HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Is it REALLY just the scoring??????

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-04-2011, 10:04 AM
  #26
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 4,640
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scooter17 View Post
If you want to point fingers, we lost that game last night because Callahan missed a wide open net. That would have put the Rangers up 2-0 and completely changed the complexion of the game.
So, when he was absolutely robbed by Theodore with a toe save, it was Callahan's fault? If he scores that is it Theodore's fault? Heck no, but he came up big for his team. Lundqvist didn't do it.

patnyrnyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2011, 10:09 AM
  #27
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 4,640
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IAMREALITY View Post
Several is not a number. A bunch is not a number either. Do you actually have numbers?

And you made a point earlier of stating that the Wild had almost no shots on goal all game. Well then DUH, obviously he didn't have many chances to make that big save like Theodore did. You can't know a goalie faced only a few shots yet expect him to have made a "bunch" of glowing saves at the same time. That's just stupid.

Yes, 3 of the 4 went in. But look at the quality of those 3. Hell, even you said they were such good chances that you don't blame Hank, even though you blame Hank.

And tell me, did our players not actually shoot the puck INTO Theodore most of the time? That does make a difference ya know. Like, where the puck actually goes and stuff.

But again, that all deals with the complexities of hockey, of which you're being far too simple minded to grasp. Seems the only thing you can grasp is a handful of straws.
Don't blame him as they were great shots/deflections, but they weren't impossible. Yes, would have required Lundqvist to make a great save like Theodore did many times last night, yet Lundqvist didn't. If you are an elite goaltender you make those near impossible stops when your team needs in. Don't have an exact number on how many times Theodore robbed them, didn't count as they happened. If there is a replay on tv today and you can watch it, feel free to get a number.

patnyrnyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2011, 10:13 AM
  #28
haohmaru
#bdwyblueshirts
 
haohmaru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Fleming Island, Fl
Country: United States
Posts: 5,360
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by patnyrnyg View Post
So, when he was absolutely robbed by Theodore with a toe save, it was Callahan's fault? If he scores that is it Theodore's fault? Heck no, but he came up big for his team. Lundqvist didn't do it.
If Theodore was in net for Minnesota's deflections (x2) and point blank 5 footer, would he have stopped them? I don't think so. One of them even seemed to go off our own defenseman (which, btw, seems to happen to us every game and for us almost never). Goaltending isn't the issue here. Quality scoring chances that weren't capitalized on is. We had glorious opportunities and Theodore made a few great saves, but I think the larger issue is that our team is gripping their sticks too tightly and not making the most of their opportunities. Callahan had some glorious opportunities - even that save that Micheletti kept saying was the "save of the year" was more a result of Callahan putting it the only place that Theodore could have stopped it instead of putting it where he couldn't. Minnesota did that on their chances. We didn't on ours.

haohmaru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2011, 10:15 AM
  #29
WhipNash27
Quattro!!
 
WhipNash27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Westchester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 15,510
vCash: 500
The Rangers have allowed 3 or more goals in 11 of their 13 losses since January 15.

The fact is no matter who you are, if you allow 3 goals in a game, you will lose more often than not. The Rangers also happen to be worse than most teams in that department.

WhipNash27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2011, 10:16 AM
  #30
WhatThePuck
"Shoots Wide" !!!
 
WhatThePuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Location: Location
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,072
vCash: 500
Rangers are 4th in goals allowed in the East( 1 more than Pitt and Phi),goaltending for the last 5 years has been the least of our problems.

WhatThePuck is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2011, 10:21 AM
  #31
Scooter17
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 483
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhatThePuck View Post
Rangers are 4th in goals allowed in the East( 1 more than Pitt and Phi),goaltending for the last 5 years has been the least of our problems.
2nd overall in GA/G, behind only Boston.

Scooter17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2011, 10:24 AM
  #32
MisterUnspoken
Vintage
 
MisterUnspoken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Orlando, FL
Country: United States
Posts: 10,074
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to MisterUnspoken
Yes it is really just the scoring.

So many factors fall into play including special teams which is a major fault for the Rangers. If the Rangers PP were actually around 22% the Rangers GAA per game would be close to or exceeding 3 goals per game. That would take a ton of pressure off of the D and the goaltender.

More often than not these goals are being scored while trailing already, which as I said in another thread completely changes the complexion of the game. To score first and expand upon a lead would in fact solve many of these so called "goaltending" issues the Rangers supposedly have according to a few posters.

While there are isolated cases of soft goals or "ones he should have stopped" more often than not it can be traced right back to this teams inability to get out to a lead and put the other team into a "we can't come back now" frame of mind.

MisterUnspoken is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2011, 10:32 AM
  #33
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 4,640
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterUnspoken View Post
Yes it is really just the scoring.

So many factors fall into play including special teams which is a major fault for the Rangers. If the Rangers PP were actually around 22% the Rangers GAA per game would be close to or exceeding 3 goals per game. That would take a ton of pressure off of the D and the goaltender.

More often than not these goals are being scored while trailing already, which as I said in another thread completely changes the complexion of the game. To score first and expand upon a lead would in fact solve many of these so called "goaltending" issues the Rangers supposedly have according to a few posters.

While there are isolated cases of soft goals or "ones he should have stopped" more often than not it can be traced right back to this teams inability to get out to a lead and put the other team into a "we can't come back now" frame of mind.
Rangers power play is 16.5%, Pens is 17.5%, Caps is 16.0. Caps have 35 power play goals Rangers have 39, Pens have 44. League average is 42. Really not that much of a difference. 22%? Considering the league average is 18, I would say 22 would be pretty phenomenal. Why not ask for 30%?

patnyrnyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2011, 10:34 AM
  #34
mostly a reader
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 44
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haohmaru View Post
This is ridiculous. Pay attention.

Why did they score (also the case with Buffalo)?

Because they had a big body BEHIND the "D" to deflect or screen Lundqvist - and I'm not a Lundqvist apologist, he's had his share of softies this year. Vanek screening Henrik is why Buffalo won. Deflections (and a point blank/open shot from 5 feet) from offensive players behind the "D" is why Minnesota won.

Which leads me to why we don't score and make every goalie look like the ghost of Patrick Roy - because they see everything we throw at them .

Say what you want about Drury, but at least he's a player will to stand in front of a goalie and take punishment (and Torts rarely uses him in this role) to disrupt sight lines. Boyle should be this guy on the PP and on his shifts instead of stick handling behind the goal line. Dubinsky wouldn't be a bad guy to stand up there. Feds.

The big body behind the D. That. That is why McIlrath was needed. To get those big bodys out of there. But instead people want to know how many points he got and analyze whether he had secondary assists or whether those assists came against a quality opponent. This is what matters with McIlrath, and little more. Did he clear the crease? When they come up with a stat like that, I'll be interested.

you're dead on about we don't do on offense too. Good post

mostly a reader is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2011, 10:38 AM
  #35
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 29,806
vCash: 500
Awards:
Stats tell one story. The emotional toll on having to grind out a win is another. Another is knowing that if you give up two goals, your best chance to win will be in a shootout. Dubi said as much in the Post today.

__________________
SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2011, 10:41 AM
  #36
mostly a reader
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 44
vCash: 500
Conversely, he's got to stop St. Louis' goal the other night (maybe Lecavilliere's too-but a great shot). Both came from the outside.

mostly a reader is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2011, 10:45 AM
  #37
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 29,806
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by mostly a reader View Post
Conversely, he's got to stop St. Louis' goal the other night (maybe Lecavilliere's too-but a great shot). Both came from the outside.
He does. But its got to way on the guy knowing his team is not going to pick him up. And to me, that has caused him to do too much. He's at his best when he lets the puck him (be there and be square). He looks like he's trying to make saves (and winds up fighting the puck).

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2011, 10:47 AM
  #38
mostly a reader
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 44
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway View Post
He does. But its got to way on the guy knowing his team is not going to pick him up. And to me, that has caused him to do too much. He's at his best when he lets the puck him (be there and be square). He looks like he's trying to make saves (and winds up fighting the puck).
No doubt.

mostly a reader is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2011, 10:47 AM
  #39
StaalWars
TeaOrrCoffey
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,168
vCash: 500
So, you're saying that, if instead of having only the 5th best GA/G in the NHL, we had the 3rd or 4th best GA/G in the NHL, we'd be a better team?

StaalWars is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2011, 10:51 AM
  #40
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 4,640
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway View Post
He does. But its got to way on the guy knowing his team is not going to pick him up. And to me, that has caused him to do too much. He's at his best when he lets the puck him (be there and be square). He looks like he's trying to make saves (and winds up fighting the puck).
At this level, that thinking shouldn't be happening. If it is, he needs to see a sports psychologist who will teach him to block that out and just focus on what he needs to do to stop the puck. The St. Louis shot from Sunday has to be stopped. The Lecavalier shot was just ridiculous. A case where Lecavalier's talent was just better than Lundqvists at that moment. Like when a pitcher throws a 95 mph fastball and hits his exact spot and the batter still goes yard.

patnyrnyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2011, 10:52 AM
  #41
NYR
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: LI
Posts: 140
vCash: 500
Just my 2 cents

Quote:
Originally Posted by patnyrnyg View Post
OK, so when I mentioned about Lundqvist being a big part of their problem, just about everyone on here and their mother jumped all over me. "They never score....they make bad goalies look good." Then, I noticed the Rangers have scored 8 more goals than the Capitals and only 10 less than the Penguins yet both of those teams were securely in a play-off spot.

I know the first rebuttal will be, "The totals might be similar but the Rangers total is skewed by games like the two Caps games where they scored 6 and 7 and the Oilers game where they scored 8."

The second comment would be, "They are more consistent game to game."

So, I went on to www.hockey-reference.com and did some research. Took about a minute and 45 seconds to tally it up.

Penguins have scored more than 5 goals in a game 5 times, been shutout 5 times and 9 times have scored only 1 goal.

Capitals have scored more than 5 goals in a game 6 times, been shutout 8 times, and scored only 1 goal 9 times.

Rangers have scored more than 5 goals in a game 7 times, been shutout only 4, and scored only 1 goal 12 times.

So, the rangers have scored less than 2 goals 16 times, the penguins 14, and the caps 17. Seems like the Pens and Caps have the same struggles scoring goals, yet they are ahead in the standings.


So, then someone on another site stated, "well, you should check out when they scored 2 or less, bet that would tell a different story." So, I checked that out. That I will admit took about 3 1/2 minutes to compile.

In games where they have scored 2 goals or less:

Rangers are 9-23-1 19 points 33 games.

Penguins are 6-16-7 19 points 29 games (same points, 4 less games.

Caps are 5-21-8, 18 points 34 games 1 less point, 1 MORE game.


So, to paraphrase, the Penguins have 29 games of 2 goals or less, the Rangers 33, and the Caps 34. Penguins have earned the same amount of points in those games, the Caps only one less.

Come on now, try to rebutt these facts. Oh and let me remind you, Pens and Caps are securely in play-off spots. Likely to play each other in the first round.

But, it is the scorers right? So I have shown how these two teams have similar goal totals, have the same big goal games to skew their totals, and the same low-goal outputs to demonstrate inconsistency amongst their scoring, yet let me remind you, their fans are not wondering if they will be playing in the play-offs.



I agree 1000%!

This might seem a little harsh but honestly I don't ever see the Rangers winning a big game with Lundqvist in net.

Lundquist is the highest paid goalie in the league and doesn't play like it. He' s paid to stand on his head nightly and is simply incapable of doing so. He shows flashes of brilliance but on far from a consistent basis.

Whens the last time he's given up under three goals in a game? He gets outplayed regularly by mediocre goalies weather it's a one goal game or a five goal game and I don't agree with the not scoring three goals a game to get a win BS. That's Absurd! How about he makes the saves on three goals instead? That's what the highest paid goalie is expected to do. Broduer's made a hall of fame career out of one goal games.

Lundqvist has the league leader in blocked shots in front of him for 20+ minutes a game along with the rest of the team that's obsessed with blocking shots. How much help does he need?

This teams problems don't all fall on Lundqvist's shoulders but lets call a spade a spade. He's given up a TON of softies in the last year + and at key points in games then all of a sudden the pressure on the rest of the team to rescue him with three goals. Give me a break.

I feel more confident with Biron in net at this point.

If you want to argue that style of play has a lot to do with it, fine but that's a whole different story.

NYR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2011, 10:59 AM
  #42
1940rip
Registered User
 
1940rip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 148
vCash: 500
Here's a research project...

Look up Hank's record before he got engaged and compare it to that since.

1940rip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2011, 11:03 AM
  #43
Chimp
Registered User
 
Chimp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: In my food garden.
Country: Sweden
Posts: 10,476
vCash: 500
Queue another hyperbole "what have you done for me lately" thread. This place becomes truly unbearable when the team isn't winning.

edit: Blue Line Monster answered some of my points in a more civilized manner, which is just better than me wanting to verbally chop your heads off because of your simply put weak arguments.


Last edited by Chimp: 03-04-2011 at 11:33 AM.
Chimp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2011, 11:08 AM
  #44
Blue Line Monster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 241
vCash: 500
I call what the OP has 'Sam and Joe syndrome.' They always try to make it sound like the Rangers get a ton of good chances and that every single game the opposing goalie is incredible.

At least most people here are sane and saw that Theodore only stopped Cally because Cally gave him the opportunity by not lifting the puck even 2 inches. Not the casual fan mentality that all chances are equal, "Theodore made the saves and Lundqvist didn't so hank was outplayed."

I never understand this stupid outplayed thing either. You never hear somebody say, "Boy, Gilroy really outplayed Clayton Stoner last night." So why do people do it for goalies? They faced different chances and different players with different skill, believe it or not, Brent Burns and P.M Bouchard would probably both be our most skilled players right now. Also, Other teams know how to SCREEN THE GOALIE. Something our guys almost never do. Most of the shots Theodore faced were bad angle with nobody near the front of the goal. He gave up some rebounds with the puck laying in the crease and what do ya know, our guys were no where near the crease.


Another thing, your stats are flawed because we WERE scoring goals the first half of the season. That's when the team was winning games and Hank had something like 25 games of .935 sv% and 2.00 GAA.

Blue Line Monster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2011, 11:13 AM
  #45
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 4,640
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1940rip View Post
Here's a research project...

Look up Hank's record before he got engaged and compare it to that since.
Oh boy, now you opening a whole new can of worms and last night my friend and I were saying this to bust my wife's chops.

In 1988, Gretzky won his 4th Cup, got married that summer and never won another Cup.

LeClair had his 3rd straight 50-goal season, got married the summer afterwards and never scored 50 again.

Richter. Got married and blew his knee the following season. Came back, blew the other knee, came back and had his damn skull fractured by a slapshot THROUGH his damn helmet!

patnyrnyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2011, 11:29 AM
  #46
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 4,640
vCash: 500
chimp and blue line monster, does that mean when Lundqvist makes a huge save it is because the opponent didnt have the talent to get it by Lundqvist and make it easy for him or is it because Lundqvist is the greatest talent on the planet? Obviously, it is going to be a case by case basis. However, in Rangerland all the credit goes to Lundqvist in such instances, and all the blame goes to our skaters rather than credit to the other goalie. Can't have it both ways.

If Cally does lift the puck and Theodore gets the a piece of it as he is dropping the toe to the ice, then it is Callahan was stupid for not sliding it underneath him.

patnyrnyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2011, 11:32 AM
  #47
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 29,806
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimp View Post
Queue another hyperbole "what have you done for me lately" thread. This place becomes truly unbearable when the team isn't winning.
lately? they haven't scored all year.

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2011, 11:54 AM
  #48
Chimp
Registered User
 
Chimp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: In my food garden.
Country: Sweden
Posts: 10,476
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by patnyrnyg View Post
chimp and blue line monster, does that mean when Lundqvist makes a huge save it is because the opponent didnt have the talent to get it by Lundqvist and make it easy for him or is it because Lundqvist is the greatest talent on the planet? Obviously, it is going to be a case by case basis. However, in Rangerland all the credit goes to Lundqvist in such instances, and all the blame goes to our skaters rather than credit to the other goalie. Can't have it both ways.
Now this discussion is getting somewhere. Let's put it this way. The biggest difference between an elite goalie and a solid goalie is consistency. Both can make big saves, both can have big games. But the elite goalie will bring it more often and have a higher cellar when he's playing badly. Sure, Lundqvist might have better positioning and better lateral mobility than most goalies, but the biggest difference is the consistency, which many Ranger fans seem to have complete tunnel vision about. If you compare Lundqvist to the rest of the league's goaltenders, he is extremely consistent. Yet many fans here seem to argue he's some kind of wreck.

If Lundqvist is forced out of position, he must obviously rely on the shooter not releasing a perfect shot. As you said, it's of course a case by case basis. Sure enough, Theodore made a great save on Callahan. But, it was the only move he had! I put more blame on Cally for failing to score on an entirely open net, than praising Theodore for throwing out his stick along the ice in a last ditch attempt.

Sure enough, when Lundqvist makes a great sprawling save, blame can often be put on the shooter for not placing the puck better. It all comes down to did you hit the goalie or did the goalie force you to hit him? Lundqvist is very good at forcing them to hit him, by closing the angles.

The big difference between our team and the teams we face, is we are currently consistently unable to capitalize on good chances. We can't lift the damn puck and we are terrible at making the life miserable for the opposing goalie. We consistently don't screen, we don't deflect shots, we don't grab rebounds and we simply put collectively suck at shooting. We also hit goalies more than they force us to hit them, by giving ourselves bad angles from the perimeters.

If the team plays in full panic mode, of course Lundqvist will look worse than the other team's goalie, because his team isn't playing hockey, they're being headless chickens out there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway View Post
lately? they haven't scored all year.
I was more of referring to throwing the goalie under the bus, as he always is when the team isn't winning (well, except for the time where he had like a 1.21 GAA during a long stretch and we still couldn't win). Has been the same since he entered the league. Granted, he is the team carrier, but in this case, how much blame can you put on the goalie? The amount of deflected goals going in off our own players has reached absurd levels during the last 20 games. Only that accounts for almost a +1.0 GAA extra and then we haven't even calculated other ridiculous deflections, pinball goals, etc.

Lundqvist isn't winning games single handedly, but I don't see, considering the game scenarios we've put ourselves in, how he can. We aren't protecting leads, we are chasing them. A goalie can't score goals. If we want to win games from goaltending, we need the initial momentum. And this team seems too young to keep a lead, because we make too many mistakes.

The can't score part, has surely enough been a problem since Jagr decided to punch Gomez in the shoulder.


Last edited by Chimp: 03-04-2011 at 12:14 PM.
Chimp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2011, 11:56 AM
  #49
Blue Line Monster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 241
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by patnyrnyg View Post
chimp and blue line monster, does that mean when Lundqvist makes a huge save it is because the opponent didnt have the talent to get it by Lundqvist and make it easy for him or is it because Lundqvist is the greatest talent on the planet? Obviously, it is going to be a case by case basis. However, in Rangerland all the credit goes to Lundqvist in such instances, and all the blame goes to our skaters rather than credit to the other goalie. Can't have it both ways.

If Cally does lift the puck and Theodore gets the a piece of it as he is dropping the toe to the ice, then it is Callahan was stupid for not sliding it underneath him.
It's obviously a case by case thing.

Theodore just layed his stick on the ice while he was out of the play and Cally slid the puck right at the stick when he had a bunch of time and space to do what he wanted. Obviously if the goaltender's down you lift the puck, something none of our guys can do.

I don't really understand what argument you're trying to make in general here. The team is one of the best in GAA but has been one of the worst in scoring goals. Hank has some of the best and most consistent numbers since the lockout, while being on mostly bad teams. He's probably stolen the most games of any goalie for his team in that time. Obviously there's no concrete stat here but the Sabremetrics-like article about him facing and stopping the hardest chances of any goalie seems to back this up.

In the recent player voting , he was voted by the players to be the 4th hardest goalie in the league to score on.

My point here, he's not the problem. I know in your last thread, you tried to use Tort's comments when Hank was slumping as some kind of proof he's not a good goaltender. Did you hear Tort's post game last night? The problem is scoring. Torts even acknowledged that the team puts Hank in a bad spot where he cant ever make a mistake or the team loses.

Again, for your stats I don't know why you'd use total goals for. Why don't you calculate the last 20 or so games and compare it to other teams. Pretty much 2 or less goals every game.


Last edited by Blue Line Monster: 03-04-2011 at 12:06 PM.
Blue Line Monster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2011, 11:58 AM
  #50
mrjimmyg89
'13-'14 East Champs
 
mrjimmyg89's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,854
vCash: 500
In our wins we score, in our losses, we don't.

How many games have we lost 3-2, 2-1 and how many of our losses have come 5-4, 6-5, 4-3?

When we lose we don't score enough. When we win, it is usually in a big effort. That's why the goal differential is the way it is. Going +6 one game then -3 in the next 3 games, losing all three by 1 goal, it gets you one win and 3 losses. Doesn't matter how much you win by as long as you win.

Eliminate our +6 against Edmonton and Washington and the +7 from the other Washington game, a total of +19. Our total team differential is a +3 on the SEASON.

And if you don't want to neglect those games, just look at the OTL vs L totals for Pitt and Washington who are supposed to be comparable to our goal differential.

The Rangers have lost 4 games in OT while Washington and Pitt have lost 10 and 9 games respectively. Also, we are 7-2 in shootouts, which means we win in those OT games, while Washington is 2-5 and Pitt is a respectable 5-3.

The Rangers have 2 OT GWG this season, NOT SHOOTOUT (Anisimov vs Buffalo, Zuccarello vs Carolina). To find out our total OT games where we got a point, we have 2OT wins, 7 SO wins, 2 SO losses, 2 OT losses for a total of 13 games that have gone to OT where we gained 22 points and an extra point from a loss 4 times. Washington has 5 OT wins, 2 SO wins, 10 OT/SO losses for 24 points so they have 10 extra points from games they lost. See the difference? So now they have more regulation wins AND more OTL/L then we do. The OTL make so much of a difference. They are also not relying on the shootout to get them wins. They are scoring goals in the extra 5 minutes 4 on 4, which I may add is IMO part of special teams, even though it is even strength.

If Washington had 6 less OT losses substituted with 6 regulation losses, they would have our total of 4 OT losses. They would also have 74 points, only 4 points above what we have. Where the Rangers fail is getting games to OT when they are in close games. For the most part they finish games in regulation, win or loss. It's great to win games in regulation, but when you lose them it is painful. The Rangers regulation record is under .500. 33 total wins - 7 shootout wins - 2 OT wins = 24 regulation wins. 24-29. There are only SIX teams that have MORE regulation losses then the Rangers do. Guess what they all have in common? They aren't in the playoffs either. Atlanta, Toronto, and Buffalo all have less regulation losses, and that's disturbing. They need to start getting points by getting games into OT or winning in regulation, cause if not, they'll end up on the outside looking in AGAIN.

The main reason we are where we are is becuase we are not gaining points unless we win the game in regulation or shootout. Got to get points out of some games that we are getting regulation losses in. It really helps in the end.

mrjimmyg89 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:18 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.