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

Team defense (11-12 Comparison)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-14-2014, 01:31 PM
  #176
Richter Scale
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,393
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SnowblindNYR View Post
Considering we got Hank in Vezina form versus mediocre Hank, I don't think it's a stretch that our D rivals 11-12, quite easily and that's without considering the system transition.
I risk repeating items from my other post with this; but I'm assuming it was tl;dr for you.

You don't find it a convenient coincidence that Hank played worse this year, in a year when NYR changed coaches and systems - and the change was to a system that arguably leads to Hank seeing more quality chances against? Why is it surprising that in a system like that Hank's numbers were worse this year than any of the past few? If he sees more high quality chances, he'll give up more goals. Don't care how good he is. This should not be a surprise to you, or anyone else.


And if you're looking at the defensemen - the 11-12 team's back end was, on paper, pretty significantly worse than this team's for much of the season. If anything, this year's team underperformed defensively, compared to what I would have expected looking solely at the roster.

2011-12 (in order of most games played): McDonagh, Girardi, Del Zotto, Stralman, Bickel, Staal, Eminger, Woywitka, Sauer, Erixon. Only the first three players in that group played over 70 games.

2013-14 (in order of most games played): Girardi, Stralman, McDonagh, Moore, Staal, Del Zotto, Klein, Falk, Diaz. The first 6 players in that group (if you consider Del Z and Klein 'one player') all played more than 70 games this season. A much better and more stable d-corps - on paper.

So what is the difference? Why didn't this year's team quite match up in terms of stats when they had superior players? In my eyes, its how the 11-12 group played as a team (i.e. team defense; the sum being greater than its parts); and the system. But you could also just keep claiming this year's team is better at team defense without any actual metric that currently supports your claim. I think they could be under different circumstances. But they aren't right now, and that's all that matters in this context.


Last edited by Richter Scale: 04-14-2014 at 01:43 PM.
Richter Scale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-14-2014, 01:32 PM
  #177
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 18,242
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richter Scale View Post
I'm not bothering to read through the rest of the thread, so apologies if any of these points have already been made.

--

I don't get it. What is the OP's overall point?

Are you arguing that this team is as good as or just slightly worse than the 11-12 team?

This team has less goals for. More goals against. Worse record. If you're trying to use stats to make your argument, they don't paint the picture it seems like you're trying to paint.


Are you arguing that the people saying the D would be "exposed" when Torts left were being hyperbolic?

The people making that point (I was one of them - though not as definitively as you have framed it here), weren't making the point that this team would completely collapse defensively. Instead, the point was that they didn't believe that a more "open" system would lead to a better result because they believed an increase (if any) in offense resulting from such a system would likely bring with it tradeoffs on defense -- assuming all things being equal between the two coaches' teams (meaning similar personnel and performance among the individual players; which obviously hasn’t been the case).

This team's goals against increased. The goals for decreased. If anything - solely based on the stats - that is movement in the wrong direction.

I didn’t buy this – but for those who thought “anything but Torts” would open up the offensive flood gates: Despite having one of the deeper, and more offensively talented teams, in terms of individual personnel, of the past several seasons, this year’s team has had the worst goals for of any team since ’09-’10.

And this coming from you is pretty ironic. You, who rides Hank the hardest of almost anyone on these boards, are ignoring the fact that Hank just happened to have one of the worst starts to the season of any of the past several years? And that this just happened to occur in the year that the team changed coaches and systems – and changed to one that led to Hank seeing more high-quality chances against each game? This isn’t a dig against Hank. But if he sees more quality chances, he’s going to give up more goals. I don’t care how good he is. This shouldn’t be surprising. And the offense didn’t improve enough (read: over the whole season, at all) to make up for that. Hence, still a 5/6/7/8 seed playoff bubble team.


With your “disregard the 10 worst game sample” argument, are you seriously saying the teams of the last few years never had any similar adversity to overcome? Do we have that poor of a memory?

The 11-12 team lost Staal for a huge portion of the season. Same for the 12-13 team. The 12-13 team was playing in a bastardized season, with zero training camp and a hugely overhauled roster (saying nothing of how ****** that roster was by comparison). Did many of the 12-13 team’s players not have a new system to learn and new teammates to get used to? And that 12-13 team had even less time to do those things than this year’s team (which had a training camp and preseason prior to the god awful start to the regular season). The 12-13 team had a Gaborik and Richards who were playing some of the worst hockey of their careers.

I'm sure if you looked, you could find excuses for virtually any season for almost any team, why a 10 game sample should be excluded if someone buys into your argument on this point.


Are you arguing that the switch to AV from Torts was a good one?

If anything, if this team doesn’t take the next step under AV – especially with a vastly improved roster from most of the Torts teams – I see it primarily as a wash.

The main improvement I’ve seen that seems likely to have been impacted the most by the coaching change is the improvement in the power play. I’m very happy with it (despite its regression later in this season). At the same time, it didn’t lead to an overall higher goals for during the season. So, what good does that do us? And heading into the playoffs, games will be called tighter. That said, I’m still thrilled that it is no longer so abysmal that an NYR power play actually gives the other team momentum.

In my eyes - any other improvements seem more attributable to personnel on this team than anything else. Still has a ways to go to become a legit contender in my eyes; and Sather still can’t commit to a concept to build a team around, rather opting for an amalgam of roster pieces that he continually overhauls year after year in search of a team that looks attractive on paper, but just doesn’t fit together.

But sure, this team is one of the deeper and more offensively talented teams of the past several years (though they clearly still lack the finish they have for years… and its mind boggling). It's not because of AV. It’s because of the personnel. And even saying that, at best, I still don’t see them making it past the ECF. Of course, hoping to be proven wrong.
This is a great post. Bravo.

I remember two main points from those "style of play" battles from a couple of years ago:

1. a new coach would unlock the offense with a more offensive style of play

2. The defense wouldn't suffer and, if it did, "we've got Lundqvist back there anyway"

#1 is false. This team actually scored less goals than the '11-12 team over the course of the season. But there is a point to be made about improved puck possession and more shots on goal. Some might call it being unlucky, others might say the team lacks finishers. Bottom line is, despite approaching it in different ways, the offense remained pretty neutral.

But #2 is my favorite - the pending trade off on the defensive side of the puck was something that was often glossed over when pining for that offensive style of play. Ignoring the likelihood that this team would likely give up much higher quality scoring chances, and then blaming Lundqvist early in the year for giving up more goals was a pure stroke of genius. Logic at its best.

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-14-2014, 01:39 PM
  #178
NickyFotiu
Registered User
 
NickyFotiu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 5,462
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
This is a great post. Bravo.

I remember two main points from those "style of play" battles from a couple of years ago:

1. a new coach would unlock the offense with a more offensive style of play
Vancouver fans are now discussing whether this season was their worst season ever offensively under our old coach and his "style of play"

NickyFotiu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-14-2014, 01:53 PM
  #179
Richter Scale
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,393
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickyFotiu View Post
Vancouver fans are now discussing whether this season was their worst season ever offensively under our old coach and his "style of play"
No one is arguing Torts was/is a good fit for Van (at least as currently constructed). Nor does your argument consider that maybe, just maybe, their problem is with personnel and a franchise on the way down, rather than the coach. They were in just as much distress last year under AV, despite making the playoffs. To anyone paying attention it was clear that team was not going to be in a good position in the next several years. Not to mention Gillis blew it up further when he ultimately got rid of their goalie problem by... getting rid of both goalies!

But all of that is beside the point - why do people keep going back to this straw man? We're talking about the Rangers, not Van. Torts and his system are only relevant as it relates to how it impacted this team, not others.

If you want to rub it in the faces of those who thought Van would do better than they ultimately did this season under Torts that is one thing. And I was one of those people (I didn't think they'd get back to being a top team in the West, but thought they would at least make playoffs). You caught me! Oh no! But it has no relation to this particular discussion.

Richter Scale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-14-2014, 02:03 PM
  #180
NickyFotiu
Registered User
 
NickyFotiu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 5,462
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richter Scale View Post
No one is arguing Torts was/is a good fit for Van (at least as currently constructed). Nor does your argument consider that maybe, just maybe, their problem is with personnel and a franchise on the way down, rather than the coach. They were in just as much distress last year under AV, despite making the playoffs. To anyone paying attention it was clear that team was not going to be in a good position in the next several years. Not to mention Gillis blew it up further when he ultimately got rid of their goalie problem by... getting rid of both goalies!

But all of that is beside the point - why do people keep going back to this straw man? We're talking about the Rangers, not Van. Torts and his system are only relevant as it relates to how it impacted this team, not others.

If you want to rub it in the faces of those who thought Van would do better than they ultimately did this season under Torts that is one thing. And I was one of those people (I didn't think they'd get back to being a top team in the West, but thought they would at least make playoffs). You caught me! Oh no! But it has no relation to this particular discussion.
Van may not be on the way up but they are not nearly as bad as they played in the 2nd half of this season. Their own players quotes spoke volumes as does their new head man (Trevor Linden). Here in NY our players and coach had no problem adapting to each other after around 10 games time.

At least we have consistency on this board. When Torts was here none of our problems were ever Tort's fault or his systems fault according to some people and now that he is in Van it is still not his fault or his systems fault. Van fans must be thrilled that he brought his systems and behavior to their team. Well played.

NickyFotiu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-14-2014, 02:08 PM
  #181
Richter Scale
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,393
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickyFotiu View Post
Van may not be on the way up but they are not nearly as bad as they played in the 2nd half of this season. Their own players quotes spoke volumes as does their new head man (Trevor Linden). Here in NY our players and coach had no problem adapting to each other after around 10 games time.

At least we have consistency on this board. When Torts was here none of our problems were ever Tort's fault or his systems fault according to some people and now that he is in Van it is still not his fault or his systems fault. Van fans must be thrilled that he brought his systems and behavior to their team. Well played.
Ok. I'll simplify the post you were responding to with this.

Van is not NYR. What is your point? How does this post and your previous one relate to this discussion?

Richter Scale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-14-2014, 02:20 PM
  #183
Ail
Kidmograph tho.
 
Ail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Mysidia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 25,106
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
It isn't interesting though. In fact, it's quite boring. The interesting comparisons, right now for this team, are with its contemporaries. Once the year is over, including the playoffs, then it's interesting to see how this team stacks up to others in history.

The way the team is viewed will change over the course of the next few weeks (or hopefully couple of months).
I actually find the opposite. What's the point of arguing about and comparing two totally different teams with totally different rosters, coaches, mindsets or even eras of the game? What can you possibly draw from these comparisons that is useful?

Comparing a team to itself over the course of a season can actually provide insight and perspective.

Ail is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-14-2014, 02:23 PM
  #184
McRanger
Registered User
 
McRanger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,325
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
It isn't interesting though. In fact, it's quite boring. The interesting comparisons, right now for this team, are with its contemporaries. Once the year is over, including the playoffs, then it's interesting to see how this team stacks up to others in history.

The way the team is viewed will change over the course of the next few weeks (or hopefully couple of months).
The whole point of the exercise it to try and predict what happens next, which is the only thing that matters. Personally I do not see the point, or the interest, in comparing two finished teams from a historical perspective.

But that is just me.

McRanger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-14-2014, 02:30 PM
  #186
Ail
Kidmograph tho.
 
Ail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Mysidia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 25,106
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rust Heisenberg View Post
The 2011-2012 Rangers allowed 187 GA. The 2013-2014 Rangers allowed 191 GA. That's a 4 goal difference. And when you consider the abysmal start to the season, particularly a 9-2 blow out against SJ, that can absolutely be attributed to a 1 month long adjustment period... the Rangers would likely have had a lower GA total this year, than they did in their 2011-2012 season, had it not been for that transition period.

Even with the transition period, the Rangers allowed 4 more goals against this season. 4. Hardly anything substantial. Which means that their defense actually played better than it did in 2011-2012, if you were to just compare their seasons after the first month of the season.

Is GA a good enough metric for you?
Only (Edit, thanks Kenjets ya dingdong) 6 more GA in a season where:

Henrik isn't going to win a Vezina.
They aren't playing a collapse defense to try and prevent more SoG.
Their transition game and activating defensemen in the offensive zone leaves them open for more chances against.
They had a completely horrible road start to the season.

Defense took a step back.


Last edited by Ail: 04-14-2014 at 02:36 PM.
Ail is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-14-2014, 02:35 PM
  #188
NickyFotiu
Registered User
 
NickyFotiu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 5,462
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rust Heisenberg View Post
Edit, it is actually 193 goals. So a total of 6 whole goals. That still doesn't even cover the difference between the Rangers and Sharks during that 9-2 game. Or the following game where the Rangers lost 6-0.

That's 15 GA in just two games. 6 is still hardly a substantial number.

The defense was definitely not playing up to its standards the first third of the season. I was on their play and was pretty livid about it.

Since then, they've improved not only dramatically, but to a level that is more dominant than our defense was in 2011-2012, the year we went to the ECF. That's impressive.

Some very good points but this group of players can not win or defend unless they play the 6 goalie system.

NickyFotiu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-14-2014, 02:36 PM
  #189
SnowblindNYR
Registered User
 
SnowblindNYR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 23,623
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue View Post
Is it or is it not contingent solely on your own discretion?
It's contingent on my discretion yes, that's why I have a brain so that I can do more than look like numbers. Analysis of stats requires the use of discretion. Any idiot can look at numbers. Do wall street analysts not use discretion?

SnowblindNYR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-14-2014, 02:37 PM
  #190
Ail
Kidmograph tho.
 
Ail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Mysidia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 25,106
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rust Heisenberg View Post
Edit, it is actually 193 goals. So a total of 6 whole goals. That still doesn't even cover the difference between the Rangers and Sharks during that 9-2 game. Or the following game where the Rangers lost 6-0.

That's 15 GA in just two games. 6 is still hardly a substantial number.

The defense was definitely not playing up to its standards the first third of the season. I was on their play and was pretty livid about it.

Since then, they've improved not only dramatically, but to a level that is more dominant than our defense was in 2011-2012, the year we went to the ECF. That's impressive.
Last time I ever believe a stat that you post!

Ail is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-14-2014, 02:41 PM
  #193
SnowblindNYR
Registered User
 
SnowblindNYR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 23,623
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richter Scale View Post
I risk repeating items from my other post with this; but I'm assuming it was tl;dr for you.

You don't find it a convenient coincidence that Hank played worse this year, in a year when NYR changed coaches and systems - and the change was to a system that arguably leads to Hank seeing more quality chances against? Why is it surprising that in a system like that Hank's numbers were worse this year than any of the past few? If he sees more high quality chances, he'll give up more goals. Don't care how good he is. This should not be a surprise to you, or anyone else.


And if you're looking at the defensemen - the 11-12 team's back end was, on paper, pretty significantly worse than this team's for much of the season. If anything, this year's team underperformed defensively, compared to what I would have expected looking solely at the roster.

2011-12 (in order of most games played): McDonagh, Girardi, Del Zotto, Stralman, Bickel, Staal, Eminger, Woywitka, Sauer, Erixon. Only the first three players in that group played over 70 games.

2013-14 (in order of most games played): Girardi, Stralman, McDonagh, Moore, Staal, Del Zotto, Klein, Falk, Diaz. The first 6 players in that group (if you consider Del Z and Klein 'one player') all played more than 70 games this season. A much better and more stable d-corps - on paper.

So what is the difference? Why didn't this year's team quite match up in terms of stats when they had superior players? In my eyes, its how the 11-12 group played as a team (i.e. team defense; the sum being greater than its parts); and the system. But you could also just keep claiming this year's team is better at team defense without any actual metric that currently supports your claim. I think they could be under different circumstances. But they aren't right now, and that's all that matters in this context.
Well, he was giving up a lot of soft goals, but even if it was the transition, that wasn't something that the 11-12 team had to deal with.

SnowblindNYR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-14-2014, 02:43 PM
  #194
NickyFotiu
Registered User
 
NickyFotiu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 5,462
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rust Heisenberg View Post
This seems like a statement that is based purely on subjective opinion.

They have strayed away from the fundamentals of the 6 goalie system, and found arguably more success. There are other metrics that prove that point, but seeing as I have to leave to go take a midterm (final one ever, TG) I will not provide them.

They still have an ability to collapse and protect the net when there is a scramble in the crease. But they've won a lot playing this style of hockey.
I read all last season that the 6 goalie system was the only way this flawed group of players could defend. Would it be on the Internet if it was not true?

NickyFotiu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-14-2014, 02:51 PM
  #195
Thirty One
k.
 
Thirty One's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,238
vCash: 420
Regarding GA in 2011-12 vs. 2013-14: they allowed 9 empty net goals in 2011-12 vs. only 4 this season.

Thirty One is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-14-2014, 02:54 PM
  #196
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 17,407
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SnowblindNYR View Post
Any idiot can look at numbers. Do wall street analysts not use discretion?
Off course they do. Which is why your claim of the term "arbitrary" not being right is wrong. I fit is contingent on your discretion, by definition, it is arbitrary. Ergo, you a are arbitrarily excluding items from an entire population in order to inflate stats.

True Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-14-2014, 02:55 PM
  #197
SnowblindNYR
Registered User
 
SnowblindNYR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 23,623
vCash: 500
Offense is not all about putting the puck in the net. This team creates a lot more pressure and chances than previous teams, but have a ridiculously low shooting percentage. 28th or 29th in the league. The Rangers are not the 28th or 29th most talented team inthe league. The 11-12 team was a lot less talented but had a much better shooting percentage. One team did better than they should and one did worse and even then it's close enough that this year's team would probably outscore that team if that team had to deal with the same adversity.

SnowblindNYR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-14-2014, 02:55 PM
  #198
Raspewtin
Free Kat Dennings
 
Raspewtin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Country: France
Posts: 30,230
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rust Heisenberg View Post
The 2011-2012 Rangers allowed 187 GA. The 2013-2014 Rangers allowed 191 GA. That's a 4 goal difference. And when you consider the abysmal start to the season, particularly a 9-2 blow out against SJ, that can absolutely be attributed to a 1 month long adjustment period... the Rangers would likely have had a lower GA total this year, than they did in their 2011-2012 season, had it not been for that transition period.

Even with the transition period, the Rangers allowed 4 more goals against this season. 4. Hardly anything substantial. Which means that their defense actually played better than it did in 2011-2012, if you were to just compare their seasons after the first month of the season.

Is GA a good enough metric for you?
I don't particularly like the "lets disregard 10 really bad games" argument, but if anything, it shows just how much of the right direction this team is going. Nobody thought this team was going to explode immediately, most of us knew this would be a transitional year, and it was. Aren't we like 2nd in the league in GF/A differential since the trade deadline? That's pretty damn good progress to me.

__________________
"It's going to be a zoo no matter what, Staalmania, Staals everywhre, omg Staal on Staal action, three brothers hockeying! Staal returning to Carolina omg what news! All the feels he is feel..." - Ail on Eric Staal's return to Carolina.
Raspewtin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-14-2014, 03:00 PM
  #199
SnowblindNYR
Registered User
 
SnowblindNYR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 23,623
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue View Post
Off course they do. Which is why your claim of the term "arbitrary" not being right is wrong. I fit is contingent on your discretion, by definition, it is arbitrary. Ergo, you a are arbitrarily excluding items from an entire population in order to inflate stats.
Whatever, I concede that I'm using discretion, but you make it sound like I'm doing it willy nilly without a logic behind it.

SnowblindNYR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-14-2014, 03:24 PM
  #200
SnowblindNYR
Registered User
 
SnowblindNYR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 23,623
vCash: 500
What I don't understand how a positive thread looking to show that we're close to the best defense we had in 20 years has turned out to once again be a platform for the negative Nancies. It's like you guys have a radar that whenever a positive thread pops up you have to ruin it by being debbie downers. I was reading threads from 2003 recently and boy you guys are spoiled now.

SnowblindNYR 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 05:53 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2017 All Rights Reserved.