Tied for the Most Points at Christmas Break

[jsm7302]

9 hours ago, Br4d said:

 

11-1-1 in 1 goal games is not good coaching.  It's luck and it is not sustainable.

Locking down a 1-3-1 and killing NZ play is absolutely coaching and executing will absolutely win 1 goal games more often than not. This is Lavi's system and it is working.

 

Regardless of metrics, stats, etc, watching games is enough to say...yea, this is different than last year. It looks uniform and it looks like most other successful teams. Ive held my breath a lot with teams of the past few years when games got tight. I have so much faith in this roster playing this system, I've never been more confident in their abilities.

 

I love this place because we complain when they are losing and then debate why they should be losing when their winning. You guys are the best!

[Br4d]

Laviolette is an ok 1 goal coach based on his record.  It's not the system.

[Br4d]

6 minutes ago, jsm7302 said:

Locking down a 1-3-1 and killing NZ play is absolutely coaching and executing will absolutely win 1 goal games more often than not. This is Lavi's system and it is working.

 

Regardless of metrics, stats, etc, watching games is enough to say...yea, this is different than last year. It looks uniform and it looks like most other successful teams. Ive held my breath a lot with teams of the past few years when games got tight. I have so much faith in this roster playing this system, I've never been more confident in their abilities.

 

I love this place because we complain when they are losing and then debate why they should be losing when their winning. You guys are the best!

 

Just to reiterate: I don't think the Rangers should be losing.  I just think they're well above where they should be based on the performance so far and I think one of the main reasons is luck.

[Long live the King]

20 minutes ago, Br4d said:

The Ducks went 33-1-7 in 1 goal games a few years back.  Then they went 2-0 in 1 goal games in the 1st round and 1-1 in one goal games in the second round and 2-2 in the conference finals and out.

 

The team that beat them in the conference finals went 21-15-6 in 1 goal games that year.  They lost 4 straight by 1 goal going into the playoffs.

 

When they ran into the Mighty Ducks and their 33-1-7?  They were due because given their overall record they had been unlucky in 1 goal games.  The Ducks?  Well they'd used up their luck already with that great regular season run.

 

This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen.

[The Dude]

4 hours ago, Br4d said:

The Ducks went 33-1-7 in 1 goal games a few years back.  Then they went 2-0 in 1 goal games in the 1st round and 1-1 in one goal games in the second round and 2-2 in the conference finals and out.

 

The team that beat them in the conference finals went 21-15-6 in 1 goal games that year.  They lost 4 straight by 1 goal going into the playoffs.

 

When they ran into the Mighty Ducks and their 33-1-7?  They were due because given their overall record they had been unlucky in 1 goal games.  The Ducks?  Well they'd used up their luck already with that great regular season run.

I don't like saying this to people. But that is a ridiculous take. There's worse words I want to use for what i just read here.

 

You're basing your opinion on when a team's luck ran out and when anothers luck was due? 

 

I mean,  your logic is so dense that you're overlooking that the Ducks made it to the Conference finals. Would this season be a complete failure if the Rangers made if the the ECF again? Also.... the Ducks going 33-1- 7 in one goal games ISNT luck. You don't win 33 games with luck.  5? Sure 33? 11? No.

 

Does luck and "they are due" work for the Rangers? Ever? 

 

Would you rather they lose more 1 goal games? WTF is this man?  Had they lost 11- one goal games, you'd be going on about that. That'd be an issue. You are complaining that they are winning. For real. 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 26, 2023 by The Dude

[The Dude]

48 minutes ago, Br4d said:

 

Just to reiterate: I don't think the Rangers should be losing.  I just think they're well above where they should be based on the performance so far and I think one of the main reasons is luck.

If they had less one goal wins, would that improve or reduce this "luck"? 

 

How would you like them to win games? Would a 15- 1 record in 1 goal games be a bad number-  2 months from now? Is that too many wins or not enough losses?

 

Do you want them to lose games?

 

Would you rather a big losing streak. Then expect the "luck" to kick in for a playoff push? 

 

You're not making any sense. 

 

 

Edited December 26, 2023 by The Dude

[RangersIn7]

One goal games are one goal games.

They are decided though, by different factors. All the time.

Those things change game to game.

 

Sometimes it’s luck.

Sometimes it’s an adjustment.

Sometimes it’s a player stepping up.

Sometimes it’s an opportunity that gets capitalized on.

Sometimes it’s officiating.

Sometimes it’s something else.

 

 

[Long live the King]

16 minutes ago, RangersIn7 said:

One goal games are one goal games.

They are decided though, by different factors. All the time.

Those things change game to game.

 

Sometimes it’s luck.

Sometimes it’s an adjustment.

Sometimes it’s a player stepping up.

Sometimes it’s an opportunity that gets capitalized on.

Sometimes it’s officiating.

Sometimes it’s something else.

 

 

 

Were they ahead and blew the lead?

Did they make a come back? 

Was it a 1 goal game because they allowed a goal with 30 seconds left? Or scored a goal with 30 seconds left?

Was it a 1 goal game until an empty netter made it a 2 goal game?

[RangersIn7]

47 minutes ago, Long live the King said:

 

Were they ahead and blew the lead?

Did they make a come back? 

Was it a 1 goal game because they allowed a goal with 30 seconds left? Or scored a goal with 30 seconds left?

Was it a 1 goal game until an empty netter made it a 2 goal game?

Lol!

 

Exactly!

 

There is a host of different types of one goal games.

They aren’t all created equally.

 

Context rules the roost.

[BrooksBurner]

11 hours ago, Br4d said:

 

11-1-1 in 1 goal games is not good coaching.  It's luck and it is not sustainable.

 

Some more context here: 6 of these games were decided by 3v3 and shootout gimmick modes of hockey. They are 4-0 in OT and 1-1 in the SO. Those modes have a ton of variance, and they also mean nothing for estimating playoff success, so I agree on this bucket of 1 goal games.

The real record to consider is 6-1 in one goal games that ended in regulation. I kind of don't care that much about that sample size, but in general I do think there's an art to winning close games that involves staying patient and fundamentally sound, waiting for your opportunities that will tilt the odds in your favor. That is not what we are seeing. It would be very evident in the underlying stats that this is what's happening, but it's not there. That's what makes it lucky.

[Pete]

44 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

staying patient and fundamentally sound, waiting for your opportunities that will tilt the odds in your favor. That is not what we are seeing.

Yeah, no, it's exactly what we're seeing. 

[The Dude]

Delete 

Edited December 26, 2023 by The Dude

[The Dude]

1 hour ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

Some more context here: 6 of these games were decided by 3v3 and shootout gimmick modes of hockey. They are 4-0 in OT and 1-1 in the SO. Those modes have a ton of variance, and they also mean nothing for estimating playoff success, so I agree on this bucket of 1 goal games.

The real record to consider is 6-1 in one goal games that ended in regulation. I kind of don't care that much about that sample size, but in general I do think there's an art to winning close games that involves staying patient and fundamentally sound, waiting for your opportunities that will tilt the odds in your favor. That is not what we are seeing. It would be very evident in the underlying stats that this is what's happening, but it's not there. That's what makes it lucky.

Are you saying the Rangers play games tight in hopes of getting to OT? Is that what you mean by "waiting to tilt the odds in their favor"? 

 

6 of these "1 goal wins" came before OT and this is also just luck?  You're being silly here and are really just trying to take shots at a coach whom you didn't want hired, but is having a good degree of success so far. 

 

Next thing you know, you'll be shitting on Zibanejad and Panarin.  Oh yeah. Nevermind you're already there. 

 

If the Rangers blew everyone out and physically dominated every game,  you guys would say they couldn't sustain that pace. You'd talk about their shooting % , you'd talk about fizzling out before the playoffs, you'd talk about not being able to keep healthy.  

 

How exactly do you WANT the Rangers to win? Because obviously you don't like anything they do when they win right now. 

 

Let me guess.  Only score at ES. And only win by more than 1 goal, which has to be scored in a certain period, with the Rangers goalie making a certain amount of saves, but ONLY with certain amount of high danger opportunities,  because if that number is too high or low, it will also be nothing but luck again.

 

How many blocked shots do you require? Hits? Deflected goals? Shots from the slot (lol)?  Breakaways? One timers? Penalties? How many bench minors won't be considered luck? Should there be any fights? Cause those can be won or lost with luck too. How many wins must the #1 goalie have? If the backup wins a bunch..  Luck. ..

 

Tell us how YOU want the team to win. 

 

 

[BrooksBurner]

3 hours ago, The Dude said:

Are you saying the Rangers play games tight in hopes of getting to OT? Is that what you mean by "waiting to tilt the odds in their favor"? 

 

6 of these "1 goal wins" came before OT and this is also just luck?  You're being silly here and are really just trying to take shots at a coach whom you didn't want hired, but is having a good degree of success so far. 

 

Next thing you know, you'll be shitting on Zibanejad and Panarin.  Oh yeah. Nevermind you're already there. 

 

If the Rangers blew everyone out and physically dominated every game,  you guys would say they couldn't sustain that pace. You'd talk about their shooting % , you'd talk about fizzling out before the playoffs, you'd talk about not being able to keep healthy.  

 

How exactly do you WANT the Rangers to win? Because obviously you don't like anything they do when they win right now. 

 

Let me guess.  Only score at ES. And only win by more than 1 goal, which has to be scored in a certain period, with the Rangers goalie making a certain amount of saves, but ONLY with certain amount of high danger opportunities,  because if that number is too high or low, it will also be nothing but luck again.

 

How many blocked shots do you require? Hits? Deflected goals? Shots from the slot (lol)?  Breakaways? One timers? Penalties? How many bench minors won't be considered luck? Should there be any fights? Cause those can be won or lost with luck too. How many wins must the #1 goalie have? If the backup wins a bunch..  Luck. ..

 

Tell us how YOU want the team to win. 

 

 

 

You're taking it too personally that the underlying stats suggest the record is a facade. My opinion will change with evidence that suggests it should. The underlying stats back up what I'm seeing despite the record, which is a porous defense covered up by a PP and goaltending. Per usual. I haven't seen you or anyone else bring anything substantial or stats based to even begin countering it. It's mostly just emotional retorts, like half your post here.

[BrooksBurner]

On 12/24/2023 at 2:07 PM, Long live the King said:

 

With Kakko they were 1st in GA.  Without Kakko they are 23rd.  The team would be much better with Chytil as the second line center and Cuylle-Trocheck-Kakko as the 3rd line.

 

Do you really think Kakko is the difference between a professional hockey team being 1st vs 23rd in goals against?

[Br4d]

The problem is that the team has changed a lot over the course of the season already and mostly not for the better.

 

As an example Cuylle had Trocheck as his center at the start of the season.  He's not going to get anything like that type of veteran support again this season.  Line 3 has been the most disrupted line in the injury rotation at this point.  They've lost Trocheck to line 1a to cover Chytil's injury and then they got Kakko and lost him to injury.

 

Line 1a basically has been functional as a scoring line although not at the level they were for the first 16 games or so, however their defense has dropped significantly over the last 16 games and that was with Trocheck moving up to replace Chytil.  Part of that is that they seemed to have Jones on the ice with them more often than not, probably because Laviolette wanted to make sure his checking lines were better supported on the back end.  However they're also just kind of loose in the neutral zone in a way the other lines are not and that is because each of them has some issues between the blue lines or just inside the OZ.

 

Line 1 seems to have found a groove although a lot of that has been since Wheeler joined them and it is hard to see exactly what he is doing to facilitate that.  It is possible that Zib and Kreider give him opportunities they weren't giving Kakko because Wheeler knows where to be and Kakko has had that who what where thing going on in the OZ each season at some point.

 

It's kind of silly to say it but I think the line this team has relied on for most of the season is line 4.  They set the tone, often starting the game off, and they score some important goals although not in the bulk that 1 and 1a do.

[Ozzy]

9 hours ago, Br4d said:

It's kind of silly to say it but I think the line this team has relied on for most of the season is line 4.  They set the tone, often starting the game off, and they score some important goals although not in the bulk that 1 and 1a do.

 

That 4th line definitely deserves some credit.  They've been very good at changing the momentum of games, and also keeping the puck in the offensive zone for long durations, which I think gets the rest of the team in that flow.

 

They've been very good defensively; Pitlick should be nicknamed "Pit Bull",  and Vesey I think, is probably one of the unsung heroes of the season so far.  The guy's been way better than I expected.  I love Goodrow, and yeah I know he's a luxury, but fuck it, I like throw back players like him for the playoffs.  He's been good for that line.  He can do it all, and plays a tough 2-way game when needed.

Edited December 27, 2023 by Ozzy

[The Dude]

10 hours ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

You're taking it too personally that the underlying stats suggest the record is a facade. My opinion will change with evidence that suggests it should. The underlying stats back up what I'm seeing despite the record, which is a porous defense covered up by a PP and goaltending. Per usual. I haven't seen you or anyone else bring anything substantial or stats based to even begin countering it. It's mostly just emotional retorts, like half your post here.

I'm trying to find that luck stat on all these metric sites. Oddly it's not there. 

 

I just read a guy saying that the Ducks won. 33- 1 goal games by luck a few years ago. And that they ONLY made it to the Conference finals with that luck. 

 

You're not using stats. You're using excuses for not being on board what is an obvious change in direction in how the team plays in various situations.

 

I'm unaware how relying on the PP helps win games by one goal. I'd think puck possession stats would show that they are playing better defense by possessing the puck more late in games. Which without even looking,  I can guarantee is the case and that the numbers are way better than last year. 

 

"Hey boys,  we're only up by one here going into the 3rd. Let's get that PP going so we can keep it a one goal game" said no coach or anyone... ever. 

 

[BrooksBurner]

16 minutes ago, The Dude said:

I'm trying to find that luck stat on all these metric sites. Oddly it's not there. 

 

I just read a guy saying that the Ducks won. 33- 1 goal games by luck a few years ago. And that they ONLY made it to the Conference finals with that luck. 

 

You're not using stats. You're using excuses for not being on board what is an obvious change in direction in how the team plays in various situations.

 

I'm unaware how relying on the PP helps win games by one goal. I'd think puck possession stats would show that they are playing better defense by possessing the puck more late in games. Which without even looking,  I can guarantee is the case and that the numbers are way better than last year. 

 

"Hey boys,  we're only up by one here going into the 3rd. Let's get that PP going so we can keep it a one goal game" said no coach or anyone... ever. 

 

You’re not reading well enough, which tells me you just want a pissing war.

[The Dude]

10 hours ago, Br4d said:

The problem is that the team has changed a lot over the course of the season already and mostly not for the better.

 

As an example Cuylle had Trocheck as his center at the start of the season.  He's not going to get anything like that type of veteran support again this season.  Line 3 has been the most disrupted line in the injury rotation at this point.  They've lost Trocheck to line 1a to cover Chytil's injury and then they got Kakko and lost him to injury.

 

Line 1a basically has been functional as a scoring line although not at the level they were for the first 16 games or so, however their defense has dropped significantly over the last 16 games and that was with Trocheck moving up to replace Chytil.  Part of that is that they seemed to have Jones on the ice with them more often than not, probably because Laviolette wanted to make sure his checking lines were better supported on the back end.  However they're also just kind of loose in the neutral zone in a way the other lines are not and that is because each of them has some issues between the blue lines or just inside the OZ.

 

Line 1 seems to have found a groove although a lot of that has been since Wheeler joined them and it is hard to see exactly what he is doing to facilitate that.  It is possible that Zib and Kreider give him opportunities they weren't giving Kakko because Wheeler knows where to be and Kakko has had that who what where thing going on in the OZ each season at some point.

 

It's kind of silly to say it but I think the line this team has relied on for most of the season is line 4.  They set the tone, often starting the game off, and they score some important goals although not in the bulk that 1 and 1a do.

Why isn't the 3rd line going to upgrade at center? Either Chytil is coming back, or they are making a trade.  It's agreed by most everyone,  that they need another Center and RW.  Both preferably  of the mid 6 variety. 

 

Besides a dip in Lafrenières output,  I'm not seeing this slip for the Panarin line. It should be expected that that line couldn't carry the team all season. It's balancing out now. Actually Zibanejad is getting red hot.  

 

The 4th line love is a mirage. Vesey was flying and really played good for a bit, but they aren't very physical or in your face. Goodrow is often invisible. Pitlick has his moments, but isn't really an eye opener. The top 2 lines are really the pace setters. Panarin especially. 

 

The Wheeler thing is pretty simple. He knows where to be for scoring chances. He doesn't have to carry the puck. He doesn't have to be the first guy in or anywhere. Just get open and if the puck has to be on his stick, it isn't taken away that easily.  He's a rather large guy and while he's not fast,  he gets where he needs to be.

 

It's also possible that Zibanejad and Kreider have to compensate for Wheelers short comings and put in that little bit extra effort to make it work. It just works. 

 

I'll agree that the team is showing more of its ugly old warts recently. But, when they get it together it's always due to the system and new philosophy.  

 

They aren't as hard on the forecheck as they started the season. They are going to the east/west well more often. But at the end of the day, they pull it back together and rely on the system to get the wins. 

 

 

[The Dude]

1 minute ago, BrooksBurner said:

You’re not reading well enough, which tells me you just want a pissing war.

I'm reading that you and Brad say it's all luck that this team is at the tops of the league. You're fighting on a hill called luck. 

 

What am I supposed to be reading?  You're nit picking a ridiculous talking point about an 11-1-1- one goal wins record as some sort of wart for a team that's winning out, while they are basically playing with 2 lines as they wait for a player to come back from injury or for a trade.

 

We know there is improvement for the roster coming in some form. Saying they won't keep this up because the 3rd line is a black hole isn't something to harp on. Help is coming. We know this. This will improve the team. This will take weight off the top 6. This should improve ES scoring or help draw more PPs.  

[Sharpshooter]

Paralysis by analysis here sometimes. How about we just enjoy where we are in the standings, while also acknowledging there are things to work on? lol More than one thing can be true at a time. I remember when they were almost always ass in one-goal games, and now they are excelling and finding ways to win them. Yay?

[BrooksBurner]

3 minutes ago, The Dude said:

I'm reading that you and Brad say it's all luck that this team is at the tops of the league. You're fighting on a hill called luck. 

 

What am I supposed to be reading?  You're nit picking a ridiculous talking point about an 11-1-1- one goal wins record as some sort of wart for a team that's winning out, while they are basically playing with 2 lines as they wait for a player to come back from injury or for a trade.

 

We know there is improvement for the roster coming in some form. Saying they won't keep this up because the 3rd line is a black hole isn't something to harp on. Help is coming. We know this. This will improve the team. This will take weight off the top 6. This should improve ES scoring or help draw more PPs.  

There’s only 3 pages. Re-read my handful of posts from page 1.

Having a good record with bad underlying stats strongly implies luck. The Rangers were 22-4-3 in 29 games following the Trouba helmet throw last season. Their underlying stats sucked during that stretch too, which is why people questioned the legitimacy of it. I know Lavi is your guy, but this is not about the coach. It’s about the players adapting, which has always been the point.

[Sharpshooter]

Sometimes it's better to be lucky than good. I think it's been a little of both with this team so far. If you want to say more luck than being good, you wouldn't be wrong. This is still a good team that could be better in some aspects, for sure.

[Pete]

Their PDO suggests they've actually been "unlucky".