New York Rangers Stats: Individual Chances Update
At the last update, the New York Rangers were coming off their 7 game, Magellan-inspired road trip. Over that span, they were outchanced most every night, and the team sputtered along. Since then, shots on goal have still been an issue, as Rob updated us on Monday. However, the scoring chances have trended up, as we see here:
| Opponent | Totals | EV | PP | 5v3 PP | SH | 5v3 SH | ||||||
| Maple Leafs | 11 | 16 | 8 | 15 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Senators | 14 | 15 | 11 | 11 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Sharks | 19 | 12 | 14 | 9 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| Ducks | 21 | 12 | 12 | 11 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Canadiens | 15 | 16 | 10 | 8 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 2 |
| Jets | 21 | 14 | 9 | 9 | 5 | 0 | 6 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 0 | 0 |
| Senators | 12 | 15 | 12 | 14 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Hurricanes | 20 | 10 | 16 | 8 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Islanders | 23 | 18 | 16 | 15 | 5 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| Update Total | 156 | 128 | 108 | 100 | 37 | 4 | 9 | 0 | 2 | 22 | 0 | 2 |
| Season Total | 241 | 243 | 170 | 176 | 54 | 11 | 10 | 0 | 7 | 53 | 0 | 3 |
Aside from Ottawa, the Rangers have controlled the even strength scoring chances during each game of the winning streak, and many of the Senators chances that game came while the Rangers were protecting a lead in the 3rd period (hooray score effects!). Speaking of score effects, with the Rangers trailing for under a minute during the entire streak, for them to come out ahead is an even greater positive. The other key to the success lately has been to jump on teams early, which you can clearly see from the period breakdown:
| Period | Totals | EV | PP | 5v3 PP | SH | 5v3 SH | ||||||
| 1st | 37 | 18 | 29 | 13 | 7 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 |
| 2nd | 26 | 31 | 14 | 22 | 9 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 7 | 0 | 2 |
| 3rd | 45 | 36 | 28 | 30 | 10 | 1 | 6 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 0 | 0 |
A whopping 69% of the even strength chances, and 67% overall in the first period is a good way to manufacture success, especially for a team built on the back of goaltending and defense.
After the jump, the individual breakdowns.
| Even Strength | Power Play (5v4 only) | |||||||||||||||
| Chance | COG | Goal | Chance% | Assists | Plays | C/60 | P/60 | Chance | COG | Goal | Chance% | Assists | Plays | C/60 | P/60 | |
| RICHARDS | 15 | 11 | 5 | 33.33% | 10 | 25 | 3.44 | 5.73 | 6 | 3 | 1 | 16.67% | 9 | 15 | 5.15 | 12.87 |
| GABORIK | 36 | 29 | 7 | 19.44% | 9 | 45 | 8.63 | 10.78 | 18 | 13 | 1 | 5.56% | 3 | 21 | 18.35 | 21.40 |
| CALLAHAN | 14 | 13 | 2 | 14.29% | 10 | 24 | 3.54 | 6.07 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 66.67% | 5 | 8 | 3.01 | 8.02 |
| DUBINSKY | 15 | 10 | 1 | 6.67% | 5 | 20 | 3.89 | 5.18 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0.00% | 3 | 7 | 6.16 | 10.78 |
| STEPAN | 14 | 8 | 1 | 7.14% | 22 | 36 | 3.72 | 9.56 | 8 | 6 | 2 | 25.00% | 4 | 12 | 10.60 | 15.89 |
| FEDOTENKO | 9 | 8 | 0 | 0.00% | 5 | 14 | 2.58 | 4.01 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 50.00% | 1 | 3 | 9.13 | 13.69 |
| BOYLE | 9 | 6 | 1 | 11.11% | 8 | 17 | 2.86 | 5.41 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0.00% | 0 | 3 | 12.54 | 12.54 |
| ANISIMOV | 13 | 8 | 1 | 7.69% | 11 | 24 | 4.13 | 7.63 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0.00% | 1 | 2 | 3.73 | 7.45 |
| PRUST | 10 | 10 | 1 | 10.00% | 4 | 14 | 3.45 | 4.84 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0.00% | 0 | 1 | 20.00 | 20.00 |
| CHRISTENSEN | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0.00% | 2 | 3 | 0.68 | 2.04 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00% | 1 | 1 | 0.00 | 3.80 |
| WOLSKI | 4 | 3 | 0 | 0.00% | 4 | 8 | 3.57 | 7.15 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00% | 1 | 1 | 0.00 | 9.45 |
| RUPP | 2 | 2 | 1 | 50.00% | 0 | 2 | 2.83 | 2.83 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| DEVEAUX | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0.00% | 0 | 1 | 1.53 | 1.53 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| AVERY | 4 | 3 | 2 | 50.00% | 0 | 4 | 6.38 | 6.38 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| NEWBURY | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| ZUCCARELLO | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00% | 1 | 1 | 0.00 | 10.75 |
| TOTALS | 147 | 113 | 22 | 14.97% | 90 | 237 | 11.38 | 18.35 | 46 | 32 | 7 | 15.22% | 29 | 75 | 28.83 | 47.00 |
| Chance | COG | Goal | Chance% | Assists | Plays | C/60 | P/60 | Chance | COG | Goal | Chance% | Assists | Plays | C/60 | P/60 | |
| GIRARDI | 2 | 2 | 1 | 50.00% | 5 | 7 | 0.35 | 1.22 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 100.00% | 3 | 4 | 1.65 | 6.61 |
| MCDONAGH | 9 | 7 | 3 | 33.33% | 7 | 16 | 1.63 | 2.89 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.00 | 5.29 |
| DELZOTTO | 4 | 3 | 1 | 25.00% | 5 | 9 | 0.92 | 2.06 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0.00% | 10 | 11 | 0.85 | 9.35 |
| EMINGER | 3 | 3 | 1 | 33.33% | 2 | 5 | 0.93 | 1.55 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| SAUER | 4 | 3 | 0 | 0.00% | 2 | 6 | 1.33 | 1.99 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| ERIXON | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00% | 1 | 1 | 0.00 | 0.50 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| WOYWITKA | 1 | 1 | 1 | 100.00% | 2 | 3 | 0.53 | 1.59 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| BELL | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00% | 1 | 1 | 0.00 | 5.25 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| TOTALS | 23 | 19 | 7 | 30.43% | 25 | 48 | 1.78 | 3.72 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 100.00% | 14 | 16 | 2.5 | 21.3 |
*Players sorted by ES Ice Time. Tables are sortable by clicking the column headers.
In case there was any remaining doubt about where Marian Gaborik stood as a player, this should end it. Right now, he's just on another level compared to the rest of the team, averaging more than 8.5 chances per 60. For comparison's sake, keep in mind that over the last four seasons, NHL forwards average about 7.5 shots on goal total. Gaborik's averaging 6.95 chances just counting what goes on net.
Beyond Gaborik, most of the guys are still down compared to last season's totals, but there's clear improvement from the play on the road trip. Key players such as Brad RIchards, Ryan Callahan, and Artem Anisimov are all generating more chances for themselves, while Derek Stepan continues to be the Gaborik of scoring chance setups.
One of the biggest differences between those first 7 games and the team now comes from the contributions of the defense. As a whole, they've doubled the amount of plays they're contributing to while jumping in and converting at an excellent, if unsustainable rate. Ryan McDonagh and Michael Del Zotto are the obvious contributors, but the player that stands out most is Michael Sauer. Dan Girardi and McDonagh are getting all the publicity, but Sauer's return has been a big stabilizing force. Universally considered a defense-first guy, there he is 2nd in chances and just behind MDZ for 3rd in plays made on the D.
This time around, I also included the power play numbers. To no surprise, Gaborik laps the field there as well. What this does show is really how the PP has functioned. The play funnels through Stepan, Richards, and Del Zotto, with the goal of feeding Gaborik early and often. The player not mentioned from unit one is Callahan. To date, he hasn't contributed very much, generating fewer scoring chances for himself than he does at even strength. If the PP continues to be uninspiring, the captain may be a player to look at to switch, with the bigger body of Brian Boyle potentially a replacement.
Finally, we'll touch on chance type again, with the focus on just the 5v5 play.
| Chances | COG | Goals | Chance% | |
| Breakaways | 4 | 3 | 1 | 25.00% |
| Even Man Rush/Transition | 51 | 42 | 6 | 11.76% |
| Odd Man Rush | 12 | 6 | 4 | 33.33% |
| Zone Entry Totals | 67 | 51 | 11 | 16.42% |
| Defensive Zone Turnover | 24 | 19 | 5 | 20.83% |
| Zone Pressure/Forecheck | 69 | 53 | 13 | 18.84% |
| Faceoffs | 10 | 9 | 0 | 0.00% |
| Zone Pressure Totals | 103 | 81 | 18 | 17.48% |
As I suspected may happen, the bigger sample, combined with the improved play, shows the focus of the Rangers under Tortorella is still generating offense from the forecheck. What was a 54.5% edge to zone pressure has ballooned to 60.5%. Expect that to continue if the Rangers continue to win games.
Any questions? Fire away in the comments.
22 comments
|
3 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Outstanding work, for sure
…but, TBH, I feel kinda bad for you b/c anyone who’s remotely been paying attention to this team so far this year could come to these very same conclusions…without ANY of the intense number crunching.
So I guess my first question to you is why? Followed by: what can you conclude from this data that can’t be concluded from traditional stats + keen observation?
Thanks…
Conclude
The fact that the team has been lucky thus far on the back of their goaltenders. Third period chances are brutal.
Blueshirt Banter - Muddling in Mediocrity - Fantasy Hockey Scouts
Twitter: @RLuker12
US Soccer/Red Sox Supporter
See this is where I disgaree
I love stats, I wish I had the patience to do what you and George do. However, I don’t think you can come to a finite conclusion. You can come to an educated hypothesis, however you can derive many different conclusions from these data sets, all different and all on different spectrum. You say third period chances are brutal and make us lucky, yet George conludes we have been leading most of the time and because of this we kind of turtle allowing more chances. You also can look at your shot metrics alone and say hey we’re not generating enough chances, however you add George’s analysis above and you can say, we’re generating a lot of quality with the chances we’ve had. From there you can go into many different directions such as sustainability etc.
Rob’s right in that the goaltending has been unsustainably good. The shooting percentage is also unsustainably good right now. Both are currently at levels that would make them the ‘luckiest.’ or most efficient team post lockout in both categories. I don’t think anyone thinks we’re just that good, even if we are seemingly controlling quality. The other way to look at is that we’re converting at a high rate because the ‘quality’ is coming against bottom-feeding teams, and that the ‘regression’ will actually come in the form of finally playing some good teams.
You’re right, score effects take charge of the 3rd period chances, but the 2nd period chances are worse, and while there are still score effects there, they’re not nearly as strong. You’re also correct that future performance based on the shot metrics are simply a hypothesis. I put the link up in the other thread, but will re-post here. At this point of the season, the correlation between Corsi Tied and future winning percentage is 47%, while goal ratio is just 35.4% and win percentage is 34%. So none of them are all that strong, but if you’re going to look at one to predict how this team will do going forward, you take the shot metric.
So you have Corsi Tied which says we’re not very good, and you have shot percentages unsustainably high. Both look to be recipes for impending doom. No, it’s not a guarantee, but it’s the best guess we have.
Blueshirt Banter - Where Rangers' Fans Matter
Tracking the Rangers - Numbers don't lie. They just don't agree with you.
Twitter: RangerSmurf
by George E. Ays on Nov 18, 2011 11:09 AM EST up reply actions
A couple of things
1) How many fans do you think pay attention to the point where they can accurately assess every single player at every single moment, without bias. The human eye is great, but it doesn’t capture everything. There are several things that stand out here that I haven’t seen mentioned much anywhere. The contributions of Sauer on offense, the relative ineffectiveness of Callahan on the power play thus far, the averageness of Richards at even strength.
It’s evidence that Wolski was just as effective as any of the top 6 forwards, while the people who argue Christensen out of the lineup have more ammunition. Girardi leads the team in offense, but it’s a product of his minutes more than his efficiency.
2) This gives a little more insight on traditional shooting percentage. We saw last year that damn near everyone converted from the scoring chance area at the same clip (about 12-15%). So this can help determine who is just not getting lucky with their shots and should improve (Anisimov, Dubinsky), who is about average and thus probably will maintain (Callahan, maybe Boyle), and who is running hot and probably will come back to earth (Gaborik, Richards)
3) While this isn’t a complete depiction, how many people scream ‘but shot quality!’ when things are brought up? This paints a better picture of who is actually getting quality chances. Callahan has 58 shots on goal already, but barely has more scoring chances than Anisimov, and fewer per minute.
It’s all a giant supplement to traditional boxscores. Sure, “the Rangers get a lot of their offense from the forecheck” is a statement every fan can make, but “60% of their scoring chances come from zone pressure” is a stronger and more accurate argument, as it as a basis in fact, rather than opinion.
Blueshirt Banter - Where Rangers' Fans Matter
Tracking the Rangers - Numbers don't lie. They just don't agree with you.
Twitter: RangerSmurf
by George E. Ays on Nov 18, 2011 8:53 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Two more
The number crunching here is actually minimal. It’s a bunch of counting and a couple of excel formulas. It takes me longer to format and write the narrative for the posts than it does to produce the data. The counting all gets done while watching the game, so it doesn’t take me any more time than it would to watch the game.
I’m one of 15 trackers this year, after being one of 7 last year. Hopefully within the next couple years I’ll be one of 30. Growing the sample size will lead to conclusions that none of us really know yet simply because the data isn’t there right now.
Blueshirt Banter - Where Rangers' Fans Matter
Tracking the Rangers - Numbers don't lie. They just don't agree with you.
Twitter: RangerSmurf
by George E. Ays on Nov 18, 2011 9:05 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Thanks George
I can’t believe there is so much resistance to the sort of statistical analysis you do. Everyone should watch or read Moneyball. It feels like advanced statistical analysis of ice hockey is its toddler years but could eventually be a standard part of how scouting, management and coaching occur in the league. Either way, I think your posts are probably the strongest and most interesting content of this blog.
George
This is great stuff. Thanks for what you do!
by CTrangerfan on Nov 18, 2011 8:42 AM EST via mobile reply actions
How soon we forget!
Two or three years ago they practically led the leagues in shots on goal. However the Rangers % conversion on shots was dead last in the NHL.
Shots on Goal is the most overrated statistic in hockey! In today’s game, it has to be an great shot or one from the slot to beat a goalie who is set up and can see the puck.
What Rangers are doing is instead of shooting, they are looking to pass over to the weak side and get that goalie moving. In some cases it produces literally open net goals.
Scoring chances certainly matter far more than shots on goal.
Oh and George
That’s for the great look at important stats! Keep it up. Really interesting.
Great stuff. The special teams chances stood out for me. 37 on the PP compared to 22 on the PK. Question, does that 37 include the 5v3 chances, or is it only 5v4?
The 37 is 5v4 and 4v3 (I think 4v3 is in there, need to double check how the script counts it up). The 5v3 has it’s own section up there.
Blueshirt Banter - Where Rangers' Fans Matter
Tracking the Rangers - Numbers don't lie. They just don't agree with you.
Twitter: RangerSmurf
by George E. Ays on Nov 18, 2011 11:19 AM EST up reply actions
Starting become a crime that McDonagh doesn't see power play time
He’s clearly the best offensive Rangers defenseman at even strength and it’s not even close
Since we are talking stats
George, my friend and I have been discussing this for a few weeks now. I think a more useful stat rather than conversion of PP or PK would be Goals per 2 min. I hate being told we are 1 for 6 on the power play but we’ve only had 2 minutes of actual power play because of subsequent penalties during the whole game while the statistic gives the impression we’ve had 12 minutes of power play. Would you be able to tell me what our conversion per two minutes of actual time is?
I’m picturing Tampa Bay having a PP 4.3 G/2 min because they can convert quickly but Ranger PP is .76 G/2min Ranger PK is .43 GA/2 min and the Islanders are 2.4 GA/2 min . I wonder how different the PP and PK rankings would be using this statistic. I think it gives a much better idea of how lethal or useless the PP and PK are per team rather than just per instance.
Any thoughts?
by Leetch4prezofNYR on Nov 18, 2011 2:18 PM EST reply actions
http://www.behindthenet.ca/2011/team_data3.php?sort=24
That gives you GF per 60 minutes, so take the numbers and divide them by 30 if you want per 2 min.
That link also shows how important a role luck plays. The teams that are near the top in goals are shooting the lights out, while the ones at the bottom are not. For that reason, SF/60 is really better if you want to estimate how the PP will do going forward, but PP time is so small that nothing is all that reliable. Chalk it up to the list of things scoring chances might be better at estimating going forward.
Blueshirt Banter - Where Rangers' Fans Matter
Tracking the Rangers - Numbers don't lie. They just don't agree with you.
Twitter: RangerSmurf
by George E. Ays on Nov 18, 2011 2:26 PM EST up reply actions
Thanks George.
While going through my Statistical journey I discovered that PIT…………… (wait for it)………………has the greatest PP vs PK time in the league at 43 minutes more pp than pk while the rangers are statistically even at + 22 seconds.
by Leetch4prezofNYR on Nov 18, 2011 3:31 PM EST reply actions
shocking.
"Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
LET'S GO RANGERS!!!
I think last year they were one of the top teams in PIM, although I could be thinking of something else.
by teknics on Nov 18, 2011 10:23 PM EST via mobile up reply actions

by 

























