1219 replies to this topic

[Colorado Rockies 1976]

with biron? martin biron? haha, no effin way. Weird because he was really good every game he filled in early in the year. Had a tough game against Chicago in February (gave up 4 goals in the first period). Wasn't really his fault, a penatly shot and two breakaways, but just wasn't the same after that outing. haha, they do not deserve that talent? Well, he was a 5th round pick (i think, cant remember off the top of my head) so every team had their chance.

7th round, 205th overall. The kind of pick you'd expect the Red Wings to come up with...they seem to do well in those later rounds...

[Chuck the Duck]

This playoff season is the definition of partity in the NHL. I'm not much of a statistics person, and I surely do not like the Rangers in any way, but you can't deny that (a) the Queen is all world and the best player on that team - by far, and (b) they play extremely well in the defensive zone - block a lot of shots, clear rebounds, and force shots from the outside by collapsing their players in front of the net. They're not lucky, it's the style they play. The don't create a lot offensively, but counter-punch the way the 1995 Devils used to. Basically, they rely on their PP and the other team's mistakes to create offense (especially when Gaborik and Richards aren't on the ice). They hustle their a$$e$ off and force turnovers that they turn into scoring chances.

Are they an all-time great NHL team as currently constituted - hell no. But they don't need to be to win the Stanley Cup. If they keep doing what has made them successful all season, then they have a legit shot to win the Cup this season because their goalie is one of the few nowadays that can carry them there.

Edited by Chuck the Duck, 08 May 2012 - 12:52 PM.

[Neb00rs]

I love how I hate the Rangers emotionally, but Triumph figures out a way to hate them factually.

[Jas0nMacIsaac]

Since you love stats so much, here are some more for you. You said the Rangers are not very good at even strength. You realize their 5-on-5 for and against ratio was 6th in the league at 1.14. For those of you who are mathematically deficient, that means they score 1.14 even strength goals for each even strength goal they surrender. The 5 teams that were better were Detroit, St Louis, Vancouver, Boston, Pittsburgh. Only 1 of those teams survived to the 2nd round and all are currently out.

The Rangers were as average as they come going into the playoffs 5 on 5. Their score adjusted fenwick was 50.1 since the deadline and 49.5 overall on the season. They happened to have a pretty friendly sh% and sv% 5 on 5 throughout the season.

In the playoffs they had a terrible first series where Ottawa should have won and they have totally dominated Washington. Their sh% has dried up but sv% is still off the charts.

Better than average PK%? They were 5th in the NHL. I guess that technically is better than average, but generally when one says that they mean it is in the more towards the middle of the pack. Only teams ahead of them are the Devils, Montreal, Pitt, and LA. Again, 1 of those teams didnt make the play-offs, 1 is in the 3rd round, 1 was eliminated in the 2nd and the other is likely going to the 3rd round. So, maybe PK% is a decent indicator, but not fully.

The Rangers had a pretty good PK in the regular season at -36.7 SA/60 but nowhere near NJ which was -29.9 SA/60. In the playoffs once again NJ is much better, Rangers are at -44.2 SA/60 while NJ is -37.2 SA/60.

Let's see what else you want to use? Goals per game? I know, because the Rangers don't score enough. Well they were 11th. More than every team that is still playing except Philly. 2 of the teams in the top 10 (TB and Tor) didnt even make the play-offs.

Offense is just a representation of shots for. Since NJ got Zajac back they have had a constant attack of shots for. The Rangers are midle of the pack in the playoffs.

Goals against a game? Well, you likely wouldnt bring this up as the Rangers are 3rd, so it hurts your argument. St Louis and LA were 1 and 2 resectively. So, 2 of the top 3 are still alive. Phoenix, by the way was 5th. So, assuming a Rangers victory in game 6 or 7, we will see 3 of the final 4 teams were top-5 in fewest Goals against.

NJ allowed fewer shots in the regular season and in the playoffs. Clearly you have the better goaltender but NJ certainly has the better team defense.

Point is, you can play with your numbers all you want and come up with all the ridiculous analysis you want. It reality, it doesn't mean squat.

Numbers are just a representation of what was collected.

I am however curious about the substantial shooting luck. How do you measure shooting luck? Is that like if you are playing a form of billiards and you miss your shot but the cue ball kicks the other way and you get some 4-ball combo that sinks one your balls?

Luck is posting rates far above the league norm in which case are unsustainable. NJ has been very lucky 5 on 5 in this postseason along with being very good.

[Jas0nMacIsaac]

I hate playing what if's but If NJ and NY were both lucky enough to advance, I believe NJ would have the territorial advantage in all situations while Rangers would have the far better goaltender and more physical team.

[Zubie#8]

I hate playing what if's but If NJ and NY were both lucky enough to advance, I believe NJ would have the territorial advantage in all situations while Rangers would have the far better goaltender and more physical team.

This.

[Matteau#32]

The Rangers were as average as they come going into the playoffs 5 on 5. Their score adjusted fenwick was 50.1 since the deadline and 49.5 overall on the season. They happened to have a pretty friendly sh% and sv% 5 on 5 throughout the season.

In the playoffs they had a terrible first series where Ottawa should have won and they have totally dominated Washington. Their sh% has dried up but sv% is still off the charts.


The Rangers had a pretty good PK in the regular season at -36.7 SA/60 but nowhere near NJ which was -29.9 SA/60. In the playoffs once again NJ is much better, Rangers are at -44.2 SA/60 while NJ is -37.2 SA/60.


Offense is just a representation of shots for. Since NJ got Zajac back they have had a constant attack of shots for. The Rangers are midle of the pack in the playoffs.




NJ allowed fewer shots in the regular season and in the playoffs. Clearly you have the better goaltender but NJ certainly has the better team defense.



Numbers are just a representation of what was collected.



Luck is posting rates far above the league norm in which case are unsustainable. NJ has been very lucky 5 on 5 in this postseason along with being very good.

again, all these numbers are ridiculous. You simply saying shots fired toward the net toward your own net is meaningless. Does it take it account the quality of the shot? does it take into account odd-man rushes? does it take into account player and team streakiness? does it take it to account how well a team can screen a goalie or clear forwards out for screens? Does it take into account rebound shots and other 2nd chance opportunties?

As for your luck, how can you not say posting numbers far above the league average is not just a matter of skill? Look at the Devils shootout numbers this year. Guys like Parise and Kovalchuk were very good. Is it luck that can't be sustained or is it their skill in the shootout. Or a guy like Brad Richards who was terrible this year. Is that a case of bad luck that will change or is his skill set make him a non-ideal player to be one of the first 3 shooters? Is he simply doing something in his approach that gives away what he is going to do? A "tell" or like how a pitcher sometimes tips their pitches or is it simply bad luck and in the next few seasons we should see his shootout numbers improve?

Edited by Matteau#32, 08 May 2012 - 01:17 PM.

[Risky]

It doesn't matter because you need huge statistical populations (that remove outliers such as odd-man rushes) to be able to study these kinds of correlations.

[Matteau#32]

exactly. HUGE statistical populations, that might be valid over a course of 3-4 seasons or more. Not going to be valid in a play-off series, a play-off season or even one complete season (regular season and play-offs). Taken over a period of 4 seasons, and you might see a correlation, where the teams with the better made-up stats have the better cumulative records. However, they do not give out any kind of award because a team was the best over 5 years. Look at the Mets. From 84-90 they had far and away the best cumulative record in baseball. BUT, only 1 WS title and another division title. Cardinals had 2 pennants in that time, giants had a pennant and another division title, cubs had 2 division titles, dodgers a ws title and division, a's 1 ws, 2 more pennants.

[Risky]

Triumph will be the first to tell you that much of the Stanley Cup outcomes are about luck. Statistics just help to give you an edge as to who is more likely to emerge victorious.

[halfsharkalligatorhalfman]

Man i really hope it's a Devils/Rangers ECF.

[NJDevs4978]

Man i really hope it's a Devils/Rangers ECF.

No thanks, I've come to like actually having a home ice advantage in playoff games again.

[Jerrydevil]

No thanks, I've come to like actually having a home ice advantage in playoff games again.

Beat the Rangers in Game 1, and we'll have it.

[DaneykoIsGod]

Is anyone else reading this exchange and picturing Matteau (as Kang and Kodos) bopping Tri (as all of Springfield) on the head while saying "Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"? Anyone? Just me? OK then ...

I wonder which stat is the board with a nail in it ....

[Colorado Rockies 1976]

Is anyone else reading this exchange and picturing Matteau (as Kang and Kodos) bopping Tri (as all of Springfield) on the head while saying "Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"? Anyone? Just me? OK then ...

I wonder which stat is the board with a nail in it ....

Chuckle...heh heh

I think, on some level, here's where trying to extrapolate regular-season numbers into the playoffs (and trying to predict playoff results) fails:

Never in the regular season does a team face the same team a minimum of four times in such a short period of time, let alone five, six or seven times. That's why using the season series results as a predictor doesn't always wash, as it's sometimes hard to gauge who's better through one game played in October, two more in December, one in February, one in March, and one in April. And I believe, with an 82-game schedule, there's definitely "fvck it" nights, where one team is tired or just not into it and doesn't show up...NHL players know they don't have to try to win all 82 games. There's a lot less "fvck it"-type nights come playoff time.

But today's NHL is so much different than the NHL of the 80s, even the 90s...the days of the god-awful, no-chance-to-win-most-nights teams are a thing of the past, as are the true powerhouse teams...it wasn't so long ago that some of the top teams were outscoring the opposition by 150 goals or so...the 2000-01 Devils outscored their opposition by 100 goals. Like some have pointed out, what we now have is a glut of pretty good but flawed teams that really aren't that much different from each other, in terms of pure talent, that could finish within a certain window of point totals depending on luck, health, etc. Some teams match up better than others, sometimes a coach finds the right game plan...the point of this being, moreso than ever, no matter what the sabermetric, gut feeling, traditional stat, etc, trying to make sense of what might happen in the NHL playoffs is really friggin' difficult these days. No one saw the Devils owning the Flyers the past three games, no one saw LA going 8-1 to knock out seeds #1 and #2, not too many saw Washington taking out Boston...it's a mad mad mad mad mad playoff world these days.

Edited by Colorado Rockies 1976, 08 May 2012 - 02:46 PM.

[Jas0nMacIsaac]

again, all these numbers are ridiculous. You simply saying shots fired toward the net toward your own net is meaningless. Does it take it account the quality of the shot? does it take into account odd-man rushes? does it take into account player and team streakiness? does it take it to account how well a team can screen a goalie or clear forwards out for screens? Does it take into account rebound shots and other 2nd chance opportunties?

As for your luck, how can you not say posting numbers far above the league average is not just a matter of skill? Look at the Devils shootout numbers this year. Guys like Parise and Kovalchuk were very good. Is it luck that can't be sustained or is it their skill in the shootout. Or a guy like Brad Richards who was terrible this year. Is that a case of bad luck that will change or is his skill set make him a non-ideal player to be one of the first 3 shooters? Is he simply doing something in his approach that gives away what he is going to do? A "tell" or like how a pitcher sometimes tips their pitches or is it simply bad luck and in the next few seasons we should see his shootout numbers improve?

There has been no evidence that teams have been able to limit shot quality %. This means, generally shot quality will be a tied ratio to shot totals. In the long run teams won't have an unordinary amount of screened shots. Well not enough to make a large difference.

Shooting% has been proven on numerous occasions not to be a skill. There is very little correlation from year to year. Unless you have done a study to prove otherwise, I will remain to believe it is not a skill.

Minnesota fans though for the longest time that Fenwick has hogwash and that they limited scoring chances...they were wrong. The same can be said for Edmonton and Toronto this season.

Edited by Jas0nMacIsaac, 08 May 2012 - 02:42 PM.

[halfsharkalligatorhalfman]

Shooting% has been proven on numerous occasions not to be a skill. There is very little correlation from year to year. Unless you have done a study to prove otherwise, I will remain to believe it is not a skill.

I've never bought this argument. Here is an interesting read on the subject
http://hockeyanalysi...is-sustainable/

Shooting is obviously a skill. I think shooting percentage is a "skill" too. It may be for many players shooting percentage can be effectively modeled as a random variable that bounces around league average from year to year, but that in no way means it's been proven to not be a skill.

[lazer]

I wonder which stat is the board with a nail in it ....

Team +/-
rangers 3
devils...wait for it...46

[Devils731]

I've never bought this argument. Here is an interesting read on the subject
http://hockeyanalysi...is-sustainable/

Shooting is obviously a skill. I think shooting percentage is a "skill" too. It may be for many players shooting percentage can be effectively modeled as a random variable that bounces around league average from year to year, but that in no way means it's been proven to not be a skill.

In some ways the skill is actually getting into a position where you can shoot with an expectation to score with the shot you possess. So the shooting percentage, for most of the league, stays pretty around average while the better shooters/scorers get into a position to shoot a shot worth shooting, and taking it, more often.

[Triumph]

I've never bought this argument. Here is an interesting read on the subject
http://hockeyanalysi...is-sustainable/

Shooting is obviously a skill. I think shooting percentage is a "skill" too. It may be for many players shooting percentage can be effectively modeled as a random variable that bounces around league average from year to year, but that in no way means it's been proven to not be a skill.

i didn't click the link - hockeyanalysis is generally poor - but yes, shooting is a skill, albeit an incredibly fickle one. defending shooting is not really a skill that defenses have been shown to have in any capacity.