GDT [RS] (#73) Rangers vs. Colorado Avalanche — Deflate Nate (Yeah I Know It's Corny AF)

[Scott]

1 hour ago, Kick save and a beauty said:

 

Does he have a no trade clause?  If not maybe we could seduce some team or other with his statistics.

He will have to submit a 15 team no trade list after this season ends. Not sure how Mika would survive, seriously at this point.

[siddious]

1 hour ago, BrooksBurner said:

I mean he’s right though

Agree to disagree on that

[Br4d]

10 hours ago, Pete said:

The issue is that he's not a skill player either. He has one dimension, and that is netfront.

 

He was atrocious in overtime. With 3 minutes left he had the opportunity to gain the blue line with speed and space and he stopped short of the blue line and back passed to Mika. Later in that shift, he blindly through the puck at the front of the net which resulted in a turnover right in the middle of the ice where Colorado went the other way. 

 

He's a player who should never have the puck on his stick. He should just use his stick to tip and whack at loose pucks. He's a disaster when he has the puck on his stick for more than a second.

 

Kreider actually passes very well when that is what he's looking to do, which is rare.

 

The enigma of Chris Kreider is why he can do so many things well but rarely tries too.

[4EverRangerFrank]

P.K. Deuschebban

 

Honestly, who gives a fuck about him?

Edited March 30 by 4EverRangerFrank

[RodrigueGabriel]

15 hours ago, BrooksBurner said:

I mean he’s right though

But I'm not sure it's actually relevant to anything. The best team going into the Playoffs doesn't necessarily win. We know that not wasting games, avoiding injuries, and outright luck can be material factors in what team is left standing at the end. With parity as it is, the talent differential is less concerning to me than, for instance, not getting too exhausted and beat up in a FLA ECF (God willing they make it that far). And I think Slewdog is wrong about relative depth. 

[BrooksBurner]

37 minutes ago, RodrigueGabriel said:

But I'm not sure it's actually relevant to anything. The best team going into the Playoffs doesn't necessarily win. We know that not wasting games, avoiding injuries, and outright luck can be material factors in what team is left standing at the end. With parity as it is, the talent differential is less concerning to me than, for instance, not getting too exhausted and beat up in a FLA ECF (God willing they make it that far). And I think Slewdog is wrong about relative depth. 

I agree, but that’s because there are a lot of analytically good teams with equalish odds of winning, and only one can. The Rangers are bad analytically. If I were ranking odds of winning, they are probably in the 10-12 range out of 16. They would be bottom 2-3, but I respect some of their talent + Igor to overcome some of that.

 

Just my two cents.

Edited March 30 by BrooksBurner

[siddious]

40 minutes ago, RodrigueGabriel said:

But I'm not sure it's actually relevant to anything. The best team going into the Playoffs doesn't necessarily win. We know that not wasting games, avoiding injuries, and outright luck can be material factors in what team is left standing at the end. With parity as it is, the talent differential is less concerning to me than, for instance, not getting too exhausted and beat up in a FLA ECF (God willing they make it that far). And I think Slewdog is wrong about relative depth. 

Also we have Rempe 

[RodrigueGabriel]

1 hour ago, BrooksBurner said:

I agree, but that’s because there are a lot of analytically good teams with equalish odds of winning, and only one can. The Rangers are bad analytically. If I were ranking odds of winning, they are probably in the 10-12 range out of 16. They would be bottom 2-3, but I respect some of their talent + Igor to overcome some of that.

 

Just my two cents.

We also know that at some vague level of parity the Playoffs become much more about faith in self and sheer will than about fancy stats. I am encouraged in that context by the fact that, so far, the Rangers have been better at winning games than anyone else in the NHL despite being bad analytically - particularly in light of the scheduling and injury challenges they've faced. This is where I think Dom fails. He thinks of teams as compilations of statistics rather than emotional, functioning organisms that rise and fall in different environments and situations. We saw last year that a move that looked to be a no-brainer analytically (Kane) actually undermined the confidence and cohesion of the team. I have not looked in depth, but I would guess that their underlying stats aren't too much different than last year at this point. But I get a noticeably different sense from them about their focus, confidence, faith in each other and will to win. 

Edited March 30 by RodrigueGabriel

[Dem]

17 hours ago, siddious said:

 

guys such a tool lol

Never take advice from a clown. They are only there to make you laugh. 

[Karan]

17 hours ago, siddious said:

 

guys such a tool lol

 

Meh, who cares about Slewbban's opinion. Let everyone count the Rangers out and make all these fuckers eat crow in the playoffs. I'd much rather the team have a chip on their shoulders rather than being touted as the favorites, don't need that extra pressure.

Edited March 30 by Karan

[Dem]

9 minutes ago, RodrigueGabriel said:

We also know that at some vague level of parity the Playoffs become much more about faith in self and sheer will than about fancy stats. I am encouraged in that context by the fact that, so far, the Rangers have been better at winning games than anyone else in the NHL despite being bad analytically - particularly in light of the scheduling and injury challenges they've faced. This is where I think Dom fails. He thinks of teams as compilations of statistics rather emotional, functioning organisms that rise and fall in different environments and situations. We saw last year that a move that looked to be a no-brainer analytically (Kane) actually undermined the confidence and cohesion of the team. I have not looked in depth, but I would guess that their underlying stats aren't too much different than last year at this point. But I get a noticeably different sense from them about their focus, confidence, faith in each other and will to win. 

Great post Rod. I agree 100%. It's a similar feel to 93/94. They just find a way to win. I also think we have the right combo of talent to grit to make a strong run in the postseason. 

[Pete]

49 minutes ago, RodrigueGabriel said:

We also know that at some vague level of parity the Playoffs become much more about faith in self and sheer will than about fancy stats. I am encouraged in that context by the fact that, so far, the Rangers have been better at winning games than anyone else in the NHL despite being bad analytically - particularly in light of the scheduling and injury challenges they've faced. This is where I think Dom fails. He thinks of teams as compilations of statistics rather emotional, functioning organisms that rise and fall in different environments and situations. We saw last year that a move that looked to be a no-brainer analytically (Kane) actually undermined the confidence and cohesion of the team. I have not looked in depth, but I would guess that their underlying stats aren't too much different than last year at this point. But I get a noticeably different sense from them about their focus, confidence, faith in each other and will to win. 

 

 

Analytics are retrospective, not predictive.