HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   New York Rangers (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   More than 60% of our losses were by a single goal (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=995831)

Beacon 10-02-2011 01:52 PM

More than 60% of our losses were by a single goal
 
Last year, 20 out of our 33 losses were by a goal or less. At home, it was 15 out of 17 losses. I'm pretty sure we led the league in this sad statistic.

But this also gives us a lot of hope. The addition of Richards will mean an extra 20-35 goals this season, based on not just his performance, but also the likely improvement by Gaborik and whoever is the first line LW.

If we could send 7-8 of those one-goal losses into the OT, that will give us an extra 10-12 points.

Also, the Rangers were in the bottom dozen in blowing 1-goal leads. In this statistic, the Rangers were performing like a non-playoff team.
  • 83% of the time, they blew a 1-goal lead.
  • 33% of the time, they blew a 2-goal lead, which is significantly better than the league average that is a hair below 40%.
  • They never blew a 3-goal lead last year.

As you can see, getting that second goal increases the odds of the team winning by a full 50 percentage points.


48% of all games are decided by a single goal, but it was about 55% for the Rangers (and 60% for their losses).

Adding another .25-.33 goals per game (21-27 goals per season), will mean the addition of another 10-12 points, if the defense is as strong as last year.

iamitter 10-02-2011 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RangerEsq (Post 37369275)
Last year, 20 out of our 33 losses were by a goal or less. At home, it was 15 out of 17 losses. I'm pretty sure we led the league in this sad statistic.

But this also gives us a lot of hope. The addition of Richards will mean an extra 20-35 goals this season, based on not just his performance, but also the likely improvement by Gaborik and whoever is the first line LW.

If we could send 7-8 of those one-goal losses into the OT, that will give us an extra 10-12 points.

Also, the Rangers were in the bottom dozen in blowing 1-goal leads. In this statistic, the Rangers were performing like a non-playoff team.
  • 83% of the time, they blew a 1-goal lead.
  • 33% of the time, they blew a 2-goal lead, which is significantly better than the league average that is a hair below 40%.
  • They never blew a 3-goal lead last year.

As you can see, getting that second goal increases the odds of the team winning by a full 50 percentage points.


48% of all games are decided by a single goal, but it was about 55% for the Rangers (and 60% for their losses).

Adding another .25-.33 goals per game (21-27 goals per season), will mean the addition of another 10-12 points, if the defense is as strong as last year.

Gotta put an asterisk after that last one :laugh:

NickyFotiu 10-02-2011 01:58 PM

We play a lot of close games.

That is a reason why we better be very good in the shootouts.

NYRangers16 10-02-2011 03:34 PM

Yup, those small differences add up. We'd have been fighting for home-ice advantage with another 20 goals or so. BR is going to help a ton - this is still a defense first team, but with even an average offense we could go really far.

Now, imagine we find a top LW or an offensive defenseman... we could be one of the best teams in the league...

Riche16 10-02-2011 03:43 PM

Hard to extrapolate that out from one season to the next. With Hank back there it should be a close game really.

NHRangerfan 10-02-2011 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RangerEsq (Post 37369275)
Last year, 20 out of our 33 losses were by a goal or less. At home, it was 15 out of 17 losses. I'm pretty sure we led the league in this sad statistic.

But this also gives us a lot of hope. The addition of Richards will mean an extra 20-35 goals this season, based on not just his performance, but also the likely improvement by Gaborik and whoever is the first line LW.

If we could send 7-8 of those one-goal losses into the OT, that will give us an extra 10-12 points.

Also, the Rangers were in the bottom dozen in blowing 1-goal leads. In this statistic, the Rangers were performing like a non-playoff team.
  • 83% of the time, they blew a 1-goal lead.
  • 33% of the time, they blew a 2-goal lead, which is significantly better than the league average that is a hair below 40%.
  • They never blew a 3-goal lead last year.

As you can see, getting that second goal increases the odds of the team winning by a full 50 percentage points.


48% of all games are decided by a single goal, but it was about 55% for the Rangers (and 60% for their losses).

Adding another .25-.33 goals per game (21-27 goals per season), will mean the addition of another 10-12 points, if the defense is as strong as last year.

Not surprising given the offensive woes this team had last season, but I would like to see the actual numbers behind the %...how many games does 83% represent?

Beacon 10-02-2011 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NHRangerfan (Post 37374245)
Not surprising given the offensive woes this team had last season, but I would like to see the actual numbers behind the %...how many games does 83% represent?


I got this here: http://www.puckscene.com/2011/08/the...-fact-or-myth/

NHRangerfan 10-02-2011 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RangerEsq (Post 37369275)
Last year, 20 out of our 33 losses were by a goal or less. At home, it was 15 out of 17 losses. I'm pretty sure we led the league in this sad statistic.

But this also gives us a lot of hope. The addition of Richards will mean an extra 20-35 goals this season, based on not just his performance, but also the likely improvement by Gaborik and whoever is the first line LW.

If we could send 7-8 of those one-goal losses into the OT, that will give us an extra 10-12 points.

Also, the Rangers were in the bottom dozen in blowing 1-goal leads. In this statistic, the Rangers were performing like a non-playoff team.
  • 83% of the time, they blew a 1-goal lead.
  • 33% of the time, they blew a 2-goal lead, which is significantly better than the league average that is a hair below 40%.
  • They never blew a 3-goal lead last year.

As you can see, getting that second goal increases the odds of the team winning by a full 50 percentage points.


48% of all games are decided by a single goal, but it was about 55% for the Rangers (and 60% for their losses).

Adding another .25-.33 goals per game (21-27 goals per season), will mean the addition of another 10-12 points, if the defense is as strong as last year.

So I'm looking at the data in the link and it only talks about surrendering leads not about how many of those "surrendered" leads resulted in losses..San Jose was 2nd only to the Fishsticks at "surrendering" 1 goal leads at 95.74%...nice analysis but doesn't really tell much IMO. In fact if you look at the authors table showing overall 1,2,3,4 goal leads surrendered..41% of all games had a 1 goal lead surrendered (1025 1 goal leads surrendered/2460 games played)

donpaulo 10-02-2011 08:43 PM

If I recall correctly NY never surrendered a lead they had going into the 3rd period... well until the playoffs anyway

1 goal games are, I think, what we all hope for when we pay for a ticket. Well that a Gordie Howe hat trick :nod:

special teams play next year should be improved so perhaps there is something to a one goal loss.

ltrangerfan 10-02-2011 08:47 PM

Thus the need for Richards on the PP.

If the Rangers are able to duplicate last year's effort for the most part, but add an additional 1/2 goal game via the power play (40 more goals), many ties become wins and many 1 goal losses become ties with the possibility of an additional point. How does that change their overall record?

In addition, Imagine if one or more of the defensemen actually learn to hit the net?

We can all dream.

ruckus* 10-02-2011 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ltrangerfan (Post 37386889)
Thus the need for Richards on the PP.

If the Rangers are able to duplicate last year's effort for the most part, but add an additional 1/2 goal game via the power play (40 more goals), many ties become wins and many 1 goal losses become ties with the possibility of an additional point. How does that change their overall record?

In addition, Imagine if one or more of the defensemen actually learn to hit the net?

We can all dream.


Yeah it really comes down to the power play. This team has the personnel to be a very good penalty killing team, and the addition of Richards we all hope significantly increases the power play percentage.

This whole one goal thing is pretty much the NHL nowadays.

Special teams are key, especially with the way NHL refs love to call absolutely everything. How many games do we see where teams have 4,5,6,7 power plays?

Special teams is the key.

Fire Sather 10-02-2011 10:47 PM

On the other hand, we got alot of SO wins. Take those away and we dont make the POs

Inferno 10-02-2011 10:57 PM

i would not be surprised at all if every team in the NHL had similar numbers...they just lost fewer games than we did.

Beacon 10-03-2011 12:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inferno272 (Post 37391063)
i would not be surprised at all if every team in the NHL had similar numbers...they just lost fewer games than we did.


We lost 61% of the games by 1 goal. The average in the NHL is 48%. That's more than a quarter above the league average.

If we could turn 13% of our games from one goal losses into OT games, that's 10.66 games. Assuming half of those are OT losses and half are wins, it comes out to exactly 16 additional points. That would be huge. Our 93 point total would become 109 points.

You can't extrapolate exactly, but the additional 20-35 goals that the addition of Brad Richards should deliver will be big, especially for a team that lost so many close games.

NHRangerfan 10-03-2011 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ltrangerfan (Post 37386889)
Thus the need for Richards on the PP.

If the Rangers are able to duplicate last year's effort for the most part, but add an additional 1/2 goal game via the power play (40 more goals), many ties become wins and many 1 goal losses become ties with the possibility of an additional point. How does that change their overall record?

In addition, Imagine if one or more of the defensemen actually learn to hit the net?

We can all dream.

1/2 goal per game would have given them 89 last season, which would have outpaced Vancouvers 72 by 17 goals. Vancouver led the NHL in PPG's and PP%

Beacon 10-03-2011 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NHRangerfan (Post 37403553)
1/2 goal per game would have given them 89 last season, which would have outpaced Vancouvers 72 by 17 goals. Vancouver led the NHL in PPG's and PP%


With the addition of Richards and the hopeful revival of Gabby, an extra quarter of a goal per game (21 total) would be reasonable. It would give the Rangers 254 goals, which would last place the Rangers between Chicago and Calgary for the 5th place.

NHRangerfan 10-03-2011 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RangerEsq (Post 37404813)
With the addition of Richards and the hopeful revival of Gabby, an extra quarter of a goal per game (21 total) would be reasonable. It would give the Rangers 254 goals, which would last place the Rangers between Chicago and Calgary for the 5th place.

I'm more concerned with timing than amounts, last years goal totals were inflated by a few blowouts...if you look at goals for 09-10 and 10-11. Rangers finished 16th overall in Goals For both seasons.

NYRangers16 10-03-2011 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NHRangerfan (Post 37410081)
I'm more concerned with timing than amounts, last years goal totals were inflated by a few blowouts...if you look at goals for 09-10 and 10-11. Rangers finished 16th overall in Goals For both seasons.

16th is a reasonable total given the talent they had. we'll have blowouts this year too...they happen every year. but by shear luck some of the extra goals will come when we need them, and that should translate into 10 or so more points in the standings even if only half of them change the outcome of a game.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:42 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.