NYR Team Metrics: Better, But Not Good
by Rob L on Dec 27, 2011 2:00 PM EST
in New York Rangers Stats
Email
Print
Note: Metrics do not include 12/26 vs. NYI
Since our last numbers update the Rangers have continued to find good results, going 6-2-1 in their lead up to the Christmas holiday. To summarize, the club continues to "find" ways to win with very good shooting (much of which is luck driven) and Vezina-esque goaltending (this is going to be Henrik Lunqvist's peak season in the NHL if this continues, most likely). This is still not very good news, but the overall good news since the early-December update is that the team is playing (aka outplaying opponents) better than when the season started. I know the great George has game-by-game Fenwick numbers that he can chime in with below, but for now lets take a peak at some charts (after the jump: how the Rangers are being used and I show you NYR's version of behindthetnet's Christmas present to the advanced stats community).
Oh and P.S: Dubinsky shot the puck and it went in! Amazing.
These are all good changes in a two/two and a half-week period. The Rangers are letting fewer shots get on net, while also improving their Fenwick numbers. For those who are curious as to what Fenwick is:
The easiest way to explain what the Fenwick number is to use Corsi, which was its oringal base:
Corsi # = shots on net, missed shots, and blocked shots (aka all shots taken)
Fenwick # = shots on net and missed shots (aka credits defense for blocking shots)
So if everything is getting better why is it still not good, as I said in the title? Below is the Christmas present from Gabe Desjardins, NYR edition. It shows the 5v5 shot ratio and subsequent PDO (team shot % + team save %) in a game-by-game fashion. If you click on the link above, you can also go through each NYR game this season and see how the shots (and goals) progress through a game (probably the best gift I didn't ask for this Christmas). Below is NYR's chart:
As we can see, NYR out-goals their opponents but does not out-shoot them. While this explains partly why they're winning games, how likely is this all to continue? Luckily, as we've discussed, the club is getting better at shooting, as we can see with the steady climb since game 10. But, as there always has to be a but, they're still below the magic 50% line; where true Stanley Cup contenders rarely, if at all, go under.
This is where the tandem of Lundqvist/Biron have saved the Rangers all season - which explains why the PDO on the right is so high. This is generally not good, because PDO always regresses (either up or down) over time to 100% (aka 1) mark and represents a lot of the luck that goes into scoring a goal and receiving Vezina-esque goaltending all-season long (extremely hard to do). Don't get me wrong, as good teams will have high PDO's (usually because they get good goaltending), but truly good teams (aka Stanley Cup winners) also dominate when it comes the Shot Ratio graph and the similar Fenwick/Corsi numbers.
So what does it all mean? The Rangers are on the right track, which is great, but at the same time the Rangers have some work to do on the ice to become a real cup-contender in the coming months.
Here's how the Rangers are being used at 5v5 (as of 12/25). Refer to this article here if you're confused:
Carl Hagelin is playing a very adult role as a kid. Gotta love these late-round dandy Swedes. Nothing too much else to report on besides to confirm Rupps bottom-six usage.
Regardless of points Michael Del Zotto has bounced back well from a tough year last season. Also note Stralman essentially replaces the injured Eminger and Stu Bickel would be at 50%/-0.634 in his three games before Christmas.
So that's it. Let me know what you guys think and if there are any questions. Also I highly suggest you go through the NYR games and look at some other teams Shot Differential charts from above. Fantasy Hockey/Betting tip: if St. Louis gets decent goaltending they are an elite team -- as a fan I have no shame they whipped NYR at home (even if NYR is better on the road this year).
75 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I know the great George has game-by-game Fenwick numbers that he can chime in with below
Nah, I’m working on another post that will address those.
Blueshirt Banter - Where Rangers' Fans Matter
Tracking the Rangers - Numbers don't lie. They just don't agree with you.
Twitter: RangerSmurf
true
but metrics help explain how the team is winning and where they need to improve
"Don't look now, but there's one too many people in this room and I think it's you." Groucho Marx
In Prust We Trust
"Kovalev would work with Tortorella like a kitty would work in a microwave.
A lot of smoke and desperate clawing at the door. It wouldn’t work. It would just be a big, hot mess." -Dig Deep
Follow me @8kpower
I find it funny and ironic that you dismiss metrics and your name is EMc2.
Aucune clause de Mouvement
by Blueshirt in Paris on Dec 27, 2011 2:42 PM EST up reply actions
Wins don’t persist if the metrics aren’t 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 Dec 27, 2011 2:48 PM EST up reply actions
Well the funny thing is that you said the same thing 20 games ago, and rather than other shoe dropping, our metrics and play improved. Hopefully the same continues and we play better.
I do not know where it fits in to your metrics (as my eyes glaze over when I try to read it) but I certainly feel like PP futility/effectiveness is going to dictate our future and playoff success even more than our shots on goal and other metrics. It seems like our defense overcomes our sometimes stagnant offense and contributions from our other players overcome (offensive) dogs like Boyle and Dubinsky, but the flaccid PP is really going to be a problem. Teams need to feel like they will pay the price if the commit a penalty or else they are going to run right over us.
Yup. The metrics are there now.
The season as a whole still looks like shit (as Rob’s story clearly shows), but that uptick in the chart from 40% to 47% of the shots requires a lot of positives, and that’s what has been going on.
As for the PP, yes, it’s a concern, the shot metrics there are for shit also, they were just converting a crazy amount of the shots. Having watched the PP, you can see that they tend to look for the perfect play a ton, rather than just getting pucks on net. When it works, they obviously convert in bunches (as they did for a stretch), but now that it’s been taken away, they’re left with not much.
Yes, PP’s are a problem, but it’s really such a small percentage of the game. Here’s the per game totals so far:
5v5: 46.6 min
5v4: 5.8 min
4v5: 5.8 min
4v4: 2 min
If we’re losing playoff games because of 6 minutes in a game, it’s because those 46.5 minutes went horribly wrong.
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 Dec 27, 2011 3:29 PM EST up reply actions
True, but we play a lot of one goal games. If we were converting at 20% rather than 15%, it certainly could directly win us one game in a 7 game series. Could be a series-decider even.
We’ve played among the fewest one goal games in the league this year. It’s a fair point, but again, if you take care of business in the bulk of the game, you should’ve have to rely on your PP getting one for you.
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 Dec 27, 2011 3:57 PM EST up reply actions
No way! Were we among the most 1 goal games in the previous season or two, or not really? That’s good to know. I guess due to our increased goal scoring in general , this year.
1-goal games are basically a transient talent, both in number and in ability to win them. I know it doesn’t make for good copy, but in a game still defined a good deal by ‘luck’ (or unquantifiable things, whatever you want to call it), there’s no real skill in playing (or winning) 1-goal games.
That’s emphasized in the playoffs of course, where you don’t have a full season to make up for a couple of quirky bounces.
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 Dec 27, 2011 4:18 PM EST up reply actions
Wow
Smurf I’m surprised at that comment from you. I hope you’re meaning that there is no translatable stats to suggest the “skill” level required to be a successful “1 goal game winning team”. From having played the game (albiet not nearly at the NHL level) the pressure goes up enormously during a 1 goal game. No one wants to make the mistake that costs the team. This is akin to “clutch” hitting; some players handle pressure situations better than others. Consistent close games are mentally draining, so teams that are more involved in them, and are more successful in them, may have players with the propensity to handle pressure situations better. I’d call it the Drury/Claude Lemieux factor … 2 guys that are more likely not hall of famers, but always seem to score their few playoff goals when it mattered.
"There are some people who, if they don't already know, you can't tell 'em." - Yogi
by bleed'n blue on Dec 27, 2011 9:19 PM EST up reply actions
I hope you’re meaning that there is no translatable stats to suggest the "skill" level required to be a successful "1 goal game winning team"
The correlation year to year for one-goal games is 0.05. So yes, there’s nothing to suggest it’s controllable, thus it’s luck, of the mathematical variety.
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 Dec 27, 2011 10:01 PM EST up reply actions
Conveniently timed follow up, from Neil Greenberg in the Washington Post today:
Since the lockout, 23 teams have won more than 60 percent of their games by a margin of one goal. Here is how they fared in the playoffs:
■ Three (13 percent) missed the playoffs entirely.
■ Of the 20 that made the playoffs, 12 (60 percent) won less than three games, meaning they didn’t make it out of the first round.
■ Just one team (Carolina, 2005-06) hoisted the Stanley Cup.
If a team’s win percentage in one-goal games tells us one thing about a playoff team, it is they are most likely to be bounced in the first round.
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 Dec 28, 2011 11:00 AM EST up reply actions
This is akin to "clutch" hitting;
Ever notice how good clutch hitters are almost always just the “good” hitters? Sure, there is noise in the data at times but when the sample size is large enough, hitters are what they are, regardless of pressure/situation/team/city.
I hear you, but
how do you explain Drury? Not exactly a 50 goal scorer, but the sample of clutch goals scored kindof defies luck … guess he’s just a statistical anamoly?
"There are some people who, if they don't already know, you can't tell 'em." - Yogi
We are exactly at 20% at home. Not so much on the road.
Aucune clause de Mouvement
by Blueshirt in Paris on Dec 27, 2011 4:31 PM EST up reply actions
the funny thing is that you obviously think a 20 game sample size is meaningful.
It’s funny, if these stats supported the Rangers success, people would be all about them. It’s like many good coaches and front offices preach, process over results, the right process produces good results over a long period of time where as good results can skew a process that is less likely to sustain success.
So essentially if we just had more overal shots (thus lowering our shoot% etc) everything would be roses?
Is there a way to remove specific periods? Like say see all the info without any 1st periods?
Also is there a way to factor in when we’re holding a lead? Anyway to find the average time it takes for us tO get the lead?
I like the #s but the rangers tend to get on top in the 2nd and then just go into lockdown mode with the occasional heavy forechecking with limited shots and dump and chasing. I feel their “method of winning” skews these charts to make them look worse than it actually is.
Don’t take this as homer-ism, I’m not a fan yelling that we’re elite or even a cup-contender. I just feel that with certain game strategies you can skew the “norm” but still come out fine.
Just trying to learn.
by teknics on Dec 27, 2011 2:54 PM EST via mobile reply actions
Also is there a way to factor in when we’re holding a lead? Anyway to find the average time it takes for us tO get the lead?
When looking at future success, people tend to look at either Fenwick Tied (Shots F/Shots Against when score is Tied) or Fenwick Close (defined as within 1 goal in the first two periods, or tied in the 3rd). That’s what I’m compiling on a game by game basis (which shows things have been improving quite well).
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 Dec 27, 2011 3:03 PM EST up reply actions
Score Effects
What you’re referencing is called score effects; and you’re completely right in doing so.
As for sorting them by leads: see this Fenwick page here from behindthenet. You can sort by one or two goal leads/deficits – or when the game is tied. As for your theory, the Rangers are quite the opposite because they actually play better (in terms of league rank) when they’re up and the club is dead last when they are down by one or two goals.
So basically when we play good we play damn good and when we play bad we play horribly bad lol, sounds like last year :)
by teknics on Dec 27, 2011 4:39 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Good stuff.
I understand that luck plays into it and the effort to try to quantify something so intangible but it makes me wonder what other unquantifiable/intangible forces play their part: Teams that finds a way to win. Score goals when it matters. Leadership, confidence, a goalie that frustrates the opponent. Hell you could even make a small argument that lack of shots/work for the opposing goaltender keeps them out of the game for a period of time. The demoralize effect of having great shifts but unable to put one pass Henrik which in turn pushes them to take a bit more chances then to have the NYR counter attack and score on their only shot in the period.
Don’t get me wrong, not dismissing metric at all. It is all very valid and meaningful. I guess what I am trying to say is I dont see the bottom falling out and us not making the playoffs. Sure there might be a dip and we wont win the Presidents trophy. But once you make the playoffs it a whole different animal. I see this team as a team that can perform in the playoffs..leadership, defense, goaltending, depth. All critical elements to advance.
Thanks for posting this. Keep it coming. I for one enjoy it.
Aucune clause de Mouvement
by Blueshirt in Paris on Dec 27, 2011 2:59 PM EST reply actions
Agreed
This is more evaluation for future decision making, not necessarily for the coaching side as your speaking to. Teams do need those intangibles and coaches are there to encourage them.
As for the bottom falling out, I would also agree with you. The numbers have been steadily improving since game 10, and the Rangers are playing like a top 5 team in the East with the help of Henrik. Can Lundqvist continue his awesome pace? Its very much possible, I just don’t want people to start getting on him if he does take a dip because he’s meant so god damn much to this club so far this season (carrying them on his back for the most part).
Glad you enjoy the stuff I appreciate it.
I guess what I am trying to say is I dont see the bottom falling out and us not making the playoffs.
Nor do I. The biggest concern I see right now is with Biron’s play, which is well above his established level. They’ve been excellent of late, and while their overall PDO has been high, their score tied/score close PDO has been not as ridiculous of late (it regressed!)
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 Dec 27, 2011 3:14 PM EST up reply actions
Maybe he does come back to earth. Or maybe Torts has found the perfect balance of getting Henrik enough rest but still be able to be sharp and Biron enough playing time to not get rusty. ;)
Even if he does start to let a few in and we lose a few games, worst case scenario is losing home ice advantage. I personally don’t feel that will lose a series for you. Sure it helps but we seem to be a pretty decent road team. And it seems the past few years home ice advantage almost starts to look like a disadvantage.
Aucune clause de Mouvement
by Blueshirt in Paris on Dec 27, 2011 3:27 PM EST up reply actions
Though I’m not sure Torts uses the same metrics, its nice to see that the coaches and the players continue to recognize that they’re “not playing great”. Its clear that the team knows it needs to improve in a lot of areas. They’re still getting wins, and they’re not getting too high, so like Paris said above, I don’t see the bottom falling out either.
Any new insight into how teams are using these numbers? It’d be interesting to know.
Great stuff as always!
Bigger than you’d think. Of course, after his rant about Boyle’s efforts yesterday, you’d get the impression otherwise. He does reference things in his interviews which clues you in that he’s looking at stuff beyond the boxscores.
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 Dec 27, 2011 3:50 PM EST up reply actions
Front offices have a lot more information at their disposal than what is available to the public. They track scoring chances (which do seem to match my counts pretty well every time they talk about them in pressers/broadcasts), they track puck battles, even simple things like the impact of faceoffs and the penalty kill.
The Rangers are known to be one of the more active NHL teams w/ ‘advanced stats.’ The Pens and Sharks are also front-runners in that regard. What and how they’re using them is obviously a competitive secret to a degree.
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 Dec 27, 2011 3:49 PM EST up reply actions
where have you seen them to be active in that regard? would not have thought that at all, especially in light of the yearly inexplicable offseason moves (rupp this year)
by Ahmad Bradshaw on Dec 29, 2011 1:30 AM EST up reply actions
Haven’t personally seen. I do know they have people on the payroll dedicated to advanced stats (or at least had as of last year). Roger Nielsen was a ‘pioneer’ of sorts in the advanced stats world, and was using them as a member of this organization.
As for Rupp…that was more of a contractual fail and mindset fail. It’s clear they value truculence to a degree, and it’s hard to argue that Rupp wasn’t a good piece in that regard.
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 Dec 29, 2011 10:36 AM EST up reply actions
Ehhhh
Still think some metrics are a bit too much over analyzation. I know the Rangers have to shoot more to be more successful but you also can’t shoot just for the sake of shooting. It’s a matter of where the shots are coming from and right now the Rangers are taking some high percentage shots.
The way the team is playing right now they don’t need many chances to be successful. I think it’s going to come down when we get our big name defenseman back to limiting our opposition’s chances, which in turn will open up chances for us. Great defense leads to great offense in this league.
I think us and Boston are very similar in the way in which we play. It might not look great on the metrics but we are winning.
Is hockey hard? "I don't know, you tell me. We need to have the strength and power of a football player, the stamina of a marathon runner, and the concentration of a brain surgeon. But we need to put all this together while moving at high speeds on a cold and slippery surface while 5 other guys use clubs to try and kill us, oh yeah did I mention that this whole time we're standing on blades 1/8 of an inch thick? Is ice hockey hard? I don't know, you tell me. Next question."
-Brendan Shanahan
by RichieToGabbySCORE on Dec 27, 2011 3:48 PM EST reply actions
It’s a matter of where the shots are coming from and right now the Rangers are taking some high percentage shots.
Not really. The ratios of all shots and the ratios of ‘dangerous area’ shots is pretty much neck and neck this year. That was more of an argument for last year’s team playing above their metrics. I can’t even count the number of times I’ve said “jesus Lundqvist” where he’s made a save on a much higher ‘quality’ shot we’ve cashed in on.
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 Dec 27, 2011 3:53 PM EST up reply actions
do you expect anything different of lundqvist though?
Is hockey hard? "I don't know, you tell me. We need to have the strength and power of a football player, the stamina of a marathon runner, and the concentration of a brain surgeon. But we need to put all this together while moving at high speeds on a cold and slippery surface while 5 other guys use clubs to try and kill us, oh yeah did I mention that this whole time we're standing on blades 1/8 of an inch thick? Is ice hockey hard? I don't know, you tell me. Next question."
-Brendan Shanahan
by RichieToGabbySCORE on Dec 27, 2011 10:21 PM EST up reply actions
It’s been a different level of ridiculous, so yes, even this is different than anything I’ve seen from him.
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 Dec 27, 2011 10:39 PM EST up reply actions
Don’t get me wrong, not dismissing metric at all. It is all very valid and meaningful. I guess what I am trying to say is I dont see the bottom falling out and us not making the playoffs. Sure there might be a dip and we wont win the Presidents trophy. But once you make the playoffs it a whole different animal. I see this team as a team that can perform in the playoffs..leadership, defense, goaltending, depth. All critical elements to advance.
What I take away from this is that the NY have managed to overachieve expectations so far – and while its not likely to continue, it may, or may not, and even if it does not, the NYR should be safe enough even with “likely” regressions to make the playoffs unless our PDO goes waaaay in the other direction.
George and Rob can correct or explain more as necessary, but the playoffs are such a small sample (28 games at most) that luck seems to play a huge part. I admit to a huge bias here, coming mainly for an admittedly irrational dislike of Chris Drury, the sport of baseball, and little league in particular, but what you see as intangibles having an effect in the playoffs, I see as mostly luck. People can talk all they want about intangibles, but Boston won the SC last year because they dominated special teams in a completely unexpected way.
Glen Sather is a Hockey Genius.
http://twitter.com/ThGeneralissimo
http://twitter.com/PopsTwitTar
Well, that and and a goalie stopping 94.9% of his EV shots for 25 games. (Think about how good Lundqvist has been this season, and he’s ‘only’ stopped 94.2% at EV)
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 Dec 27, 2011 4:00 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah, I tend to underplay Thomas’ performance (not just in the playoffs, but in the finals as well). But even with that, if Vancouver and Boston performed in the finals to their previous special team levels, it would (IMO) have been the opposite result.
Glen Sather is a Hockey Genius.
http://twitter.com/ThGeneralissimo
http://twitter.com/PopsTwitTar
We know this is not a 115-116 point team.
They have earned 48 points out a possible 68 thru 34 games. Thats unsustainable, considering injuries on defense its incredible they have banked this many so far.
Hank will hit a rough patch and Biron will lay a turd or two. The offense I am less concerned about due to depth and Staal coming back.
Even if both things turn south at the same time and they go on a 1-5-1 starting tomorrow. That brings them to a pace of 100 points (where most expected in preseason).
Torts has been telling them to shoot more (Sam & Joe) brought it up early in the games last night on several occassions.
When this team shows up and plays hard for 60 minutes they are tought to beat. When they take periods off or don’t want to grind (@St. Louis) they get their asses handed to them.
BOTTOM LINE.. THIS TEAM HAS THE TALENT TO BE AS GOOD AS THEY WANT TO BE. ONLY THING HOLDING THEM BACK IS THEMSELVES. CANT SAY THE SAME FOR PRIOR THREE SEASONS WHERE YEAM OVER ACHIEVED IMO.
by Gabby the Gutless Sniper on Dec 27, 2011 4:26 PM EST via mobile reply actions
Ultimare Metrix
Rangers are 19-4-2 since BR reportedly started dating Olivia Munn.
Sure beats waking up to Wheaties.
by BigB22 on Dec 27, 2011 4:32 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
What is it Richards said about its not how hard he shoots its his accuracy?
by It may HAVE to Last a Lifetime on Dec 27, 2011 4:51 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
He normally goes five hole on her most nights. Occassionally works the back door play if she shows starfish instead of butterfly.
by Gabby the Gutless Sniper on Dec 27, 2011 6:12 PM EST via Android app up reply actions
Just lol.
In other news………. (Gabby, I know you usually post this)….. Whale up 2-0, end of 1st. Also Grachev scored his first last night.
PRUSTOSTERONE!!!
"Stepan, step in, step out" Timothy Leary
Scott Gomez, the gift that keeps on giving!
by nathansfamous on Dec 27, 2011 7:42 PM EST up reply actions
Grachev and Horak will be the next Mogilny and Demitra..
And we’ll all be crying… CT Whale will be stacked for playoffs when they get Kreider, Yogan, McIlrath and Thomas in the line up after NCAA & juniors seasons/ playoffs end.
by Gabby the Gutless Sniper on Dec 27, 2011 10:04 PM EST via Android app up reply actions
This reminds me of working with the Finance dept...
Great work. Commendable. Nice job. Out of the box thinking. Thanks for the input, etc., etc.
Now, go off in the corner and play while we go out and win games. :)
December fenwick
Looking at the whole December the Rangers are doing good in the metrics as well..
53% on Fenwick Close (top 8 or so in league), 55% Fenwick tied (top 3 in league)
If they can keep that up they should be able to not only get to the playoffs, but even contend or make a bit of a run..
Thanks
Despite my love for the numbers I still have yet to get used to using the Time On Ice website (I’m assuming you got those from there). Thanks again this is what I was looking for.
It might be wishful thinking the Rangers will keep the December pace up in possession, but atleast it isn’t as luck driven..
For the education of the masses, here is the way one can look at specific games or chunks of games..
http://timeonice.com/mplayershots1112tied.php?team=NYR&first=20487&last=20487
Replace tied with close for fenwick close.. replace team= with your teams initials (although the Devils are N.J instead of NJD so it might be more difficult than one thinks).. replace first= and last= with the game numbers you want to look at. One can get them from the NHL schedule/boxscore.
Bryzgalof is losing it.
Just dropped F bomb to reporters and sarcastically said he was Outstanding after giving up 5 on 16 shots.
by Gabby the Gutless Sniper on Dec 27, 2011 10:13 PM EST via Android app reply actions
link?
Is hockey hard? "I don't know, you tell me. We need to have the strength and power of a football player, the stamina of a marathon runner, and the concentration of a brain surgeon. But we need to put all this together while moving at high speeds on a cold and slippery surface while 5 other guys use clubs to try and kill us, oh yeah did I mention that this whole time we're standing on blades 1/8 of an inch thick? Is ice hockey hard? I don't know, you tell me. Next question."
-Brendan Shanahan
by RichieToGabbySCORE on Dec 27, 2011 10:24 PM EST up reply actions
What?
I have to be honest…
Your numbers give me a headache…..
Another thought, it seems this team is winning some games while using mirrors…. and tons of hard work. Not complaining, just making an honest observation…..and enjoying it the whole time.
I also would have laughed my ass off if anyone here would have suggested we would have been in first place at Christmas at the start of the season…….What a great gift…..thanks Santa
This is why metrics for hockey are retarded.
This is a great team. They play very well together. They win. Who gives a shit if some nerd can’t figure out why?
It's like saying you dislike Don Frye's mustache, which itself is the equivalent of spitting on the Constitution. - Anthony Pace
?
This is a great team.
They’re a good (aka 4-8 in the East) team with an outstanding goaltender. If you can’t understand that then I don’t know what else to tell you.
They win. Who gives a shit if some nerd can’t figure out why?
Try explaining luck in sports to anyone. I’m not sure if you’ve played or play the game of hockey (as I have, since I was three, competitively through college), but a lot of those bounces of the puck the luck I refer to. No one can figure out luck, which is why its just part of the game but also why it can’t be relied upon for a team to continue winning.
Bullshit.
I played for 15 years. Quit after HS and two knee surgeries and three concussions. I gave up a lot to this sport and would gladly do it again.
Now that we played the battle of who played ice hockey…
If you want to just write the team off as a 4-8 seed, be my guest to be stupid. This team can compete up and down the Eastern conference and would not shock me at all to get into the playoffs as a #1-3. We will be in contention for the top spot in the Atlantic all season and I’m sure it’ll come down to the final few games.
This team is not winning through luck. This team is winning through skill. Look up and down the roster. This is a very, very skilled team. From the offense to the goaltender.
I would expect some Fish or Debbie fan to write this team off like you are. It’s kind of lame to see someone who played the game try and base their view off of nerd stats like metrics. I don’t know how many times I can shout this, but metrics DO NOT work for a 100% team game like ice hockey. I LOVE me some metrics in baseball and even football, but anyone who has played hockey knows that there is a lot more to the game than stats could ever show.
For someone who claims to have played through college, I have to question whether or not that is true if you want to sit there and rip this team via stats. It’s like couch surfing and rating a defender based off of +/-.
It's like saying you dislike Don Frye's mustache, which itself is the equivalent of spitting on the Constitution. - Anthony Pace
by Jonathan. on Dec 28, 2011 1:42 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
It’s kind of lame to see someone who played the game try and base their view off of nerd stats like metrics.
Why? Why can’t someone who played try to get a better understanding of the game?
I don’t know how many times I can shout this, but metrics DO NOT work for a 100% team game like ice hockey.
Says you. There are plenty of things that are captured quite well.
I LOVE me some metrics in baseball and even football, but anyone who has played hockey knows that there is a lot more to the game than stats could ever show.
This reads exactly like what people said about sabermetrics in baseball 20 years ago. Is hockey there yet? Of course not, but it’s growing daily.
We get you don’t like stats. Stop reading the posts then, they’re clearly not for you.
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 Dec 28, 2011 8:57 AM EST up reply actions
Just a quick note to you George. You’ve got to be the most level headed blogger I’ve read. Always keeping it to the facts and never getting personal. Well done.
Manning lobs it, Burress alone, touchdown New York!
For the empty net, Mark Messier... do you believe it?! Do you believe it?! He said we will win game 6 - he has just picked up the hat trick!
Sabermetrics work AMAZINGLY well in baseball, though.
There’s a big reason for that, too. The simple fact that the stats can accurately reflect a single player’s game in a game that is usually one player against a single other player (hitter v batter; hitter v fielder).
As I said — I am a HUGE fan of sabermetrics in baseball. They just do not work in hockey, though. I’ve looked into them, researched them myself, etc. There is nothing in these stats that means anything to the game of hockey. Perhaps on a minor note, maybe.
It's like saying you dislike Don Frye's mustache, which itself is the equivalent of spitting on the Constitution. - Anthony Pace
?
They just do not work in hockey, though. I’ve looked into them, researched them myself, etc. There is nothing in these stats that means anything to the game of hockey. Perhaps on a minor note, maybe.
Have any proof as to why they don’t work? And by proof I mean correlation numbers, t-tests, or any other simple statistical model that would prove your theory? Also, is there “nothing” to them, or do they play a “minor” role? Which one is it?
As George already mentioned to you above (which I guess you chose to ignore), Hockey and Baseball sabremetrics can not be put on the same level at this time because of the amount of time the numbers have been of influence on each sport. Take these numbers as you will, no one is forcing you to comment on them – but to quote a fantastic movie (Wedding Crashers): “I’ll be the one waiting to say I told you so”
They’re not cut and dry like baseball, b/c obviously the team dynamic creates more difficulties in eliminating the noise. It doesn’t mean it doesn’t work, it means that more work needs to be done. It also doesn’t mean that there isn’t value to the work already done. I obviously don’t know what research you’ve done, but there’s plenty of work out there that shows meaningful results.
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 Dec 29, 2011 10:47 AM EST up reply actions
haha 2 knee surgeries and 3 concussions...
sounds like you’re the nerd. Haha bum. I love it when stupid meat heads take the research that people do that is backed by actual facts and throw it out by using the nerd living with his mom argument.
Go screw off.
I’m sure you’ve never even stepped on the ice yourself.
It's like saying you dislike Don Frye's mustache, which itself is the equivalent of spitting on the Constitution. - Anthony Pace
Dude,
are you serious? I was destined for greatness, I played 2 and a half years from when I was 5 to 7 &1/2, then some big mite goon slew footed me, blowing out my knee, and as i was limping to the bench, he gave me an elbow to the head, whereby i received 3 simultaneous concussions and was forced into retirement.
The funny thing is, I actually completely agree with you about sabermetrics being much more applicable in baseball, but you just came off as a complete douche calling somebody a nerd for putting in time to research something that you just don’t find important/don’t understand.
I think management gives a shit. If you don’t feel the need to understand why winning teams win and losing teams lose, why do you need to discuss all things Rangers on BSB?
Red Line Station and @RedArmyLine, featuring coverage of the most frustrating team in the NHL
I believe in next year.
by red army line on Dec 28, 2011 9:28 AM EST via Android app up reply actions 1 recs
rec'd
even in baseball people still make fun of the sabermetrics guys, saying it’s not old time baseball, they are all nerds, and you have to use your gut. The funny thing is though, that all the successful organizations pour money into research and development of analytic scientific stats, Not the teams with a bunch of old men chewing tobacco and going with their guts.
I have never, ever heard of anyone associated with the game who puts any weight into metrics.
None. Not one single person. When I was writing for Hockey’s Future and got a chance to talk to some really great hockey minds, there was not one who ever mentioned advanced metrics in hockey. These same people today say it’s a crock.
I’m sure these have SOME place as a minor portrayal. But it’s the same as when people start basing something off of +/-.
Every single advanced metric is based off of more than one player. Every single one. That’s a crock, because your own number (i.e. Corsi number) will be lowered if your team sucks or your goalie sucks (or is having an off night). Anything that is team based like hockey is going to be insanely hard to deal with, metric wise.
Again, for the 10th time — I love Sabermetrics. Love them. Will not ever analyze a baseball game/season without them. They just do not work in hockey. Way too team-oriented.
It's like saying you dislike Don Frye's mustache, which itself is the equivalent of spitting on the Constitution. - Anthony Pace
?
They just do not work in hockey. Way too team-oriented.
This is a “team-oriented” article, “based off of more than one player.” Good players, aka good “corsi” players, can play on bad teams. For the sake of this arguement, lets look at the worst team in the league by results (aka standings): the Blue Jackets. Vinny Prospal, who is having a similar season as he did with the 209-10 Rangers, is a good player on a “bad” team. If he was on a better team, would he have better stats? I doubt it, seeing as he’s scoring at a similar pace in the small sample size he put up last season (29 GP) despite being in front of absolutely HORRIFIC goaltending this year in Columbus.
Hockey is a team game, as you know. Baseball situations are allowed to be more personal (at this time – because of the nature of the statistics in the sport) because of how the game is operated. If you think this isn’t the case, then I don’t know what else to say.
because your own number (i.e. Corsi number) will be lowered if your team sucks or your goalie sucks
Er…Corsi is a total of the number of shots taken. How good your goalie is would be irrelevant (except for the very small quantity associated with rebounds).
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 Dec 29, 2011 10:48 AM EST up reply actions
I have never, ever heard of anyone associated with the game who puts any weight into metrics. None. Not one single person
I assure you, there are organizations within the NHL that have people dedicated to this stuff. Not even necessarily the publicized advanced stats, but into mathematically analyzing a game. Maybe the scouts you’ve dealt with aren’t using them (because well, their job is to analyze their targets via the eyeball test), but the front offices are.
Heck, scoring chances are considered by some as an ‘advanced stat,’ and you hear coaches reference them all the time. I don’t think that’s necessarily ‘advanced,’ but it’s still a non-boxscore number being used, and for the casual observer, anything not in the boxscore is ‘advanced.’
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 Dec 29, 2011 10:54 AM EST up reply actions
Of course nothing is 100%, where did he say it was? If it was we would all be rich from betting on the sure thing.
Just like stats cant show you 100% of whats going on, just watching the game on TV cant show you either. These stats help fill in the picture and help you understand why they are winning to a certin extent.
And if you don’t think luck plays a part I suggest you rewatch the Phoenix game where they score with .1 seconds.
Aucune clause de Mouvement
by Blueshirt in Paris on Dec 28, 2011 5:32 AM EST reply actions
I’ll leave the detailed stats to the experts here but the one thing you see with these Rangers that you didn’t see last year is timely scoring or even the ability to score at any time. having a nicely balanced team means that any line can score a big goal. that’s what they’re getting this year. last year the King would stand on his head with nothing on the back end. this year the team has propensity for starting slow in the games and getting their legs so the King is happy and sharper for 60 minutes. he now knows his efforts are not in vain and the team will eventually respond (and score goals).
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Blueshirt Banter
Related FanShots on Blueshirt Banter
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Rangers Schedule
Next 5 Games
@
New Jersey
|
Fri 05/25 | 8:00 PM EDT |
|
New Jersey
|
Sun 05/27 | TBA |
Last 5 Games
|
New Jersey
|
Wed 05/23 | L 3 - 5 |
|
@
New Jersey
|
Mon 05/21 | L 1 - 4 |
|
@
New Jersey
|
Sat 05/19 | W 3 - 0 |
|
New Jersey
|
Wed 05/16 | L 2 - 3 |
|
New Jersey
|
Mon 05/14 | W 3 - 0 |
SBNation.com Recent Stories
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Devils guarantee they’ll downplay 1994 conference finals for Game 6 vs. Rangers
- Dodger Stadium Winter Classic; 10 worst NHL fans; ‘While The Men Watch’ debate (Puck Headlines)
- Lightning GM Yzerman suggests he won’t be trading for Luongo, strengthens position for Luongo trade
- Marek Vs. Wyshynski Radio: Ron Hextall, Luke Richardson and Rangers/Devils
- Tomas Kopecky visits Pavol Demitra’s grave with Slovakia silver medal (VIDEO)
Latest stories and headlines from NHL.com
- Maple Leafs sign defensive prospect Petter Granberg to entry level deal
- Talented Sea Dogs show they can defence as well as attack at Memorial Cup
- Connecticut players create video to tell gay players they are welcome on their team
- Columbus Blue Jackets, centre Ryan Russell agree on 1-year, 2-way NHL-AHL contract
- Blue Jackets re-sign Ryan Russell to 1-year deal
