I have many Ranger fans as friends, very few of which have an opinion on hockey that I respect.
That being said, the ones that I do respect for their hockey knowledge ALL say they do not want Nash and that he doesn't fit their system. Coincidentally the ones who I think are complete idiots regarding hockey ALL want Nash, brah.
The Rangers are not as good as their record indicates. Lundqvist will not put up a .940+ save percentage forever. Acquiring a primetime scorer like Nash would be a coup for them if they're giving up a package centered around Dubinsky.
I have many Ranger fans as friends, very few of which have an opinion on hockey that I respect.
That being said, the ones that I do respect for their hockey knowledge ALL say they do not want Nash and that he doesn't fit their system. Coincidentally the ones who I think are complete idiots regarding hockey ALL want Nash, brah.
A lot of Ranger fans I know are like "We don't need Nash, we're good enough to be a dynasty without him." That's fools gold IMO. You're first in the league this year, you go for the cup this year and worry about the other years later.
I don't see how he wouldn't fit their system. They play dump and chase, its not too crazy. Torts has already shown he can make nearly any player defensively responsible.
Nash would be a perfect fit on the Rangers, they need a top 6 scorer like him. Its just not worth the assets and cap hit for them.
A lot of Ranger fans I know are like "We don't need Nash, we're good enough to be a dynasty without him." That's fools gold IMO. You're first in the league this year, you go for the cup this year and worry about the other years later.
I don't see how he wouldn't fit their system. They play dump and chase, its not too crazy. Torts has already shown he can make nearly any player defensively responsible.
Nash would be a perfect fit on the Rangers, they need a top 6 scorer like him. Its just not worth the assets and cap hit for them.
Agreed. It's funny how, when a team is winning, fans will overlook all the flaws of their team and sensible logic regarding their performance. Of course, the opposite is true when the team falters.
The Rangers could use improvements in several places. They haven't found the magic formula. They're a good team that, due to some luck, looks great.
Last edited by Feed Me A Stray Cat: 02-22-2012 at 05:28 PM.
I'm not hoping for it. He is a premier scorer, and he would undeniably make them more dangerous than they already are. But I won't be crapping my pants in fear either if they get him. Howson isn't a complete moron (an assumption I have less and less faith in every day, but no matter), so trading for Nash will require the Rangers to give up a large part of their identity and heart, and that could cost them.
Agreed. It's funny how, when a team is winning, fans will overlook all the flaws of their team and sensible logic regarding their performance. Of course, the opposite is true when the team falters.
The Rangers could use improvements in several places.
Several places? Not really.. I mean every team can use improvements but I don't think the Rangers NEED several improvements to make them very legitimate cup contenders.
They need one significant one.. top 6 goal scoring help.
Get that and hell, I'd put money on them at least getting to the SCF.
The Rangers are not as good as their record indicates. Lundqvist will not put up a .940+ save percentage forever. Acquiring a primetime scorer like Nash would be a coup for them if they're giving up a package centered around Dubinsky.
With that said, Nash's contract is onerous.
It's time to get over the save percentage. I've seen Devils fans on this board post that crap for SIXTY games. He's having an unreal year. If his percentage was going to go down, it would have by now.
It's time to get over the save percentage. I've seen Devils fans on this board post that crap for SIXTY games. He's having an unreal year. If his percentage was going to go down, it would have by now.
No, it wouldn't have had to go down by now. Good goalies can luck their way to amazing save percentages over a full season (to do a simple test, assume several goalies with a true talent save percentage of .919 and run 15 season simulations for each. Invariably, a couple will squeak out .935 save percentages by sheer luck). Tim Thomas is finally hitting his regression now.
What makes you think that Lundqvist, man with the career .919 save percentage before this, is somehow a .940 save percentage goalie now? Does that make any sense? And don't make arguments about the Rangers' defense - the Rangers have actually allowed as many scoring chances as they've taken this season.
Lundqvist is a great goalie having a career year. In no way, shape, or form does this reflect his true talent level though.
No, it wouldn't have had to go down by now. Good goalies can luck their way to amazing save percentages over a full season (to do a simple test, assume several goalies with a true talent save percentage of .919 and run 15 season simulations for each. Invariably, a couple will squeak out .935 save percentages by sheer luck). Tim Thomas is finally hitting his regression now.
What makes you think that Lundqvist, man with the career .919 save percentage before this, is somehow a .940 save percentage goalie now? Does that make any sense? And don't make arguments about the Rangers' defense - the Rangers have actually allowed as many scoring chances as they've taken this season.
Lundqvist is a great goalie having a career year. In no way, shape, or form does this reflect his true talent level though.
.919 -> .940 for two reasons.
1) Lundqvist is playing well above his average for this year
2) The Rangers defense is doing an amazing job of blocking shots and scoring lanes, keeping teams to the outside and easier shots for Lundqvist to save.
By no means does he put up .940 on any other team this year. But by no means does he just put up a .919. He's playing better than he has in the past. Combine that with a great defense and you get a .940.
If you admit that good goalies can luck their way into absurd numbers and keep it up over the course of a full season, then that means Lundqvist and the Rangers won't necessarily regress. I don't care what his "true talent level" is. The point is that he doesn't necessarily have to fall off, he might keep this up and carry the Rangers all the way to the Cup.
After watching the Rags play many times this year, they don't scare me at all.
Nor me. The problem they are going to have is their offense is extremely, extremely inconsistent.
They go through long stretches in games where they are pinned in their defensive zone and very rarely dominate in puck possession for a full 60 minutes.
They will go far in the playoffs if and only if Lundqvist and the defense wills them there. Their offense will not carry them and will weigh them down.
I know defense wins championships but you have to score a decent amount as well and I don't think the Rangers current offense is good enough to score multiple goals a game on playoff-caliber teams come playoff time. They are going to have to win games 1-0 and 2-1 which is an extremely difficult task to do for 16 games in the playoffs.
1) Lundqvist is playing well above his average for this year
2) The Rangers defense is doing an amazing job of blocking shots and scoring lanes, keeping teams to the outside and easier shots for Lundqvist to save.
By no means does he put up .940 on any other team this year. But by no means does he just put up a .919. He's playing better than he has in the past. Combine that with a great defense and you get a .940.
1) Unless you believe that Lundqvist, after six full seasons, has found some magical way to become one of the best goalies of all time, I'll call it luck. Therefore, I don't think it's sustainable, and that's what matters here.
2) The Rangers' defense is not doing an amazing job preventing quality shots. They give up a lot of shots and scoring chances. The NYR blog Blue Shirt Banter tracks scoring chances for every game and the Rangers do not look impressive.
1) Unless you believe that Lundqvist, after six full seasons, has found some magical way to become one of the best goalies of all time, I'll call it luck.
2) The Rangers' defense is not doing an amazing job preventing quality shots. They give up a lot of shots and scoring chances. The NYR blog Blue Shirt Banter tracks scoring chances for every game and the Rangers do not look impressive.
Its a combination of the two. He's having a career year (hence, better than his average numbers) and his defense is having a remarkable season (hence, increasing such numbers).
So you're going to attribute it to luck yet say the Rangers give up an absurd amount of scoring chances?
Lundqvist does scare me. And their defense is slightly better than ours. We smoke them offensively though.
Its funny because offensively, they've actually scored more goals than us this year (minus shootout winners).
Without even looking at numbers though, I'm going to assume they have more EN goals and more goals in already lopsided games (i.e. to go up by 3 late) while we have much more potent scoring when it matters (in tight games).
I take our forwards over their's any day of the week.
Its a combination of the two. He's having a career year (hence, better than his average numbers) and his defense is having a remarkable season (hence, increasing such numbers).
So you're going to attribute it to luck yet say the Rangers give up an absurd amount of scoring chances?
So he's been lucky for 60 games?
C'mon.
Goalies can easily get lucky for 60 games. Once again, run a coin flip simulation (with the weight at .919 to heads - i.e., .919 chance for a save) for 100 NHL goalie seasons. You will have several seasons where goalies post save percentages way above their career norms by sheer luck. Those are the 10-11 Tim Thomas', the 11-12' Lundqvists. This test doesn't account for team based contextual factors, but it proves that these numbers can be achieved by luck alone.
And the Rangers' don't give up an absurd amount of scoring chances. They don't give up very few either, though. Up until the half way mark of the season the Rangers were giving up more scoring chances than they were taking.
EDIT: http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/92...12ASB_10GM.jpg
What this shows (in 10 game moving averages, not aggregate totals up until each point): that the Rangers have been out chanced and outshot for the majority of this season. They've improved since game 40, but have some regression coming their way.
I said it before the season started and I'll say it again - the Rangers are a damn solid team but they don't scare me at all.
I look at their team and nothing jumps out at me saying 'Holy **** we better watch out for these guys!'
Their best assets are their goalie and their coach - outside of that their team is pretty unspectacular.
Before the season started I would have been terrified facing them in the playoffs only because of our lack of success against them the past few seasons. But our success against them so far this year and the general progress New Jersey has made in all aspects of the game has made me think they may actually be one of our better match-ups.
I said it before the season started and I'll say it again - the Rangers are a damn solid team but they don't scare me at all.
I look at their team and nothing jumps out at me saying 'Holy **** we better watch out for these guys!'
Their best assets are their goalie and their coach - outside of that their team is pretty unspectacular.
Before the season started I would have been terrified facing them in the playoffs only because of our lack of success against them the past few seasons. But our success against them so far this year and the general progress New Jersey has made in all aspects of the game has made me think they may actually be one of our better match-ups.
The reason the Rags are scary in a playoff series is because Lundqvist, in my eyes is the one goalie in the East that can win/steal 2 maybe even 3 series on his own.
Thomas is a far second.
That in my eyes is what makes the Rags a scary team to deal with in the playoffs.
I wouldn't particularly wanna play the rangers, but I'd def rather face them than Boston in a 7 game series. Honestly I think we can take any team in the East in a 7 game series with Boston the only team I wouldnt be that confident about.
