New York Rangers Stats: Individual Chances Update
It's been a while since the last individual update, so the New Year seems like as good a time as any for the next one. For previous updates, I gave you the game by game totals, but 20 games is a lot to list, so this time around I'll just give the totals. Those curious enough to see the game logs can find it at my blog like data dump site. We saw in my shots update that the chances did trend above break even for a period of time, but they've come back down now.
| Totals | EV | PP | 5v3 PP | SH | 5v3 SH | |||||||
| Previous Total | 241 | 243 | 170 | 176 | 54 | 11 | 10 | 0 | 7 | 53 | 0 | 3 |
| Update Total | 287 | 309 | 223 | 240 | 53 | 7 | 3 | 0 | 9 | 56 | 0 | 5 |
| Season Total | 528 | 552 |
393 | 416 | 107 | 18 | 13 | 0 | 16 | 109 | 0 | 8 |
*Data does not include the Winter Classic
Scoring chances for the season are still below 50%, much like the season shot totals that Rob L showed. What that tells is that contrary to some arguments, there's no noticeable difference in the shot quality being prevented by the defense, or created by the offense. Another way we can check that is by type of chance. (5v5 data only)
| Chances For | Chances Against | |||||||
| Chances | COG | Goals | Chance% | Chances | COG | Goals | Chance% | |
| Breakaways | 9 | 8 | 3 | 33.33% | 4 | 4 | 1 | 25.00% |
| Even Man Rush/Transition | 125 | 98 | 17 | 13.60% | 146 | 115 | 17 | 11.64% |
| Odd Man Rush | 26 | 15 | 10 | 38.47% | 27 | 20 | 7 | 25.93% |
| Zone Entry Totals | 160 | 121 | 30 | 18.75% | 177 | 139 | 25 | 14.12% |
| Defensive Zone Turnover | 44 | 37 | 9 | 20.45% | 45 | 36 | 7 | 15.56% |
| Zone Pressure/Forecheck | 146 | 111 | 24 | 16.44% | 167 | 129 | 12 | 7.19% |
| Faceoffs | 17 | 15 | 2 | 11.76% | 19 | 17 | 5 | 26.32% |
| Zone Pressure Totals | 207 | 163 | 35 | 16.91% | 231 | 182 | 24 | 10.39% |
The New York Rangers have gotten a few more breakaways (thank you Marian Gaborik), but overall there's no discernible difference in the types allowed, and the percentage of transition chances of the two groups (43.6% for, 43.4% against) is virtually identical. The main separator, which also accounts for their record, is once again the goaltending of Henrik Lundqvist and Martin Biron. After stopping 88% of even strength chances against last year, the duo has maintained that clip through 36 games this year.
After the jump, the individual data.
| Name | Chance | COG | Goal | Chance% | Assists | Plays | C/60 | P/60 | Attempts | SC/ATT |
| Richards | 35 | 26 | 9 | 25.71% | 24 | 59 | 3.82 | 6.44 | 87 | 40.23% |
| Callahan | 30 | 24 | 2 | 6.67% | 24 | 54 | 3.43 | 6.18 | 91 | 32.97% |
| Gaborik | 62 | 51 | 15 | 24.19% | 21 | 83 | 7.15 | 9.57 | 107 | 57.94% |
| Stepan | 35 | 26 | 5 | 14.29% | 36 | 71 | 4.36 | 8.85 | 75 | 46.67% |
| Dubinsky | 35 | 24 | 4 | 11.43% | 11 | 46 | 4.61 | 6.07 | 79 | 44.30% |
| Fedotenko | 24 | 22 | 4 | 16.67% | 8 | 32 | 3.27 | 4.36 | 53 | 45.28% |
| Anisimov | 29 | 20 | 4 | 13.79% | 20 | 49 | 4.13 | 6.98 | 67 | 43.28% |
| Boyle | 27 | 16 | 2 | 7.41% | 13 | 40 | 3.91 | 5.80 | 79 | 34.18% |
| Prust | 13 | 12 | 1 | 7.69% | 17 | 30 | 2.34 | 5.39 | 27 | 48.15% |
| Hagelin | 11 | 9 | 4 | 36.36% | 8 | 19 | 3.06 | 5.29 | 45 | 24.44% |
| Mitchell | 9 | 6 | 1 | 11.11% | 2 | 11 | 2.63 | 3.21 | 26 | 34.62% |
| Christensen | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0.00% | 3 | 6 | 1.34 | 2.69 | 11 | 27.27% |
| Avery | 8 | 7 | 3 | 37.50% | 2 | 10 | 4.57 | 5.71 | 22 | 36.36% |
| Rupp | 3 | 3 | 1 | 33.33% | 0 | 3 | 2.04 | 2.04 | 4 | 75.00% |
| Wolski | 4 | 3 | 0 | 0.00% | 4 | 8 | 3.61 | 7.21 | 8 | 50.00% |
| Deveaux | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0.00% | 1 | 2 | 1.28 | 2.56 | 3 | 33.33% |
| TOTAL | 329 | 252 | 55 | 16.72% | 194 | 523 | 11.32 | 17.99 | 784 | 41.96% |
| Name | Chance | COG | Goal | Chance% | Assists | Plays | C/60 | P/60 | Attempts | SC/ATT |
| Girardi | 3 | 2 | 1 | 33.33% | 15 | 18 | 0.25 | 1.48 | 45 | 6.67% |
| McDonagh | 12 | 9 | 3 | 25.00% | 13 | 25 | 1.02 | 2.12 | 54 | 22.22% |
| DelZotto | 10 | 9 | 3 | 30.00% | 7 | 17 | 1.02 | 1.74 | 47 | 21.28% |
| Eminger | 5 | 5 | 2 | 40.00% | 3 | 8 | 0.86 | 1.38 | 22 | 22.73% |
| Sauer | 4 | 3 | 0 | 0.00% | 4 | 8 | 0.80 | 1.60 | 18 | 22.22% |
| Woywitka | 1 | 1 | 1 | 100.00% | 3 | 4 | 0.23 | 0.92 | 17 | 5.88% |
| Stralman | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0.00% | 2 | 3 | 0.29 | 0.88 | 17 | 5.88% |
| Erixon | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0.00% | 1 | 2 | 0.38 | 0.77 | 8 | 12.50% |
| Bickel | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0.00% | 2 | 3 | 0.96 | 2.89 | 7 | 14.29% |
| Bell | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00% | 1 | 1 | 0.00 | 5.25 | 4 | 0.00% |
| TOTAL | 38 | 32 | 10 | 26.32% | 51 | 89 | 1.31 | 3.06 | 239 | 15.90% |
*5v5 data only. Players initially sorted by ES TOI. Columns are sortable by clicking the headers.
Much like the first two updates, it's still Marian Gaborik, and then everyone else. His pace has slipped, but he still gets more than 2.5 more chances per 60 minutes than his nearest teammate. That teammate is the much maligned Brandon Dubinsky. Dubinsky was strong by this measure the last time, but his improving play has come with an improving rate of chances. When it comes to total involvement though, the other half of the Rangers' dynamic duo, Derek Stepan, is second in command. His team leading 36 chance-assists are 50% more than the next best Ranger player, exemplifying his ability as a playmaker.
Defensively, not much has changed since last update. The defense as a whole is contributing a bit less, from 3.72 plays per 60 down to now 3.06. Relative to each other, the order is basically the same. The biggest surprise on the list has to be our resident rugrat, Stu Bickel. Primarily here for his grit, Bickel has chipped in a fair amount of offense for his time here. He's not likely to keep up with Ryan McDonagh and Michael Del Zotto, but his contributions have been a pleasant surprise thus far.
One thing I added for this update is the SC/ATT column. Very simply, this is the percentage of a players' shots that were marked as scoring chances. This includes not just shots on goal, but missed nets as well. The shot data comes courtesy of the fine folk at behindthenet.ca, Gabe Desjardins. Of course, Marian Gaborik leads that list as well, but more interesting than the top of the list are two names at the bottom, Ryan Callahan and rookie Carl Hagelin.
Both players clearly substitute quality for quantity. That's not necessarily a bad thing, getting pucks on net from anywhere rarely is. The issue lies in conversion. In Callahan's case, it hasn't mattered much. He has a 4 even strength goals from non-chance areas, so his conversion on actual chances is pretty poor. That number should come up with time, which means even if he stops scoring from sharp angles, his goal production may stay fairly steady. In Hagelin's case, however, we see him converting at a somewhat obscene rate. His speed has allowed him to score on odd man rushes, which definitely helps, but he's not likely to keep shooting 36% from the chance area. That will be something to note when his goal production inevitably drops a bit.
The final table here is for the power play (5v4 only):
| Name | Chance | COG | Goal | Chance% | Assists | Plays | C/60 | P/60 | Attempts | SC/ATT |
| DelZotto | 5 | 2 | 0 | 0.00% | 18 | 23 | 1.96 | 9.02 | 13 | 15.38% |
| Richards | 14 | 8 | 3 | 21.43% | 18 | 32 | 5.80 | 13.27 | 24 | 33.33% |
| Callahan | 12 | 10 | 5 | 41.67% | 7 | 19 | 5.63 | 8.92 | 18 | 55.56% |
| Gaborik | 33 | 24 | 4 | 12.12% | 6 | 39 | 16.03 | 18.95 | 31 | 77.42% |
| Stepan | 11 | 7 | 2 | 18.18% | 8 | 19 | 5.97 | 10.31 | 14 | 50.00% |
| Girardi | 1 | 1 | 1 | 100.00% | 9 | 10 | 0.72 | 7.25 | 11 | 9.09% |
| Dubinsky | 7 | 3 | 0 | 0.00% | 3 | 10 | 5.43 | 7.75 | 4 | 75.00% |
| Anisimov | 5 | 5 | 2 | 40.00% | 4 | 9 | 4.79 | 8.62 | 12 | 41.67% |
| McDonagh | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0.00% | 3 | 4 | 1.70 | 6.80 | 3 | 0.00% |
| Boyle | 5 | 4 | 0 | 0.00% | 0 | 5 | 9.69 | 9.69 | 7 | 57.14% |
| Christensen | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0.00% | 1 | 2 | 2.65 | 5.31 | 1 | 100.00% |
| Fedotenko | 3 | 2 | 1 | 33.33% | 1 | 4 | 9.80 | 13.07 | 3 | 66.67% |
| Mitchell | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0.00% | 1 | 3 | 16.26 | 24.39 | 2 | 100.00% |
| Wolski | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00% | 1 | 1 | 0.00 | 9.43 | 1 | 0.00% |
| Zuccarello | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00% | 1 | 1 | 0.00 | 12.20 | 0 | 0.00% |
| Prust | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0.00% | 0 | 1 | 16.67 | 16.67 | 1 | 100.00% |
| Hagelin | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00% | 1 | 1 | 0.00 | 22.22 | 0 | 0.00% |
| TOTAL | 101 | 70 | 18 | 17.82% | 82 | 183 | 28.6 | 51.9 | 145 | 48.28% |
SC/ATT here does not include missed nets. Table again is sortable.
In a lot of ways, it's hard not to see why the PP has been streaky this year. It really is Gaborik and everyone else. While Gaborik averages a chance about every 3.75 minutes, the rest of the first unit gets one every 10-12 minutes. It takes 5-6 power plays for each to record a single chance, which then only has about a 15% chance of succeeding, give or take. To obtain more success going forward, they will need another power play threat to emerge. Options internally may include Brian Boyle (5 chances in 30 minutes) or even John Mitchell (2 in 7 min). With both of those players unlikely to become heroes, this may be an area to be addressed at the deadline.
Thoughts?
Special thanks as always to Vic Ferrari, whose script makes generating all this data a piece of cake.
22 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Good stuff
Two questions:
1) Are Rangers benefitting/relying on Gaboriks production to a higher degree than other playoff caliber teams (e.g. Giroux & Flyers)?
2) Are similar tables for Detroit/Bruins/Chicago available?
by Gabby the Gutless Sniper on Jan 4, 2012 9:34 AM EST via mobile reply actions
1) No clue, but I can find out.
2) Derek over at Copper n Blue is compiling everyone’s data (there’s about 15 teams being tracked, plus some straggler games when a couple of the guys are free). Individual data will eventually be available, but not the chance types (I think I’m the only one doing that currently)
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 Jan 4, 2012 9:44 AM EST up reply actions
George did you see the thing I posted about NYR measuring their goalies by goals allowed per scoring chance?
by teknics on Jan 4, 2012 9:37 AM EST via mobile reply actions
I did not.
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 Jan 4, 2012 9:51 AM EST up reply actions
Here it is (don’t mind the copy paste I’m on my phone)
Interesting tidbit there for George on what stats the Rangers use:
"The Rangers track a stat that measures how many goals are scored per scoring chance. Allowing one goal out of every six scoring chances is considered a pretty strong performance. He’s been consistently turning in games in which he stopped seven of eight scoring chances, often better than that."
I’ll have to show him in his next scoring chance post
teknics – January 2, 2012 reply
Seen this crossed over onto BSH so here’s the rest of the piece on the stat used by NYR:
"I feel like I’m having a good year and I’m at one out of six or one out of seven. He’s blowing it out of the water," Biron said. "We’re not giving as many chances, we’re playing really well defensively and even then, he’s more efficient this year. The stats show he’s more efficient than he’s ever been."
teknics – January 2, 2012 reply
by teknics on Jan 4, 2012 9:56 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
Thanks for that.
One out of 6 seems fairly weak, based on the data we have floating around. That’s only 83 sv%. We’ve been estimating one out of about 7 to be good, 85.7 sv%. So yeah, I have them combined at 88% which is pretty darn strong. I’ll get around to splitting out the goalies at some point, but Hank at ~90% wouldn’t surprise me
From what they’re talked about in games, during broadcasts and press conferences, my data shouldn’t be straying that far from their internal definition, and this seems to concur with that.
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 Jan 4, 2012 10:07 AM EST up reply actions
Yea I figure they might define chances slightly differently to account for being just a bit off.
Knew it’d be handy for you
by teknics on Jan 4, 2012 10:18 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
No. Thats why SC are always lower than SOG.
by Gabby the Gutless Sniper on Jan 4, 2012 11:04 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
Wouldn't that be based of an expected # of SC?
For example stopping 5/6 when your team trends to giving up 15-16 per game translates to well under 3.00 GAA?
by Gabby the Gutless Sniper on Jan 4, 2012 11:09 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
It’s just a save% based on SC. The 5/6 is 83%, so regardless of # of SC they are wanting 83% of them stopped
by teknics on Jan 4, 2012 11:20 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
Going back to Georges comment it looks low
You give up 18 scoring chances in a game that means 3 goals against is acceptable.
When you give up 3 goals winning % is low?
by Gabby the Gutless Sniper on Jan 4, 2012 11:42 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
I think they may count SC slightly different. Perhaps they go by " Scoring chance on goal" and ignore SC that miss the net
by teknics on Jan 4, 2012 11:54 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
Which would lower the SC totals and therefore balance out the math a bit, maybe?
by teknics on Jan 4, 2012 11:59 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
Perhaps they do.
Would make sense to me.
by Gabby the Gutless Sniper on Jan 4, 2012 12:18 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Pretty sure they count misses, but likely a bit less generous than I.
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 Jan 4, 2012 12:40 PM EST via iPhone app up reply actions
For SC totals im sure they count missed shots but Maybe they don’t factor that into their “goalie efficiency” since goalies have no part in missed shots? So rather than saves per SC, they look at saves per SC on net?
Just throwing darts :)
by teknics on Jan 4, 2012 12:48 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
That’s possible too. I’ll run it both ways when I get the opportunity.
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 Jan 4, 2012 7:45 PM EST up reply actions
Giving up 18 scoring chances is a fairly poor defensive effort, but also why 1 in 6 wouldn’t be very good.
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 Jan 4, 2012 12:38 PM EST via iPhone app up reply actions

by 
























