The Official "2012 Playoffs Excitement" Thread

[Matteau#32]

you were the one who said 'their pp blows right? lol' that's a: snide and b: also true, even though you think it to be false. the rangers' power play was one of the worst in the league in the regular season and that has carried over to the playoffs.

you might not be a banned poster, but when random guys just throw shots at me, i generally think they have a previous history with me.

Rangers were 44 for 280 on the PP this season. 15.71%. 23rd out of 30. So towards the bottom of the league. League average was 17.31%, which would have made them 14th out of 30. To have that percentage, it would have been 48.4, we will call it 49 goals on 280 chances. An extra 5 goals over the course of 82 games is really not that big of a deal.

Just as a side the top 13 teams in the league in order were Nashville, San Jose, Edmonton, Vancouver, Pitt, Philly, Florida, Isles, Avs, Leafs, Ottawa, Winnipeg, and Calgary. Well, only 1 of them is still playing and that may end tonight. Furthermore, only 2 got past the first round. If you want to expand on that 14th-22nd are the Devils, Bruins, Sabres, Kings, Caps, Blues, Canes, Ducks, Wings. Only 3 of them are still playing.

So, of the top 15 teams in the league, only 1 will be playing past the 2nd round and a very good chance that all 4 teams in the conference finals will be below the league average. Devils at 14th were just a tad below at 17.23%. BTW, if the Devils power play was as bad as the Rangers, they would have only had 4 less PP goals than they scored. A huge difference maker over the course of 82 games. So, basically one less goal every 20.5 games.

If the PP was as crucial as you claim, shouldn't the final 4 be amongst the best in PP?

Edited May 8, 2012 by Matteau#32

[Colorado Rockies 1976]

fvckING RAGS GRRRRR! YOU fvckING KIDDING ME!?!?!

fvcking luck. fvcking unbelievable luck

I hate the Rangers as much as anyone...however:

Ward was guilty and did draw blood on the play. 4 minutes was the right call.

Caps had their chances to extend the lead and didn't.

Rangers dominated much of that game.

I hated to see the Rangers win that game too, but I can't say they were lucky.

At any rate, the Rangers were down 3-2 in their last series and pulled it out. Caps could very well do the same...they're not done yet.

[DaneykoIsGod]

Not to be a jynx or anything, but if the Devils (knock on wood) and the Capitals (crossing my fingers) advance, the Devils would be guaranteed home ice for the remainder of the playoffs.

[third man in]

Mike Smith shooting for the empty net last night and nearly making it...love that guy, what a post season he's having.

[NJDevs4978]

Not to be a jynx or anything, but if the Devils (knock on wood) and the Capitals (crossing my fingers) advance, the Devils would be guaranteed home ice for the remainder of the playoffs.

This point was already brought up earlier...but it looks a bit less likely now after last night.

If the PP was as crucial as you claim, shouldn't the final 4 be amongst the best in PP?

This playoffs have broken the mold in a 'lot' of different ways.

[DaneykoIsGod]

This point was already brought up earlier...but it looks a bit less likely now after last night.

Whoops, must've missed it.

[UnderDogX]

Mike Smith shooting for the empty net last night and nearly making it...love that guy, what a post season he's having.

Was I the only one watching thinking, "wow, if that missed shot/icing call would've resulted in Nashville scoring Smith would've looked like a dolt for trying that."??

[Triumph]

Rangers were 44 for 280 on the PP this season. 15.71%. 23rd out of 30. So towards the bottom of the league. League average was 17.31%, which would have made them 14th out of 30. To have that percentage, it would have been 48.4, we will call it 49 goals on 280 chances. An extra 5 goals over the course of 82 games is really not that big of a deal.

The problem is that it's not the League Average Cup. It's the Stanley Cup.

The Rangers were 27th in shots for per 60 on the power play. Power plays can over or under perform in a given season, but the Rangers' PP performed pretty much exactly where it belongs. They even got bailed out by having the 5th most 5 on 3 time in the league, and couldn't take advantage of that - their 5 on 3 shot rate was among the worst in the league.

Just as a side the top 13 teams in the league in order were Nashville, San Jose, Edmonton, Vancouver, Pitt, Philly, Florida, Isles, Avs, Leafs, Ottawa, Winnipeg, and Calgary. Well, only 1 of them is still playing and that may end tonight. Furthermore, only 2 got past the first round. If you want to expand on that 14th-22nd are the Devils, Bruins, Sabres, Kings, Caps, Blues, Canes, Ducks, Wings. Only 3 of them are still playing.

So, of the top 15 teams in the league, only 1 will be playing past the 2nd round and a very good chance that all 4 teams in the conference finals will be below the league average. Devils at 14th were just a tad below at 17.23%. BTW, if the Devils power play was as bad as the Rangers, they would have only had 4 less PP goals than they scored. A huge difference maker over the course of 82 games. So, basically one less goal every 20.5 games.

If the PP was as crucial as you claim, shouldn't the final 4 be amongst the best in PP?

Not necessarily. You're right that the power play does not have an enormous impact - if, and this is a big if, a team can make up for it in other ways. In addition to having a poor power play, the Rangers are not very good at even strength. That is a difficult hurdle to overcome; their power play will have to run hot or their goaltending will have to be stellar. I don't foresee many 38-18 shot games in their future. Lundqvist has to be perfect. He's passed the test so far.

[Matteau#32]

The problem is that it's not the League Average Cup. It's the Stanley Cup.

The Rangers were 27th in shots for per 60 on the power play. Power plays can over or under perform in a given season, but the Rangers' PP performed pretty much exactly where it belongs. They even got bailed out by having the 5th most 5 on 3 time in the league, and couldn't take advantage of that - their 5 on 3 shot rate was among the worst in the league.

Not necessarily. You're right that the power play does not have an enormous impact - if, and this is a big if, a team can make up for it in other ways. In addition to having a poor power play, the Rangers are not very good at even strength. That is a difficult hurdle to overcome; their power play will have to run hot or their goaltending will have to be stellar. I don't foresee many 38-18 shot games in their future. Lundqvist has to be perfect. He's passed the test so far.

So, they are not very good on the power play, are not good even strength, but were first in the East and 2nd overall in the league? Oh, must be because they score shorthanded at will. Got it.

Right, not the league average cup, it is the stanley cup, for the best team. So, I guess Nashville will win the cup since they have the best PP and they do have a great goaltender. Now, if the Preds could just get that silly rule changed where if they lose 4 out of 7 in a play-off series they will NOT lose their chance to win the Cup. Or, maybe they could somehow find out the Coyotes were using illegal skates this series, get them disqualified and take their place in the Western Conference Finals.

Their 5 on 3 was completely different. They would constantly overpass looking for the perfect shot or one-timer. Their 5 on 3 drove me crazy beyond belief. Realistically though (I have not looked this up, so do not know) how often do they get a 5-on-3 in the play-offs? Thinking it is not too often.

In 97-98 Rangers were 5th in the league on the PP. 98-99 they were 2nd. 99-00 they were 10th. 2000-01 they were 11th. Didn't make the play-offs in any of those years.

Edited May 8, 2012 by Matteau#32

[Matteau#32]

Was I the only one watching thinking, "wow, if that missed shot/icing call would've resulted in Nashville scoring Smith would've looked like a dolt for trying that."??

nope. usually something that a goalie does only when they are up 2. Reminds me of the Tavares World Junior Year. Semis against Russia (might have been the final). Russia up 1, Canada scrambling for the tying goal. Russian get the puck in front of his own net without about 10 seconds to go, turns and fires for the empty net. Misses, icing. Canada gets a face-off with about 6 seconds to go, scores off the face-off, wins in a shootout (might have been OT). If the Russian player simply chipped it out of the zone, they win and play for the Gold.

[pleasepassthesoup]

Is there a schedule for the Western Conference Finals yet?

[Matteau#32]

Is there a schedule for the Western Conference Finals yet?

likely not out until the east is set.

[devilsfan26]

Was I the only one watching thinking, "wow, if that missed shot/icing call would've resulted in Nashville scoring Smith would've looked like a dolt for trying that."??

Nah that was risky of him to do that with just a one goal lead.

[Triumph]

So, they are not very good on the power play, are not good even strength, but were first in the East and 2nd overall in the league? Oh, must be because they score shorthanded at will. Got it.

Yes. That is correct. The reason why they were a top team in the league and not a fringe playoff team is because of Henrik Lundqvist, who had one of the best goaltending seasons of all time.

Right, not the league average cup, it is the stanley cup, for the best team. So, I guess Nashville will win the cup since they have the best PP and they do have a great goaltender. Now, if the Preds could just get that silly rule changed where if they lose 4 out of 7 in a play-off series they will NOT lose their chance to win the Cup. Or, maybe they could somehow find out the Coyotes were using illegal skates this series, get them disqualified and take their place in the Western Conference Finals.

Nashville was not a top team 5 on 5 all year and they themselves ran into a hotter goaltender. Rinne was not particularly great this series. That's exactly my point.

In 97-98 Rangers were 5th in the league on the PP. 98-99 they were 2nd. 99-00 they were 10th. 2000-01 they were 11th. Didn't make the play-offs in any of those years.

I'm aware of that. Do we want to go over why that was the case in those years, or do we want to acknowledge that the power play is merely one facet of the game, and can be overcome by other things?

The Rangers prevent shots on goal well, but they don't get many shots of their own. They have a below-average power play. They have a better-than-average penalty kill. They are a team that could be +/- 6 points of NHL .500 if not for the amazing goaltending (and not insubstantial shooting luck) they managed to get this year. They're an average team with a great goalie, and it's hard to win the Cup with one of those. It's been done before - Montreal in 1993 probably wasn't much better than this Ranger team - but it's hard to do.

[Jerrydevil]

Usually teams that win championships excel in some aspect of special teams in the playoffs. The Bruins were certainly an exception last year with their OK penalty kill and their lousy power play.

Remember how good our PK was the last time we won it all?

[Risky]

Hey, the Rangers must have won a playoff game. Matteau is here.

[Matteau#32]

Yes. That is correct. The reason why they were a top team in the league and not a fringe playoff team is because of Henrik Lundqvist, who had one of the best goaltending seasons of all time.

Nashville was not a top team 5 on 5 all year and they themselves ran into a hotter goaltender. Rinne was not particularly great this series. That's exactly my point.

I'm aware of that. Do we want to go over why that was the case in those years, or do we want to acknowledge that the power play is merely one facet of the game, and can be overcome by other things?

The Rangers prevent shots on goal well, but they don't get many shots of their own. They have a below-average power play. They have a better-than-average penalty kill. They are a team that could be +/- 6 points of NHL .500 if not for the amazing goaltending (and not insubstantial shooting luck) they managed to get this year. They're an average team with a great goalie, and it's hard to win the Cup with one of those. It's been done before - Montreal in 1993 probably wasn't much better than this Ranger team - but it's hard to do.

shooting luck? Haha, ok. They averaged 28.5 shots per game. The league leader was Pitt with 33.9. Really not that much of a difference Of the teams that averaged more,only 2 are still playing. Philly and LA. Guess that stat means a lot too.

Yes, Lundqvist has had his best season, however a big part of the success is how well the skaters play in their own zone. Clearing rebounds and tying up opponents so they can't get to rebounds. Play with your stats all you want. 90% of the league could be +/- 6 points of NHL .500.

With all this number crunching you do, and if you really believed it was worthwhile, why not use this info to develop a professional gambling system to bet on hockey? If done correct, you could easily make your living doing so.

[Risky]

With all this number crunching you do, and if you really believed it was worthwhile, why not use this info to develop a professional gambling system to bet on hockey? If done correct, you could easily make your living doing so.

He has, and he has Triumphed.

[Matteau#32]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

[Risky]

I don't know these stats as well as Triumph and Jason, but the basic theory is not goals for or against or shots for or against, but a ratio (Fenwick #) of shots toward your goal (including those on and those blocked, missed, etc.) and shots toward your own goal. The better this ratio -- meaning the more shots your team fires at the goalie and doesn't allow to be fired at your goalie -- the more wins your team will realize over time, statistically. A substantial amount of luck goes into scoring many goals, so this is a way of showing how teams create their own luck by being superior hockey teams (controlling play, effective break outs, zone entry, team defense, etc.)

[Zubie#8]

It all starts and ends with Lundqvist. I never saw a team so hemmed up in their own zone like the first round against the Senators. Lundqvist was filthy in that series. Would you guys have won with Biron in net? Maybe, maybe not. Would we win with Hedberg in net in any of our series? Yes. We do not rely on our goaltender but the Rangers most certainly do and they have the best goalie in the world right now and that's why they are in the position that they are in, one game from the ECF. I hate to see your team with the best goalie because in my opinion they do not deserve that talent. Lundqvist should be getting 40 win series not 30. This year is the exception with his low game total.

Edited May 8, 2012 by Zubie#8

[Matteau#32]

It all starts and ends with Lundqvist. I never saw a team so hemmed up in their own zone like the first round against the Senators. Lundqvist was filthy in that series. Would you guys have won with Biron in net? Maybe, maybe not. Would we win with Hedberg in net in any of our series? Yes. We do not rely on our goaltender but the Rangers most certainly do and they have the best goalie in the world right now and that's why they are in the position that they are in, one game from the ECF. I hate to see your team with the best goalie because in my opinion they do not deserve that talent. Lundqvist should be getting 40 win series not 30. This year is the exception with his low game total.

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.

[Matteau#32]

I don't know these stats as well as Triumph and Jason, but the basic theory is not goals for or against or shots for or against, but a ratio (Fenwick #) of shots toward your goal (including those on and those blocked, missed, etc.) and shots toward your own goal. The better this ratio -- meaning the more shots your team fires at the goalie and doesn't allow to be fired at your goalie -- the more wins your team will realize over time, statistically. A substantial amount of luck goes into scoring many goals, so this is a way of showing how teams create their own luck by being superior hockey teams (controlling play, effective break outs, zone entry, team defense, etc.)

ok, so how would a play where the DMan tries to miss so a forward can be there to re-direct off the end boards and surprise the goalie? Is that 2 shots?

Problem with this kind of analysis is the season is not made up of a single 82-game marathon. It is 82 short races that create the standings so these long-term analysis isn't going to be valid in a short series, where it is first team to win 4.

The only kind of mumbo-jumbo stat non-sense I have ever seen that seems to have any validity is with the NFL. I believe it is when a team shows a win total of + or -4 from the previous year, they usually take a step back or forward the following year. So, if a team goes from 5 wins to 11 wins for example, they likely fall below 9 wins the following year. A big part of that, however is not so much the team, but as an 11-win team you have likely finished 1st or 2nd in your division and thus the following year play a tougher schedule.

[Triumph]

shooting luck? Haha, ok. They averaged 28.5 shots per game. The league leader was Pitt with 33.9. Really not that much of a difference Of the teams that averaged more,only 2 are still playing. Philly and LA. Guess that stat means a lot too.

It does. Just because this year, the playoffs have been even more luck-based than usual, doesn't invalidate how important it is.

Yes, Lundqvist has had his best season, however a big part of the success is how well the skaters play in their own zone. Clearing rebounds and tying up opponents so they can't get to rebounds. Play with your stats all you want. 90% of the league could be +/- 6 points of NHL .500.

That's true. The Rangers have been especially good at limiting odd-man chances.

With all this number crunching you do, and if you really believed it was worthwhile, why not use this info to develop a professional gambling system to bet on hockey? If done correct, you could easily make your living doing so.

I've known people who make a living betting on sports and it sounds horrendous. I enjoy watching and talking about hockey, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't enjoy either thing if I relied on it to make money.

[Matteau#32]

I don't know these stats as well as Triumph and Jason, but the basic theory is not goals for or against or shots for or against, but a ratio (Fenwick #) of shots toward your goal (including those on and those blocked, missed, etc.) and shots toward your own goal. The better this ratio -- meaning the more shots your team fires at the goalie and doesn't allow to be fired at your goalie -- the more wins your team will realize over time, statistically. A substantial amount of luck goes into scoring many goals, so this is a way of showing how teams create their own luck by being superior hockey teams (controlling play, effective break outs, zone entry, team defense, etc.)

ok, so how would a play where the DMan tries to miss so a forward can be there to re-direct off the end boards and surprise the goalie? Is that 2 shots? Or a play where a dman shoots, partially blocked and then a forward gets to it and shoots in the same sequence? Both are 1 play, so do they count as 1 shot or 2?

Problem with this kind of analysis is the season is not made up of a single 82-game marathon. It is 82 short races that create the standings so these long-term analysis isn't going to be valid in a short series, where it is first team to win 4.

The only kind of mumbo-jumbo stat non-sense I have ever seen that seems to have any validity is with the NFL. I believe it is when a team shows a win total of + or -4 from the previous year, they usually take a step back or forward the following year. So, if a team goes from 5 wins to 11 wins for example, they likely fall below 9 wins the following year. A big part of that, however is not so much the team, but as an 11-win team you have likely finished 1st or 2nd in your division and thus the following year play a tougher schedule.