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

NYR Forward Chemistry 2012-13

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-26-2013, 12:16 PM
  #26
Blue Blooded
Registered User
 
Blue Blooded's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Handicap spot
Country: Sweden
Posts: 2,734
vCash: 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Off Sides View Post
If there are 30 teams = 90 top line forwards, 180 top 6 forwards

20 or more games played.

2.0 P/60 or higher forwards league wide
12-13 = 88 Forwards
11-12 = 99 forwards
10-11 = 108 forwards

A player with a 2.0 P/60 is boarder line top line player, not top 6
Quote:
Originally Posted by Off Sides View Post
I guess we could be more specific. RW on behindthenet

30 teams = 30 top RWs, 60 top 6 RWs

Callahan in P/60 among RW, 20 or more games
Ranked league wide
12-13 #45 exactly average
11-12 #51 below average
10-11 #34 above average

Not that any of this really matters if we are talking about production over the course of a full season and if that makes them a good top 6 forward or not if we are splitting hairs over 6-8pts 5 on 5 over a full season being the determining factor.
This discussion is going OT, but I'll reply with my stance.

You can't break it down over all teams because when speaking of "what you want" you do it from the context of a contender. You don't want average 2nd liners, you want good ones.

Just because a player would be a top 6 player on a team doesn't mean he would be a top 6 player on a good one.

Speaking from the context of the thread: I do believe we may have a problem with the makeup of our centers. Stepan and Nash have the best chemistry, but Callahan hasn't worked well with Richards and I don't think he fits with Brassard either.

Another thing I'd like to add is that I realized that the sample the chart is based on is waaay too small to make any clear inferences from. It was fun to make and it could be used as an indication, but you can hardly make definite statements from it. I would also like to add that Corsi chemistry is more trustworthy than goal chemistry as there are a lot more shot attempts than goals per minute of ice time => larger sample.

Blue Blooded is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-26-2013, 01:01 PM
  #27
Off Sides
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 952
vCash: 446
In the same token, you'd have to eliminate all the players above Callahan on non contenders since they would not count as good players

I am not sure why it is off topic, if your chart is using a stat why can the stats used not be debatable?

I guess it's just a pet peeve of mine concerning points per minute.

20 or more games

P/60 translated to P/1 multiplied by 1200 minutes = projected points per 1200 5 on 5 minutes.

1200 minutes because that is about what a top 6 forward would play over a full relatively healthy season.

Rank P/60 P/1 PTS
10-11
180th, 1.74 = .029 = 34.8pts
135th, 1.86 = .031 = 37.2pts
90th, 2.07 = .0345= 41.4pts

11-12
180th, 1.65 .0275 = 33pts
135th, 1.82 .0303 = 36.36pts
90th, 2.04 .034 = 40.8pts


12-13
180th, 1.58 .0263 = 31.56pts
135th, 1.76 .0293 = 35.16pts
90th, 1.99 .0331 = 39.72pts

So while a more efficient point producer is advantageous it's not like the difference between the ranking of 90 to 180(2nd line forward) are all that different in terms of points per 5 on 5 over the whole season. Usually it's like 6- 8 points from 90th to 180th with the mean being about 3-4 points.

Would the player ranked 6 or 8 points higher be better? That is where context comes into play concerning stats. How is he on the power play? Is he good defensively? Does the team play better when he is in the line-up. Can he also penalty kill? What's his cap number? Does he hit, block shots?

Off Sides is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-26-2013, 01:36 PM
  #28
Blue Blooded
Registered User
 
Blue Blooded's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Handicap spot
Country: Sweden
Posts: 2,734
vCash: 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Off Sides View Post
In the same token, you'd have to eliminate all the players above Callahan on non contenders since they would not count as good players

I am not sure why it is off topic, if your chart is using a stat why can the stats used not be debatable?

I guess it's just a pet peeve of mine concerning points per minute.

20 or more games

P/60 translated to P/1 multiplied by 1200 minutes = projected points per 1200 5 on 5 minutes.

1200 minutes because that is about what a top 6 forward would play over a full relatively healthy season.

Rank P/60 P/1 PTS
10-11
180th, 1.74 = .029 = 34.8pts
135th, 1.86 = .031 = 37.2pts
90th, 2.07 = .0345= 41.4pts

11-12
180th, 1.65 .0275 = 33pts
135th, 1.82 .0303 = 36.36pts
90th, 2.04 .034 = 40.8pts


12-13
180th, 1.58 .0263 = 31.56pts
135th, 1.76 .0293 = 35.16pts
90th, 1.99 .0331 = 39.72pts

So while a more efficient point producer is advantageous it's not like the difference between the ranking of 90 to 180(2nd line forward) are all that different in terms of points per 5 on 5 over the whole season. Usually it's like 6- 8 points from 90th to 180th with the mean being about 3-4 points.

Would the player ranked 6 or 8 points higher be better? That is where context comes into play concerning stats. How is he on the power play? Is he good defensively? Does the team play better when he is in the line-up. Can he also penalty kill? What's his cap number? Does he hit, block shots?
First of all because the chart has nothing to do with points.

I brought it up because I don't feel we should adapt our game and lineup to fit Callahan's offensive needs since he isn't a strong offensive weapon 5v5.

The bolded sentence in the quote baffles me. A good player is a good player regardless of the team. I'm just saying that calling someone a "good top 6 forward" because they are within the top 180 among forwards is a thin argument to me. I mean at 135 you are an average 2nd liner, so to be a good one you should probably be in the top 120 at least.

And I agree points aren't everything. The things you brought up are definitely factors, although I believe using hits and blocked shots to evaluate a player is borderline useless. But I'm just saying that I don't consider Callahan's 5v5 production to be good enough to use as an offensive weapon.

Blue Blooded is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-26-2013, 02:22 PM
  #29
egelband
Registered User
 
egelband's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: north finchley
Country: United States
Posts: 1,926
vCash: 500
this is very interesting and impressive. i hope that vigneaut has a look. seems to make things pretty clear. not that players cant develop chemistry, but this is a neat way to start. thanks for sharing this!

egelband is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-26-2013, 02:25 PM
  #30
Off Sides
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 952
vCash: 446
So comparing players league wide is thin but comparing players using a stat that ranks them by as little as a 4 point difference over the course of a season is solid?

Off Sides is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-26-2013, 02:49 PM
  #31
Blue Blooded
Registered User
 
Blue Blooded's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Handicap spot
Country: Sweden
Posts: 2,734
vCash: 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Off Sides View Post
So comparing players league wide is thin but comparing players using a stat that ranks them by as little as a 4 point difference over the course of a season is solid?
I get your point that the difference in points is small in absolute numbers in a single season. But it adds up in a long term perspective because the difference in percentage is quite big, so from a team building perspective I still think that it holds up.

But I think we are talking past each other regarding the other point, because I don't even understand what you mean with the first part of the sentence.

I'll illustrate what I mean in a very simplified way.

We separate 1st liners from 2nd liners and then we divide each category into three segments: good, average, and subpar.

That means:

1-30 good 1st liner
31-60 average 1st liner
61-90 subpar 1st liner
91-120 good 2nd liner
121-150 average 2nd liner
151-180 subpar 2nd liner

And you can get away with one or two guys in the lowest category or even below, but then you need to compensate with more guys in the top categories to actually have a good top-6.

But all I was saying from the beginning was you shouldn't be thinking "how can I adapt this team to support Callahan's offence", you should be focusing on Nash's, Stepan's, Richards' or Hagelin's, because they are more reliable scorers.

Blue Blooded is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2013, 12:38 PM
  #32
SouthJerseyRanger
Registered User
 
SouthJerseyRanger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: South Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 1,064
vCash: 500
The Rangers have 8 forwards who seem to only fit into a Top 6 role. I hope AV is wise enough to figure out a way to adapt to this "problem" rather than the opposite. Once you get Hagelin and Callahan back, I would roll out with this lineup.

Hagelin - Stepan - Nash
Kreider - Brassard - Callahan
Pouliot - Richards - Zuccarello (sub in Boyle for Pouliot if they are a defensive disaster)
Asham - Moore - Dorsett (I want Asham in there. We need some snarl)

SouthJerseyRanger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2013, 01:12 PM
  #33
Callagraves
Block shots
 
Callagraves's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 6,371
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthJerseyRanger View Post
The Rangers have 8 forwards who seem to only fit into a Top 6 role. I hope AV is wise enough to figure out a way to adapt to this "problem" rather than the opposite. Once you get Hagelin and Callahan back, I would roll out with this lineup.

Hagelin - Stepan - Nash
Kreider - Brassard - Callahan
Pouliot - Richards - Zuccarello (sub in Boyle for Pouliot if they are a defensive disaster)
Asham - Moore - Dorsett (I want Asham in there. We need some snarl)
See, everyone keeps gong back to Hags Step Nash, but really, I think Brassard is a more fitting center for Nasher, and that Zucc or even Kreids is a better flank. Hags plays a very below the hashmarks game, and over the past 2 years, Stepan's absolute strength seems to be playmaking down low, and the counter-attack. That's why I think Hags-Step-Cally looked good despite both wingers playing with a single shoulder(!).

Zucc and Brass are a better fit for Nash, not just because the amount of offensive creativity they bring will make it easier on Nasher, but because, lets be honest, Nash demands the other teams attention. They know where he is at all times. Two players like Brass and Zucc have the talent and skills to take advantage of that. Additionally Brass and Callahan should just never play together. You couldn't pick two forwards who had less in common.

Kreider could have a shot at replacing one of Hags or Zucc, but, I'd definitely see him on a 3rd scoring line with Pouliot and Richie. He and Pouliot both know how to score, and if they bring the physical presence that they both have, it could make it easier on Richards to get back to his style of playing, using his head.

On the other hand, if Richards comes back playing like a madman, I mean just smashing into the ground everyone who called him done, you throw him up there with Nash. Big if though.


Regardless, Hags and Cally are going to miss the start of the season, so some kids will get a chance to win a roster spot. There's a bit of a log jam, and I'm expecting us to trade some assets away mid season, but it's a good problem to have

Callagraves is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2013, 01:19 PM
  #34
Callagraves
Block shots
 
Callagraves's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 6,371
vCash: 500
NHL Starters: Step, Brass, Cally, Hags, Nash, Richie,Dorsset, Zucc, Pouliot, Boyle, Moore, Kreider, Pyatt, Asham

Prospects looking to challenge: Kristo, Fogarty, Miller, Fast, Hrivrk, Lindy, Yogan

#depth.

Callagraves is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2013, 01:32 PM
  #35
JohnC
#FreeSteve
 
JohnC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 4,553
vCash: 500
The Brassard Nash Zucc line was cringeworthy to watch at times

JohnC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2013, 01:33 PM
  #36
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,811
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Callagraves View Post
NHL Starters: Step, Brass, Cally, Hags, Nash, Richie,Dorsset, Zucc, Pouliot, Boyle, Moore, Kreider, Pyatt, Asham

Prospects looking to challenge: Kristo, Fogarty, Miller, Fast, Hrivrk, Lindy, Yogan

#depth.
#names

A few of those prospects don't have a legitimate shot of making the NHL this year, and possibly ever. And several of the NHL starters will be asked to play above their means.

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2013, 01:41 PM
  #37
Raspewtin
Early To The Party
 
Raspewtin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Howard Beach, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 8,809
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
#names

A few of those prospects don't have a legitimate shot of making the NHL this year, and possibly ever. And several of the NHL starters will be asked to play above their means.
explain which prospects have "no legitimate shot" at the NHL possibly ever? And which NHL starters exactly will be asked to play above their means?

Raspewtin is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2013, 01:43 PM
  #38
Callagraves
Block shots
 
Callagraves's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 6,371
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
#names

A few of those prospects don't have a legitimate shot of making the NHL this year, and possibly ever. And several of the NHL starters will be asked to play above their means.
Stepan and Nash are honest first liners.

Cally, Hags, Brass, Zucc have all either confirmed or shown 2nd line abilities.

Pouliot is historically a 30+ point player, coming off 20 points in 34 games

Moore is also a 30+ point player

Kreider and Richards are wildcards. Either could be playing like 1st liners or completely worthless.


After that, you've got Pyatt, Asham, Boyle, and Dorsset

Who's going to be asked to play above their abilities?

Callagraves is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2013, 03:21 PM
  #39
MugatuNYR
so hot right now
 
MugatuNYR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 3,868
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Callagraves View Post
NHL Starters: Step, Brass, Cally, Hags, Nash, Richie,Dorsset, Zucc, Pouliot, Boyle, Moore, Kreider, Pyatt, Asham

Prospects looking to challenge: Kristo, Fogarty, Miller, Fast, Hrivrk, Lindy, Yogan

#depth.
Fogarty? He'll be at UND for at least another two years. He hasn't even signed an ELC yet. Miller needs another half/full year in the A. He's still too raw. The guys I think are most ready are Kristo, Fast, Hrivik and Lindberg. Kristo is 23 and probably needs some seasoning in Hartford but I think he'll make the opening night roster with Cally/Hags out. Fast and Lindberg have been playing against men for the past few years so just need to acclimate to the NA game. Hrivik is the wildcard.

It's nice to have some guys ready to make the jump, though.


Last edited by MugatuNYR: 08-29-2013 at 03:28 PM.
MugatuNYR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2013, 04:31 PM
  #40
Callagraves
Block shots
 
Callagraves's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 6,371
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oh Thats Nashty View Post
Fogarty? He'll be at UND for at least another two years. He hasn't even signed an ELC yet. Miller needs another half/full year in the A. He's still too raw. The guys I think are most ready are Kristo, Fast, Hrivik and Lindberg. Kristo is 23 and probably needs some seasoning in Hartford but I think he'll make the opening night roster with Cally/Hags out. Fast and Lindberg have been playing against men for the past few years so just need to acclimate to the NA game. Hrivik is the wildcard.

It's nice to have some guys ready to make the jump, though.
I honestly have no idea why I included Fogarty.

Callagraves is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2013, 04:35 PM
  #41
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,811
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Callagraves View Post
Stepan and Nash are honest first liners.

Cally, Hags, Brass, Zucc have all either confirmed or shown 2nd line abilities.

Pouliot is historically a 30+ point player, coming off 20 points in 34 games

Moore is also a 30+ point player

Kreider and Richards are wildcards. Either could be playing like 1st liners or completely worthless.


After that, you've got Pyatt, Asham, Boyle, and Dorsset

Who's going to be asked to play above their abilities?
The bolded is the flaw to your argument, and will likely be the flaw for this team.

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2013, 04:40 PM
  #42
cwede
Registered User
 
cwede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 286
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Callagraves View Post
Stepan and Nash are honest first liners.

Cally, Hags, Brass, Zucc have all either confirmed or shown 2nd line abilities.

Pouliot is historically a 30+ point player, coming off 20 points in 34 games

Moore is also a 30+ point player

Kreider and Richards are wildcards. Either could be playing like 1st liners or completely worthless.


After that, you've got Pyatt, Asham, Boyle, and Dorsset

Who's going to be asked to play above their abilities?
John Moore is as least as likely to get 30 points as Dominic.


Last edited by cwede: 08-29-2013 at 04:41 PM. Reason: omitted word
cwede is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2013, 05:28 PM
  #43
Fitzy
All Is Well
 
Fitzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 19,917
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwede View Post
John Moore is as least as likely to get 30 points as Dominic.
This is going to be an unpopular bold opinion, but I agree with you.

Moore won't see the ice time and situations on this team to get 30 points barring a huge injury plague. Moore, on the other hand, has a chance to be a PP blueliner for us. If Girardi averaged 30 points seasons over two years, Moore certainly can.

Fitzy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2013, 05:58 PM
  #44
apoptygma
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 7
vCash: 500
This chart confirms what we did see with Richards late season form. He and MZA should
play together on a 2. or 3. line.

Things will be different now with a new coach, but from what I did see
last season I would prefer following lines this year:

Hagelin - Stepan - Nash
Kreider - Brassard - Callahan
Boyle/Pouliot - Richards - Zuccarello
Boyle/Pouliot - Moore - Dorsett

Not a very intimidiating line-up, so I guess we can use Asham or someone else
tough bottomliner atleast in divisional games. Pyatt I can't really find a use for here
after Callahan and Hagelin is back from injury. I thing that if they where 100%
he would be atleast tried to get traded, maybe waived already.

apoptygma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2013, 06:34 PM
  #45
Callagraves
Block shots
 
Callagraves's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 6,371
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
The bolded is the flaw to your argument, and will likely be the flaw for this team.
It's not exactly a flaw just because you disagree.

Hags has put up points at a 45-50 point pace since he entered the league, and he's still a young player. I wouldn't be surprised to see him do better.

Brass is unproven, but has shown potential beyond what anyone expected. Obviously, nobody here is expecting 80 some odd points from him, but I think he has a very good chance to hang out around the 50's.

Zucc came back an entirely different player than he left as. The numbers game is tough, but honestly, you're telling me if he continues playing the way he did that he couldn't break 40 some odd points?

Callagraves is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2013, 03:25 AM
  #46
Blue Blooded
Registered User
 
Blue Blooded's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Handicap spot
Country: Sweden
Posts: 2,734
vCash: 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Callagraves View Post
See, everyone keeps gong back to Hags Step Nash, but really, I think Brassard is a more fitting center for Nasher, and that Zucc or even Kreids is a better flank. Hags plays a very below the hashmarks game, and over the past 2 years, Stepan's absolute strength seems to be playmaking down low, and the counter-attack. That's why I think Hags-Step-Cally looked good despite both wingers playing with a single shoulder(!).

Zucc and Brass are a better fit for Nash, not just because the amount of offensive creativity they bring will make it easier on Nasher, but because, lets be honest, Nash demands the other teams attention. They know where he is at all times. Two players like Brass and Zucc have the talent and skills to take advantage of that. Additionally Brass and Callahan should just never play together. You couldn't pick two forwards who had less in common.

Kreider could have a shot at replacing one of Hags or Zucc, but, I'd definitely see him on a 3rd scoring line with Pouliot and Richie. He and Pouliot both know how to score, and if they bring the physical presence that they both have, it could make it easier on Richards to get back to his style of playing, using his head.

On the other hand, if Richards comes back playing like a madman, I mean just smashing into the ground everyone who called him done, you throw him up there with Nash. Big if though.


Regardless, Hags and Cally are going to miss the start of the season, so some kids will get a chance to win a roster spot. There's a bit of a log jam, and I'm expecting us to trade some assets away mid season, but it's a good problem to have
The reason I desperatly want to keep Hagelin-Stepan-Nash together is that they performed like a top 3 line when together last year and that the Hagelin-Nash combo was better than any other in the league that didn't include Crosby.

Nash with Hagelin
: GF20: 1.622, GA20: 0.203, GF%: 88.9%, CF20: 25.55, CA20: 18.05, CF%: 58.6%.

They outscored the opposition 10-1 when on the ice together, you don't break that apart without very good reasons.

Blue Blooded is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2013, 04:28 AM
  #47
JeffMangum
not sure if HF or FB
 
JeffMangum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Listening to music
Country: United States
Posts: 56,276
vCash: 300
Would definitely like to see Hagelin-Stepan-Nash together to start the season, although I'd like to see Kreider in Hagelin's spot for camp. I thought that line was awesome in game four/five against the Bruins, and I've been clamoring for that line for awhile. I think he's a better fit with those two than with Brassard/Callahan.

The one part of this team I feel is lacking is the middle six. It's kind of undefined and mish-moshed. Kreider/Hagelin, Callahan, Brassard, Richards, Zuccarello, Pouliot, and Boyle will all be vying for spots in the middle six, and I think it'll be hard to differentiate between the 2nd/3rd line to start the season.

Players stepping up and filling roles will be needed for the Rangers to compete against the likes of Boston and Pittsburgh. Brassard needs to continue his play from the playoffs, as does Zuccarello. Richards needs to bounce back and Kreider needs to continue to adjust to playing the game at the NHL level. As RB has said, Kreider is the x-factor. If he can produce at a decent pace, or at least use his size/speed to create space for his linemates, the Rangers will have two good top lines.

It's really wait and see until camp. I don't think anyone can accurately predict who will live up to expectations and who won't. Will certainly be interesting to see.

__________________

#TannerGlass2014
SEEN YOUR VIDEO!
#SheWentToHarvard

Last edited by JeffMangum: 08-30-2013 at 04:40 AM.
JeffMangum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2013, 06:37 AM
  #48
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 17,547
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue Blooded View Post
We need at least 2 Carl Hagelins on this team he showed incredible chemistry with three different players and improved almost every partners stats, but some of them pulled his down.
This would have been correct if you wrote "we would have needed at least 2 Carl Hagelin". And it really shows you that Torts system just was fundamentall flawed to.

Let me explain why.

We had a good team in relation to the other teams in this league. Alot of talent on it. We played a style under which we just threw the puck up ice and tried to get it below the hashmarks before we took it to the net.

The team we played against read us really easily. Dropped back with a D that collected the puck real fast after we put it down low, and turned on us real easily. When teams were able to do this, we all remember the results. The constant 3 shots periods. The constant "why can we not get ANYTHING going????" scenarios.

But when we had the fastest players in the league on the ice who on top of it is a really smart forechecker -- we were still able to put pressure on that D despite having a flawed system and we became somewhat functional at times. Prust in his own way could also make that happen. The Dubi-AA-Callahan line was able to make that happen at a smaller scale. So many other competent players and combination of players just wasn't close to get it done at a functional scale.

To play a system that pays of so little and demands soooo much from its players is just not a good idea.

How valuble will Hagelin be under AV?

Ola is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2013, 07:04 AM
  #49
mullichicken25
Registered User
 
mullichicken25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: NJ
Posts: 2,558
vCash: 500
The eyeball test from last season tells me that every player was noticibly better when on the ice with Stepan.

Don't know if it always coorelated to goals or points but a line was simply better and cleaner whenever Stepan was on it.

mullichicken25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2013, 07:50 AM
  #50
Off Sides
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 952
vCash: 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ola View Post
This would have been correct if you wrote "we would have needed at least 2 Carl Hagelin". And it really shows you that Torts system just was fundamentall flawed to.

Let me explain why.

We had a good team in relation to the other teams in this league. Alot of talent on it. We played a style under which we just threw the puck up ice and tried to get it below the hashmarks before we took it to the net.

The team we played against read us really easily. Dropped back with a D that collected the puck real fast after we put it down low, and turned on us real easily. When teams were able to do this, we all remember the results. The constant 3 shots periods. The constant "why can we not get ANYTHING going????" scenarios.

But when we had the fastest players in the league on the ice who on top of it is a really smart forechecker -- we were still able to put pressure on that D despite having a flawed system and we became somewhat functional at times. Prust in his own way could also make that happen. The Dubi-AA-Callahan line was able to make that happen at a smaller scale. So many other competent players and combination of players just wasn't close to get it done at a functional scale.

To play a system that pays of so little and demands soooo much from its players is just not a good idea.

How valuble will Hagelin be under AV?
I agree

However I think much of it stemmed from their lack of efficiency on defense. Tippett explains it better than I can.

Quote:
"We had a player that was supposed to be a great, shut-down defenseman. He was supposedly the be-all, end-all of defensemen. But when you did a 10-game analysis of him, you found out he was defending all the time because he can’t move the puck.

"Then we had another guy, who supposedly couldn’t defend a lick. Well, he was defending only 20 percent of the time because he’s making good plays out of our end. He may not be the strongest defender, but he’s only doing it 20 percent of the time. So the equation works out better the other way.
http://www.defendingbigd.com/2012/4/...-matt-niskanen

I think the Rangers as a whole last season defended well but they had a lot of trouble defending efficiently enough to have the energy to rush the puck up ice the other way which led to the stretch, tip, dump, attack the net from behind it off the boards mentality.

People can say what they want about Staal but he is efficient at taking the puck away and turning it. However it can't just be Staal playing that way if the team is going to become better at transitioning the puck.

Off Sides 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 06:03 PM.

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.