be regulars promotes other guys that have no business being in the lineup into regular roles. Kakko is a much bigger miss than we want to admit. The only good thing was that it forced an elevation of Alf to RW top 6 which is where I believe he remains.

 

Cool one box score. That's why you don't get it. You cherry pick one off examples to prove your point. Look for trends. Like this. One box score doesn't prove your point.

 

Quote

 

 As for the last part. I take issue with this concept of us being an average team with an elite goalie because it’s absolutely wrong. Kreider is 3rd in the league in goals. Panarin is an elite player. Zibanejad is an elite two way player. Fox won a Norris. We like to give Alf shit but he’s coming around. Miller looks much better, Goodrow was a great pickup, Trouba looks great this year, I thought Kakko before injury looked better and better each game. Schneider is a keeper, Miller has been gaining confidence, etc.
 

theyre not average. They are a good team trending up. Two players on so away from elite but average is nuts to me. Just because today they need their best player to never have a night off doesn’t mean it’s going to be that way forever. 

 

Everything bolded is just commentary. Everyone agrees they need a mix of about 5-6 players for the playoffs. Something line a C, 2 RW, 1 BUG, 1-2 defense. The team can't score 5v5 (STILL!), and we're talking about flipping over 25% of it at the deadline, but we're also supposed to believe the team is good? No, it's not. It's an average team with some good (1-2 elite) players sprinkled in, they mostly produce on the PP, and then there is absolutely nothing down the lineup after that. That is not a good team. Good teams don't need the man advantage to score and don't need Vezina+++ performaces to win.

[Pete]

3 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

That's my point, though. It's not a perfect analogy because that team was incredibly deep, but the quality of their depth is what I'm after. The 2014 team had  guys like Fast, Moore, Boyle, Carcillo, Miller, and Pouliot in their bottom-six. Brassard was their third-line center. Most of these guys weren't big point-producers, but they neutralized the margins in ways that Gauthier, Chytil, Hunt, etc. simply can't.

 

That's why you have to pay more attention than to the record. I will ask again, how is the team good when we're flipping 25% of it for upgrades at the deadline?

[Keirik]

3 minutes ago, Pete said:

Cool one box score. That's why you don't get it. You cherry pick one off examples to prove your point. Look for trends. Like this. One box score doesn't prove your point.

 

Everything bolded is just commentary. Everyone agrees they need a mix of about 5-6 players for the playoffs. Something line a C, 2 RW, 1 BUG, 1-2 defense. The team can't score 5v5 (STILL!), and we're talking about flipping over 25% of it at the deadline, but we're also supposed to believe the team is good? No, it's not. It's an average team with some good (1-2 elite) players sprinkled in, they mostly produce on the PP, and then there is absolutely nothing down the lineup after that. That is not a good team. Good teams don't need the man advantage to score and don't need Vezina+++ performaces to win.

I do look for trends.  57 games of them. The trend is, we win nearly 70% of the time.

[Phil]

1 minute ago, Pete said:

 

That's why you have to pay more attention than to the record. I will ask again, how is the team good when we're flipping 25% of it for upgrades at the deadline?

 

Well, it goes back to what I said earlier about the difference between good and great. Great teams make far fewer moves, if any. But I can understand your objection to any descriptor that gives the team more credit than it probably deserves.

[Pete]

11 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

Well, it goes back to what I said earlier about the difference between good and great. Great teams make far fewer moves, if any. But I can understand your objection to any descriptor that gives the team more credit than it probably deserves.

It really comes down to the ranking. If you're 15th in most things, I'm gonna say you're average. But then you look at where they excel, and why they win, the goalie and the PP raise the curve.

[Phil]

Right. No disagreement. What I'm trying to argue is that if you are ranked, say, 15th in most things, and you improve your margins to be ranked, say, 12th, that's an improvement that can have a tangible and positive impact on your playoff chances.

[Keirik]

Why we win is unconventional. It’s not something you can do say 3-4 years in a row. But it is something that can work for a year and if we made some moves, the unconventional way of winning isn’t as necessary. See 10/11 Bruins however though that won unconventionally. They won because of Tim Thomas. Period. 
 

  The thing is, that unconventional way did help Boston also build a team that had the luxury to learn how to win in other ways.  Now they didn’t win another cup but they still made a couple more cup final appearances and even til this day have a good team at the tail end. The difference is though, we don’t have a 36 year old Thomas. We have a 26 year old one and our window is just starting to open.

[Pete]

22 minutes ago, Phil said:

Right. No disagreement. What I'm trying to argue is that if you are ranked, say, 15th in most things, and you improve your margins to be ranked, say, 12th, that's an improvement that can have a tangible and positive impact on your playoff chances.

[BrooksBurner]

Using last night as a launching point for “this is who we are”, where our backup goalie had a .705 sv % with 5 goals given up in the first 2 periods, is an off-base conclusion to draw from last night. Our goalie sucked. We didn’t need him to be all-world for this to be a competitive game. We just needed him to be competent. This was an anomaly. Not the norm.

[Pete]

41 minutes ago, Keirik said:

I do look for trends.  57 games of them. The trend is, we win nearly 70% of the time.

LOL, still just clinging to one proof point.

[Pete]

3 minutes ago, rmc51 said:

Using last night as a launching point for “this is who we are”,

Cool, no one did that.

 

Quote

where our backup goalie had a .705 sv % with 5 goals given up in the first 2 periods, is an off-base conclusion to draw from last night. Our goalie sucked. We didn’t need him to be all-world for this to be a competitive game. We just needed him to be competent. This was an anomaly. Not the norm.

 

Edited March 9, 2022 by Pete

[BrooksBurner]

1 minute ago, Pete said:

Cool, no one did that.

 

 

I see a lot of close games in the under .940 games. 8-5-3 including 3 regulation 1 goal losses? When our best player is “pedestrian” by his standards, we are still finding a way to be pretty decent and for the most part keep it competitive.

 

The Canes are 11-8-2 when Frederick Anderson is under .940. Looks like pretty similar results. Are they also too reliant on their goalie performing at an elite clip?

[Pete]

12 minutes ago, rmc51 said:

I see a lot of close games in the under .940 games. 8-5-3 including 3 regulation 1 goal losses? When our best player is “pedestrian” by his standards, we are still finding a way to be pretty decent and for the most part keep it competitive.

 

The Canes are 11-8-2 when Frederick Anderson is under .940. Looks like pretty similar results. Are they also too reliant on their goalie performing at an elite clip?

Where are the Canes in SA/G, HDCA/G, 5v5 goal differential, etc? What's their depth look like?

Edited March 9, 2022 by Pete

[fletch]

Montreal made a run to the Stanley Cup playoffs so if you make the playoffs you've got a chance.  In reality we don't have enough pieces to realistically compete with the Tampa Bays of the world.  I still think you need to get Lafreniere and Kakko meaningful playoff experience if you are holding out hope that they are going to develop into key cogs on the roster.  If you make acquisitions for the top two lines you are relegating them to supporting roles.  I don't agree with getting a rental for this year.  If you want to add a veteran under contract for another 2-3 years for one of the top lines I am OK with that, but really this team is only going to progress toward being a perennial contender if Lafreniere and/or Kakko develop.

[BrooksBurner]

10 minutes ago, Pete said:

Where are the Canes in SA/G, HDCA/G, 5v5 goal differential, etc? What's their depth look like?

Does it even matter? The bottom line is wins and losses here unless there’s an argument to be made that what Igor is doing is unsustainable.

 

Igor has a .940+ in 21 out of 37 games (57%). So well more than half the time he is posting that clip and the Rangers are 20-1-0 in them, with the only loss being the recent 1-0 regulation loss to Pittsburgh where Jarry stood on his head.

 

In a 7 game series, the numbers say Igor is on a pace to put up 4 games at a .940+ and the Rangers are likely to win all of them.

[Cash or Czech]

 

While Goergiev does in fact suck at the highest level of suckage, we also played like absolute garbage last night. Our high % scoring chances against are never this high, let alone being almost half of chances given up. Georgiev didn't bail us out like Shesterkin does, but with all of these charts I go through and post, we never give up that many high quality scoring chances. I hope they just take the L and bring a better effort moving forward, that's all you can learn from these. 

Also Adam Fox please get healthy soon.

[Pete]

15 minutes ago, Cash or Czech said:

 

While Goergiev does in fact suck at the highest level of suckage, we also played like absolute garbage last night. Our high % scoring chances against are never this high, let alone being almost half of chances given up. Georgiev didn't bail us out like Shesterkin does, but with all of these charts I go through and post, we never give up that many high quality scoring chances. I hope they just take the L and bring a better effort moving forward, that's all you can learn from these. 

Also Adam Fox please get healthy soon.

 

When a team turns in a performance like last night and you sit there and say "If Sheshty was in net, we'd have won"...Well yes that's the fucking point...If Shesty and only Shesty was in net, they may have won. Put Swayman, Anderson, any other Vez goalie in there and are they winning?

 

That's...not good.

Edited March 9, 2022 by Pete

[Pete]

21 hours ago, rmc51 said:

Does it even matter?

Of course it matters LOL. But if you're not willing to do the work I'll just accept that you know that data doesn't support your argument.

Quote

The bottom line is wins and losses here unless there’s an argument to be made that what Igor is doing is unsustainable.

 

Igor has a .940+ in 21 out of 37 games (57%). So well more than half the time he is posting that clip and the Rangers are 20-1-0 in them, with the only loss being the recent 1-0 regulation loss to Pittsburgh where Jarry stood on his head.

 

In a 7 game series, the numbers say Igor is on a pace to put up 4 games at a .940+ and the Rangers are likely to win all of them.

That might be the worst logic I've seen applied to this debate yet. At this point, I've got to step out.

[BrooksBurner]

7 minutes ago, Pete said:

Of course it matters LOL. But if you're not willing to do the work I'll just accept that you know that data doesn't support your argument.

That might be the worst logic I've seen applied to this debate yet. At this point, I've got to step out.

Cop out, but I accept your resignation.

[Pete]

I just have better things to do.