HFBoards GF, GA, and where the Rangers need to go
 Register FAQ Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
 Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
 Notices New York Rangers Prospects: Brady Skjei, D» Pavel Buchnevich, LW» Brandon Halverson, G» All»

# GF, GA, and where the Rangers need to go

09-02-2013, 05:12 PM
#1
Crease
Registered User

Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,833
vCash: 500
GF, GA, and where the Rangers need to go

I did a quick study to see how the Rangers compared to the eventual SC champs and the league average, since 2006, in terms of GF and GA. Everyone who has been watching knows that the Rangers are above-average in their own zone but below-average in the other team's zone. But I wanted to find out how much they need to improve in one or both areas in order to stack up against the best of the best. This is the result. Explanation follows.

 Year GFC_Champ GFC_Avg GAC_Champ GAC_Avg 2012-13 0.84 0.99 0.91 1.17 2011-12 1.16 1.01 0.96 1.2 2010-11 0.95 1.02 0.98 1.16 2009-10 0.82 0.95 0.96 1.07 2008-09 0.8 0.88 1.1 1.1 2007-08 0.83 0.93 0.92 1.15 2006-07 0.94 1 0.96 1.12 2005-06 0.87 1.02 1.21 1.18 Average 0.9 0.97 1 1.14

GCF_Champ: "Goals For" compared to SC Champ
GFC_Avg: "Goals For" compared to League Average
GAC_Champ:"Goals Against" compared to SC Champ
GAC_Avg: "Goals Against" compared to League Average

Calculations and how to interpret the table: I promise you this is very straightforward math. A simple "percent of" calculation. So anything greater than "1" means that the Rangers outperformed the benchmark and anything less than "1" means the Rangers underperformed the benchmark.

For example, look at the 2010-2011 GFC_Champ (0.95). The Bruins scored 246 goals that season. The Rangers scored 233 goals that season. 233/246 = 0.95. Or in other words, the Rangers scored 5% less than the eventual SC champs in 2010-2011. Conversely, the Rangers gave up (195/198 = 0.98) 2% more goals than the eventual SC champs in 2010-2011.

What the results indicate: No surprise, but the Rangers need to score more. But it looks like they have to score more without sacrificing much defense. The eventual SC Champs, on average, score 10% more goals while giving up the same amount. Interesting.

Last edited by Crease: 09-02-2013 at 05:17 PM.

 09-02-2013, 05:17 PM #2 Megustaelhockey Global Moderator Hybrid icing     Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 7,830 vCash: 500 I think the best the Rangers can hope to do is score 225 and give up 185.
09-02-2013, 05:20 PM
#3
Crease
Registered User

Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,833
vCash: 500
By the way, here are the raw numbers in case you want to look at it that way:

 Year GFChamp GFAvg GFRangers GAChamp GAAvg GARangers 2012-13 265 224 222 174 224 191 2011-12 194 224 226 179 224 187 2010-11 246 229 233 195 229 198 2009-10 271 233 222 209 233 218 2008-09 264 239 210 239 239 218 2007-08 257 228 213 184 228 199 2006-07 258 242 242 208 242 216 2005-06 294 253 257 260 253 215

2012-13 is prorated for 82 games. LA in 2011 was the outlier. All other eventual SC champs are goal-scoring machines with above-average defense.

Last edited by Crease: 09-02-2013 at 05:30 PM.

 09-02-2013, 07:09 PM #4 Krampus Call me Nils     Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: NYC Country: Posts: 19,007 vCash: 420 Pretty telling that even with us being way ahead of the league in GA, but still not as good as the champs most years. Especially since people have recently been arguing that defense isn't as important __________________
09-02-2013, 09:17 PM
#5
Barbara Underhill
Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuke

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Montana
Country:
Posts: 13,272
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by nils2317 Pretty telling that even with us being way ahead of the league in GA, but still not as good as the champs most years. Especially since people have recently been arguing that defense isn't as important
Anyone arguing that is disillusioned, gotta find a balance. However if you can get a increase in GF while only dipping a little in GA you should be fine. Which I think this team is capable of doing, but we'll see.

Forum Jump