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.

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.

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...

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?

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?

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)

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?

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?

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.

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%

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.

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.

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.