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

[Ozzy]

"I'd rather be lucky than good"   ...my favorite quote on the golf course!

 

We can use some luck, and I could give a shit ...as long as we win it all!

[Valriera]

The team sucks at 5v5 and is tops at literally everything else. 
 

thanks I’ll take it 

[Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc]

Just now, Valriera said:

The team sucks at 5v5 and is tops at literally everything else. 
 

thanks I’ll take it 

Yeah, it’s the same team they’ve been for the last 3 years. Great PP, solid PK and a great goalie. The coaching staff was supposed to magically fix the 5v5 problems according to some people in here, we see now that they haven’t.

 

That’s not to say this isn’t a good team capable of winning it all with a bit luck, just like in 2022.

[Sharpshooter]

There might have been some luck involved in 2022, but the main reason they accomplished what they did was because Shesterkin had an all-time goalie type of season. He was ridiculous that year.

[BrooksBurner]

1 hour ago, Pete said:

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. 

If you win the lotto, it would not be salty to call it lucky. It’s just the truth.

 

1 hour ago, Pete said:

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

 

 

Every team requires luck, yes. The difference is the amount of luck required.

[Flynn]

Cups last forever.. I don't care if we have to beg, borrow, or steal to get it.. I hope we get every bounce, break, and missed call possible nd are considered the luckiest team in the history of sport. I will smile and be sustained by the tears of all other fanbases.  

[BrooksBurner]

37 minutes ago, Sharpshooter said:

There might have been some luck involved in 2022, but the main reason they accomplished what they did was because Shesterkin had an all-time goalie type of season. He was ridiculous that year.

The Rangers got obliterated at 5v5 in each series. Igor almost singlehandedly won them the Carolina series, and he almost did it against Tampa too.

[Pete]

55 minutes ago, Valriera said:

The team sucks at 5v5 and is tops at literally everything else. 
 

thanks I’ll take it 

They don't even suck. They're right in the middle. 

[Pete]

52 minutes ago, Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc said:

Yeah, it’s the same team they’ve been for the last 3 years. Great PP, solid PK and a great goalie. The coaching staff was supposed to magically fix the 5v5 problems according to some people in here, we see now that they haven’t.

 

That’s not to say this isn’t a good team capable of winning it all with a bit luck, just like in 2022.

This is not the same team, and if you think that then you haven't been watching. 

 

They've cut down about 1.5 high danger chances against per game since last season. That's significant.

 

Also, the team under GG couldn't win a game where they weren't getting .920+ goaltending and a PPG. That's no longer the case. They've suffered power play droughts and goaltending slumps, yet they still won consistently more than they lose.

[Pete]

21 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

If you win the lotto, it would not be salty to call it lucky. It’s just the truth.

 

 

 

Every team requires luck, yes. The difference is the amount of luck required.

This isn't the lottery so it's a false premise. 

 

There are some people who just want to beat the drum that the team is bad (Even though they're really just average in one statistic that everyone is hanging their hat on, 5v5 xGF%, Even though they're pretty much above board in every other statistic that matters), so even when the team goes wire to wire as a top team in the league and then goes on to win the Stanley Cup there will still be those who just say they were lucky for 6 months.

 

God bless luck. 

[Br4d]

34 minutes ago, Pete said:

This isn't the lottery so it's a false premise. 

 

There are some people who just want to beat the drum that the team is bad (Even though they're really just average in one statistic that everyone is hanging their hat on, 5v5 xGF%, Even though they're pretty much above board in every other statistic that matters), so even when the team goes wire to wire as a top team in the league and then goes on to win the Stanley Cup there will still be those who just say they were lucky for 6 months.

 

God bless luck. 

 

I don't know where the term "bad" comes from.

 

Right now the Rangers are a good team that is getting very lucky and has the best record in the NHL as a result.

[Valriera]

1 hour ago, Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc said:

Yeah, it’s the same team they’ve been for the last 3 years. Great PP, solid PK and a great goalie. The coaching staff was supposed to magically fix the 5v5 problems according to some people in here, we see now that they haven’t.

 

That’s not to say this isn’t a good team capable of winning it all with a bit luck, just like in 2022.

 

Very different team than the last three years mainly around defense in our own zone which, let's be honest, was the only real adjustment Gallant needed to actually make and never did. We won most of the year on top of below league average goaltending because of that

 

But if the spirit is "not much has changed" then you're right, but I don't think much needed to change except defense and attitude.

[BrooksBurner]

40 minutes ago, Pete said:

This isn't the lottery so it's a false premise. 

 

There are some people who just want to beat the drum that the team is bad (Even though they're really just average in one statistic that everyone is hanging their hat on, 5v5 xGF%, Even though they're pretty much above board in every other statistic that matters), so even when the team goes wire to wire as a top team in the league and then goes on to win the Stanley Cup there will still be those who just say they were lucky for 6 months.

 

God bless luck. 

 

Fine. It's like playing poker then.

 

You can errantly reduce it to one statistic. That's your prerogative. 5v5 across the board is not one statistic though even if you want it to be. 80+% of the game is played at 5v5. It kind of matters. A lot.

[fletch]

3 hours ago, Pete said:

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. 

Most of your points are valid, just Boston isn't in the Metro.

 

Carolina is the only good team in the Metro other than the Rangers... so good on the Rangers for taking advantage of the weak division.  Agreed that the Canucks are fortunate in the Pacific.

 

The Atlantic is solid with Boston, Florida, Toronto, and Tampa, and the Central isn't far behind with Dallas, Colorado and Winnipeg.

 

When reading articles on the Rangers - authors tend to cover their ass.  The Rangers could win the Cup... or lose in the first round.  True, and the same for every team.

 

Regular season prepares teams for the playoffs, but largely all 16 playoff teams are starting a new season when staring at their first round playoff opponent. There's a big difference between a 7 game series and the regular season when you're (mostly) seeing a different opponent every couple days and just trying to play solid hockey to rack up points.

Edited April 11 by fletch

[Pete]

33 minutes ago, fletch said:

Most of your points are valid, just Boston isn't in the Metro.

 

Embarrassing brain cramp. Thanks for catching that. 

 

Quote

Carolina is the only good team in the Metro other than the Rangers... so good on the Rangers for taking advantage of the weak division.  Agreed that the Canucks are fortunate in the Pacific.

 

The Atlantic is solid with Boston, Florida, Toronto, and Tampa, and the Central isn't far behind with Dallas, Colorado and Winnipeg.

 

When reading articles on the Rangers - authors tend to cover their ass.  The Rangers could win the Cup... or lose in the first round.  True, and the same for every team.

 

Regular season prepares teams for the playoffs, but largely all 16 playoff teams are starting a new season when staring at their first round playoff opponent. There's a big difference between a 7 game series and the regular season when you're (mostly) seeing a different opponent every couple days and just trying to play solid hockey to rack up points.

Agree with this, so wondering why we're using regular season stats especially analytics to predict the future? 

 

I'd also argue that who's "good" in any division is very much tied to when you're playing them. For example, the Rangers just met the Islanders who many would say are trash, but they won four in a row. 

 

There's nuance behind playing a hot "bad" team vs a "good" Team on a losing streak. For example, any team that played the Rangers during December or January was not getting the best Ranger team. 

 

It's a large reason why I throw out the argument around "Mika doesn't score against playoff teams". You'd have to go back and look at every goal situationally. Was the team in playoff position when we met them? If so they're a playoff team. Were they in the middle of a five game heater? Was it just a game where they got goalied?

 

If you want to throw out a stat like that, all the stuff matters.

[Pete]

53 minutes ago, Br4d said:

 

I don't know where the term "bad" comes from.

 

Right now the Rangers are a good team that is getting very lucky and has the best record in the NHL as a result.

Or maybe they're not very lucky and they just work really hard. 

 

I don't buy any metric you're using to determine luck.

 

Winning one goal games isn't luck. It's knowing how to lock it down in tight games.

 

Coming from behind isn't luck. It's resiliency. 

 

I'll say it again, they went down early to Montreal and then came back to win, and you're calling that a lucky win, meanwhile if one were actually watching the only thing lucky that happened in that game was Montreal's goal.

 

So yeah, I don't buy your description of luck. When it happens for 6 months, that's not being lucky, that's being good. 

[fletch]

14 minutes ago, Pete said:

Embarrassing brain cramp. Thanks for catching that. 

 

Agree with this, so wondering why we're using regular season stats especially analytics to predict the future? 

 

I'd also argue that who's "good" in any division is very much tied to when you're playing them. For example, the Rangers just met the Islanders who many would say are trash, but they won four in a row. 

 

There's nuance behind playing a hot "bad" team vs a "good" Team on a losing streak. For example, any team that played the Rangers during December or January was not getting the best Ranger team. 

 

It's a large reason why I throw out the argument around "Mika doesn't score against playoff teams". You'd have to go back and look at every goal situationally. Was the team in playoff position when we met them? If so they're a playoff team. Were they in the middle of a five game heater? Was it just a game where they got goalied?

 

If you want to throw out a stat like that, all the stuff matters.

 

People use regular season stats because it's the most recent data they have available. 

 

I'm not sure how informative it would be to look at playoff stats because of the small sample size - you'd have to cobble together the last 2 or 3 seasons of playoff statistics and add the caveat that team composition changed over that period - and those disclaimers are large enough that people would be pretty skeptical of that kind of analysis.

 

It's probably more about matchup/luck/who's hot than analysts would like... but analysts don't want to write that no one really knows.

 

Rangers playoff fate may simply be if their first two rounds consist more like:

Scenario A

Round 1- WC2 or Metro 3 (against one of the morass of mediocre teams)

Round 2 (another one of the morass of mediocre teams that upsets Carolina)

 

Scenario B

Round 1-WC1 (Tampa or Toronto)

Round 2-Carolina

 

In either scenario, Rangers could advance to at least ECF, or get bounced in round 1.  But I'd like our chances to get to at least ECF in Scenario A rather than Scenario B.