New York Rangers Game Score Report: A Recap of Games 51 through 60

By now you know the drill of this series, but if you missed a previous edition it will be linked at the end of the article. A lot of players are no longer with the New York Rangers, so this piece will focus on those who are still with the team. Goalies aren’t going to be mentioned either due to the fact that they’ve been left out to dry, so the numbers don’t exactly reflect their individual performance.

As a refresher, here is the formula for Game Score.

Player Game Score = (0.75 * G) + (0.7 * A1) + (0.55 * A2) + (0.075 * SOG) + (0.05 * BLK) + (0.15 * PD) – (0.15 * PT) + (0.01 * FOW) – (0.01 * FOL) + (0.05 * CF) – (0.05 * CA) + (0.15 * GF) – (0.15* GA)

Goalie Game Score = (-0.75 * GA) + (0.1 * SV)

It should be noted that Corsi and Goal stats are 5v5 adjusted, and all other stats include all situations. Per game represents average Game Score per game which is calculated by taking Total Game Score and dividing it by number of games played.

This was another tough stretch for the Blueshirts; they played pretty poorly and lost four games in a row twice.

The results themselves aren’t that surprising, but here’s a look at individual results for the players who suited up in Games 51 to 60.

Great: None

Good: Mats Zuccarello — Prior to the deadline it was reported that there was interest in the Rangers’ forward. He was listed on TSN’s trade bait board at No. 10. At the time it was being framed that he was in the middle of a down season, and no one was untouchable. He is off last year’s pace, but on track to finish with 54 points. Despite this description, he was the lone Ranger who looked decent in the above period with six points, 27 shots on goal, and a Corsi differential of +22. It is okay to be disappointed that Zuccarello has taken a step back, but 54 points for a $4.5 million forward who turns 31 in September isn’t all that bad.

Fine: Mika Zibanejad, Kevin Hayes, John Gilmour, Pavel Buchnevich, Neal Pionk, Tony DeAngelo, Brady Skjei

This group ranges from Zibanejad finishing with a 0.52 to Skjei coming in at a 0.24. There isn’t much to say about this group, but the theme of getting owned in terms of shot differential continues to be a major thing. I will, however, call attention to a few players.

John Gilmour finished with a 0.46 in six games played which was second-best among all defenders. The rookie tallied 21 shots on goal, was a plus-one in goal differential, and plus-four in shot differential. He’s looked pretty good since joining the team and is earning a lineup spot for next season.

Kevin Hayes would be a lot higher on this list had he not been completely crushed in the possesion game. A minus-34 differential 5v5 did him absolutely no favors. The seven points and 22 shots on goal are very promising, and as I wrote last week, he continues to be a primary points machine.

Poor: David Desharnais, Peter Holland, Cody McLeod, Jimmy Vesey, Paul Carey, Jesper Fast

There’s not much to say here. An overall lack of offensive production coupled with poor differentials in both goals and shots explain why these players are where they are. Scoring can help mask some sins, but this group just got pounded overall.

Jimmy Vesey appeared in seven games and scored one goal. He was a minus-17 in shot differential and a minus-nine in goal differential. He’s been taking a beating this year, and is showing that he’s truly a bottom six player who will occasionally chip in some offense.

Awful: Marc Staal— This is a case of #sss, or small sample size. He only played in two games and tallied just over 25 minutes of time on ice, so it is hard to judge him too harshly here.

There’s no way to spin it, this was a pretty crappy period of play. At the very least, the front office did realize the direction the team was headed, and they sold off on some of their more valuable assets for a profit.

In full transparency, I don’t expect the next report to be any prettier, but the show must go on!

Stats via Natural Stat Trick unless otherwise noted. Support their Patreon if you can.

Previous posts in the series

1.) Games 1 to 10

2.) Games 11 to 20

3.) Games 21 to 30

4.) Games 31 to 40

5.) Games 41 to 50