So Why Are We Winning? Same Channel, Different Season?

[Valriera]

The team is off to an great start, so I went and dug into some stats. 

 

Last year: 4th in Ga/GP, this year, 2nd.

Last year: 12th in GF/GP, this year, 15th.

Last year: 7th on the powerplay, this year, 3rd. 

Last year: 13th on the PK, this year, 10th. 
Last year: 20th on F/O %, this year 2nd. 

 

Some fancy 5v5 stats:

SCF% last year: 51%, this year: 49%

HDCO% last year: 7.9 (league avg 9.9), this year: 8.2% (league avg  9.6)

 

It's hard to look at any of those and see such glaring differences and be like "yea, xyz is better so we're winning". Except faceoffs. Faceoffs are important, but are they really that important? Maybe they really are although the rest of the standings don't support that, with 1. PIT, 2. NYR, 3. SJS, 4. OTT, 5. TBL rounding out the top five (though it does get more correlation passed that). 

 

The only meaningful stat backed up by play I could find is this: 

 

Scoring Chances Against Last year: 1854 (league average 1854), this year: 364 (league average 407).

Blocked Shots/G Last year: ~14, this year: ~18 (almost 20% increase)

 

We have reduced the quantity of scoring chances against by roughly 10.5% against the league average this year compared to last year, which is highly significant. Our goalies are still playing out of their minds (large deltas against league averages of high danger scoring chances against in both seasons) but now they simply don't have as much difficult work to do, and in a lot of cases, that's the difference in a goal a game. 

 

There's no doubting the team is winning more games but the stats don't point to anything particularly different except one thing: team defense. I'd argue the team is more effective this year directly because of the defensive system implemented by the coach and because of the outsized contributions of Nick Bonino and Jonathan Quick. These two players have vastly outperformed their counterparts in similar roles last year on the defensive side of the ice. Bonino I don't think will regress, that is just how he plays, Quick will almost certainly regress from an outrageous .940 over several games. 

 

But I leave the question to the board. Why are we winning? To me, we're only stopping some pucks getting to the net. Is that really it?  

 

 

 

[Pete]

[Br4d]

Face-offs are important.  I think they're the biggest reason we're winning at the rate we are.

 

 

[Karan]

I don't, easier schedule perhaps? 9 out of their 14 wins have come against non-playoff teams. 

[Br4d]

The Rangers have been a sub-50% face-off team the last two seasons.  They're at 54.7 now.

 

They're averaging 5-6% more control off of the puck drops than they did the last two seasons when they were 100+ points both seasons.  I could easily see that being the biggest factor in their jump from good team to great this year.

 

Panarin shooting the puck more would be factor two for me and the overall defensive system would be factor three.

[BrooksBurner]

CF%, xGF%, HDCF% at 5v5 are all trash, which is what we saw the last two years.

 

Panarin started on a heater, and starting to cool down. PP started on a heater, and starting to cool down.

 

Given the sample size, the record is variance.

 

 

Edited November 24, 2023 by BrooksBurner

[siddious]

46 minutes ago, Pete said:

This guy 

[Pete]

1 hour ago, Karan said:

I don't, easier schedule perhaps? 9 out of their 14 wins have come against non-playoff teams. 

Non-playoff teams, this early, doesn't mean bad. Some of those teams might have been in playoff position when we played them. But something to keep an eye on.

 

If we didn't look at the record, this team is pretty much where we thought they'd be....Much better defensively, adjusting to a new system offensively, still good on the PP, the individual player's stats in some cases suffering (Zib), but other players chipping in more (Laf). The record is kind of gravy especially given the key injuries. Not many teams can do what the Rangers are without their #1D, 2C, and 1G for a time.

 

But forget the stats...The vibe is different. They go about their business. They start on time. They don't get rattled. They trust the process. They stand up for and play for each other.

 

You love to see it.

[RangersIn7]

51 minutes ago, Pete said:

Non-playoff teams, this early, doesn't mean bad. Some of those teams might have been in playoff position when we played them. But something to keep an eye on.

 

If we didn't look at the record, this team is pretty much where we thought they'd be....Much better defensively, adjusting to a new system offensively, still good on the PP, the individual player's stats in some cases suffering (Zib), but other players chipping in more (Laf). The record is kind of gravy especially given the key injuries. Not many teams can do what the Rangers are without their #1D, 2C, and 1G for a time.

 

But forget the stats...The vibe is different. They go about their business. They start on time. They don't get rattled. They trust the process. They stand up for and play for each other.

 

You love to see it.

The team defense and structure is the most notable thing.

 

They seem to actually have a system they’re playing and they’re buying in and adhering to it.

 

Take the metrics for what they are… to

me they’re important but not all-important.

It’s based on shot share, not ACTUAL POSSESSION. 

The shot share may shake out similarly, but they do seem to have much more in the way of true puck possession.

 

But clearly they’re giving up less, and overall team wide D is way better.

Not giving up 2 on 1 and breakaway chances like they were. 
And when they are hemmed in, they block way more shots and are more engaged physically. 
 

They’re being told what to do and listening.

And that pays dividends especially when you have talent.

[Pete]

11 minutes ago, RangersIn7 said:

The team defense and structure is the most notable thing.

 

They seem to actually have a system they’re playing and they’re buying in and adhering to it.

 

Take the metrics for what they are… to

me they’re important but not all-important.

It’s based on shot share, not ACTUAL POSSESSION. 

The shot share may shake out similarly, but they do seem to have much more in the way of true puck possession.

 

But clearly they’re giving up less, and overall team wide D is way better.

Not giving up 2 on 1 and breakaway chances like they were. 
And when they are hemmed in, they block way more shots and are more engaged physically. 
 

They’re being told what to do and listening.

And that pays dividends especially when you have talent.

Biggest issue last two years wasn't just lack of 5v5 OFFENSE, it was that they were bleeding shots against. Now they aren't. Offense will sort itself out. 

[Ozzy]

1 hour ago, Pete said:

Non-playoff teams, this early, doesn't mean bad. Some of those teams might have been in playoff position when we played them. But something to keep an eye on.

 

If we didn't look at the record, this team is pretty much where we thought they'd be....Much better defensively, adjusting to a new system offensively, still good on the PP, the individual player's stats in some cases suffering (Zib), but other players chipping in more (Laf). The record is kind of gravy especially given the key injuries. Not many teams can do what the Rangers are without their #1D, 2C, and 1G for a time.

 

But forget the stats...The vibe is different. They go about their business. They start on time. They don't get rattled. They trust the process. They stand up for and play for each other.

 

You love to see it.

 

Fucking yes!!! 

 

I'm totally loving the shit out of this team!

[fletch]

https://www.espn.com/nhl/story/_/id/39902929/nhl-new-york-rangers-playoffs-2024-stanley-cup-analytics-data

 

What Rangers' stats say about their potential in playoffs

 

'...The Rangers are a confounding team, and not just because they exited the postseason after one round in 2023. On the surface, they've been dominant in the standings and solid on both sides of the puck: Through 78 games, they were sixth in goals and seventh in goals against per game. But look under the hood and one finds a team whose 5-on-5 analytics are utterly pedestrian and in some cases below average.'

 

"The New York Rangers are a bit of an anomaly," said Meghan Chayka, co-founder of Stathletes.

 

'...As extraordinary as their special teams are, the Rangers' 5-on-5 play is a bit more concerning, analytically. "The Rangers have a very ordinary record this season of 5v5 chance generation," McCurdy said.'

 

'...Through 78 games, no team has had won more one-goal games than the Rangers (22), and no team has had a better winning percentage in those games than their 22-4-4 record.  Chayka noted that the Rangers have some shared DNA in that regard with last season's Presidents' Trophy winners, the Boston Bruins, who led the NHL in winning percentage in one-goal games and when trailing first."Their playoff fate might indicate something for the Rangers," she said, ominously, referencing the Bruins' shocking first-round loss last year.'

 

'...The Rangers also have feasted on the Metro Division this season.'

 

'...There's another key group that has Fraser a little more concerned: The defensive pairing of Adam Fox and Ryan Lindgren, long one of the NHL's most effective duos.

"What happened to them? The on-ice goal numbers are terrific, as usual, but that team is uncharacteristically getting out-chanced by a huge margin," he said. "Can Lindgren get back on track?"'

 

'...Kelly was a little concerned about the Rangers being a top-heavy team. Their top six scorers are all over 50 points on the season; no one else has had more than 30 points through 78 games.'

 

'...Stathletes gives the Blueshirts a 4.8% chance of winning the Cup, which is 11th-best among current playoff teams.  Kelly said the Rangers would be in his second tier as a Stanley Cup contender.  "I don't think they have fatal flaws, but it is a slippery slope when you rely so heavily on special teams and goaltending," he said. "But that doesn't mean you can't get to a Cup Final or even win the Cup."'

 

[Sharpshooter]

I think that's a fair analysis. Some may view the Rangers as kind of a paper tiger, and I don't disagree. It just depends if Panarin can keep going, how Laf continues to play, and Mika. If they are good, and Shesterkin is good, they will be fine. Then again, you can say the same thing about every other team in the postseason. Perhaps the Rangers have more questions than most, but when it comes to the NHL playoffs, really, anything can happen. It's basically a full on reset.

[Pete]

43 minutes ago, Sharpshooter said:

I think that's a fair analysis. Some may view the Rangers as kind of a paper tiger, and I don't disagree. It just depends if Panarin can keep going, how Laf continues to play, and Mika. If they are good, and Shesterkin is good, they will be fine. Then again, you can say the same thing about every other team in the postseason. Perhaps the Rangers have more questions than most, but when it comes to the NHL playoffs, really, anything can happen. It's basically a full on reset.

What you just said is that the Rangers are a paper tiger because they need their best players to play well in the playoffs to win. 

 

You can say that about 15 other playoff teams. 

 

I also don't see why anybody is saying the Rangers "feasted" on the Metro, a division with Boston and Carolina. Are they saying that the Canucks feasted on the Pacific? 

 

I'll continue to say, analytics are retrospective and not predictive. There are no analytics for this team playing any other team four to seven games in a row.

 

The same people saying regular season record against an opponent doesn't mean anything because the playoffs are different, are using regular season stats to predict what will happen in a best of 7 tournament. 

 

Here's what the ESPN article won't tell you that's really important in the playoffs... The Rangers don't have long losing streaks, they rarely lose to the same opponent back to back, and there's only handful of teams who have won the season series. That speaks to the incredible amount of preparation via coaching that this team is getting. They don't continue to try and play "their way"  which is what you saw under GG. They let the game come to them and they play the game The opponent wants to play, but they play it on their terms. If the opponent wants to open it up, they'll go east west. If the opponent wants to grind it out, they'll wait for their opportunities and they'll work on the power play. 

 

Basically, there's no game plan to play against the Rangers, unless your game plan is to shut down and MVP candidate and play mistake-free hockey. Would love to see the teams that can do that consistently over seven games, because I think this team can beat anybody in a series. It doesn't mean they will, but they certainly can. 

[Sharpshooter]

Well, I just mean they just need to be consistent is all. I think it's been a problem, that you never know what you're going to get from most of these guys. You look at a team like Tampa with Kucherov, Stamkos and Point, who are basically givens to produce in the playoffs. I don't know if you can say the same about our core. This year is the best Panarin as been in a Rangers uniform, so hopefully he continues to be a beast. I'm leaning towards yes. I don't think it's unfair to be very skeptical. I'm not big on analytics anyway, so I really don't care what these people say. They can beat anybody. The regular season isn't usually indicative of the postseason, but we've seen them do very well overall against the best the league has to offer.

[Pete]

2 minutes ago, Sharpshooter said:

Well, I just mean they just need to be consistent is all. I think it's been a problem, that you never know what you're going to get from most of these guys. You look at a team like Tampa with Kucherov, Stamkos and Point, who are basically givens to produce in the playoffs. I don't know if you can say the same about our core. This year is the best Panarin as been in a Rangers uniform, so hopefully he continues to be a beast. I'm leaning towards yes. I don't think it's unfair to be very skeptical. I'm not big on analytics anyway, so I really don't care what these people say. They can beat anybody. The regular season isn't usually indicative of the postseason, but we've seen them do very well overall against the best the league has to offer.

Thanks for clarifying, cuz there's definitely some nuance there. Of course every team needs their best players playing their best, but now I understand that your point is you're not confident that our best players will show up. 

 

Only time will tell. But if they don't, they shouldn't get any more chances. They've been given enough leash and it would be time to blow it up. 

[RangersIn7]

Whatever the analytics say, they’re of significantly less importance in the playoffs because it’s:

A) An extremely small sample size 

B) So much of the hockey you play is situational 

 

And, most importantly of all…

C) Individual games and their outcome matter so much more.

 

Example- You’re tied 1-1 in a series, and in game 3, you get out shot and out played but your goalie steals a game. 
 

Throw them out the window in the playoffs, where each game is it’s own thing and you just need to find ways to win.

[Sharpshooter]

Just now, Pete said:

Thanks for clarifying, cuz there's definitely some nuance there. Of course every team needs their best players playing their best, but now I understand that your point is you're not confident that our best players will show up. 

 

Only time will tell. But if they don't, they shouldn't get any more chances. They've been given enough leash and it would be time to blow it up. 

Yes. Obviously you're wanting and thinking Cup all the way, but anything less than a Conference Final appearance is a major disappointment, and should be viewed as such. I don't care how wide open the Conference may be. The leash should be shorter after last season's debacle in the playoffs.

[Sharpshooter]

Just now, RangersIn7 said:

Whatever the analytics say, they’re of significantly less importance in the playoffs because it’s:

A) An extremely small sample size 

B) So much of the hockey you play is situational 

 

And, most importantly of all…

C) Individual games and their outcome matter so much more.

 

Example- You’re tied 1-1 in a series, and in game 3, you get out shot and out played but your goalie steals a game. 
 

Throw them out the window in the playoffs, where each game is it’s own thing and you just need to find ways to win.

The NHL postseason is a true second season, maybe even more than any other sport. It's a literal reset of everything, is how I look at it.

[BrooksBurner]

The Rangers will likely lose if the other team stays out of the box. They will get caved in at 5v5 by most of the other playoff teams. As usual, they will rely on special teams opportunities and goaltending. We’ve already seen the last two years that the approach is not a general model for success, but it can still result in some success (ECF under Gallant). The Rangers winning would be an anomaly, just like making the ECF that year was. It doesn’t mean they can’t win, but there’s no reason to make out their chances to be more than they are.

[RangersIn7]

3 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

The Rangers will likely lose if the other team stays out of the box. They will get caved in at 5v5 by most of the other playoff teams. As usual, they will rely on special teams opportunities and goaltending. We’ve already seen the last two years that the approach is not a general model for success, but it can still result in some success (ECF under Gallant). The Rangers winning would be an anomaly, just like making the ECF that year was. It doesn’t mean they can’t win, but there’s no reason to make out their chances to be more than they are.

It depends on the opponent and the matchups and situations.

 

And they need their best players to be good

[Pete]

Like I said in another thread, if the Rangers win it all this will be the summer where most of the forum is happy yet some people will just be salty and say they got lucky. 

[Sharpshooter]

Lucky to a degree, I guess. This is still a very good team, and luck is something you create through hard work and resiliency which they have done in spades this year.

[Pete]

Nobody makes it through 4 rounds of best of seven play with only luck, nor does it happen without any luck at all.

[Sharpshooter]

To some Rangers fans the team either sucks and is unlucky or only good because they're lucky. lol