Thoughts on the Rangers: Injuries, forwards, special teams

For the first time all month, it actually feels like November outside. It’s crazy when you think about it, that we had a 60 degree afternoon yesterday followed promptly by 30 degrees and ice on the cars overnight. But does that officially make it hockey weather? I think so. So on this cold Sunday, here are a few things rattling around in my brain.

• Everyone is talking about how the Rangers are dominating scoring chances at even strength and just steamrolling opponents. But don’t forget about special teams. The Rangers had a bottom-feeder penalty kill last year. This year, they are 7th in the league. Their powerplay? Fifth in the league. Special teams drive victories too, and this is a huge improvement.
• Special teams improvement is just on the conversion level either. The Rangers are doing a far better job at generating shots on the powerplay and limiting shots on the penalty kill. If the above bullet represents execution on special teams, then this bullet represents process. With better process comes better execution. This is a huge part of the overall improvement we’ve seen on the ice.

• A lot of discussion has been had regarding the Rangers and their CF%. It’s sub-50% at even strength, which is not ideal. They still dominate in scoring chances, but you want to see them generate sustained pressure and prevent sustained pressure against more consistently. The prevailing argument is that the Rangers have spent so much time up by multiple goals that it is affecting their overall numbers. The logic is there, but it requires a little more digging. Luckily, @hockeystatminer does that digging for us regularly:

• Without getting into too much detail (if you want detail, let me know and I’ll write something separately), I’ve been leaning more towards Expected-Goals for % and per hour (xG% and xG/60) as better tellers of overall success. CF% is still valuable, but xG accounts for quality of shot as well. Quality shouldn’t be ignored, but neither should quantity. Both are useful, but I lean towards xG. You can see how the Rangers rank in each situation from that quick breakdown. The overall CF% may be bad, but the underlying numbers are solid.
• The Rangers are a real litmus test for a lot of stat theories this year. There’s no denying that overall CF% does drive future success, and it makes sense. If you are taking shots, you have the puck. If you have the puck, the opposition can’t score. But with the Rangers having a less than stellar CF% but pretty solid underlying xG numbers, it adds a layer to the prediction models. That’s what I love about what these “stats people” do, they are always pushing the envelope and getting to more reliable numbers.
• Personally, I think the Rangers are going to have a bit of a regress in scoring pretty soon, but it won’t have a huge impact on their overall play. Last year, they weren’t playing well and “lucking” into wins. This year they are steamrolling opponents and dominating play. They won’t score four goals per game, but their average could be slightly below that mark. As long as they continue to dominate play, a lower SH% won’t change their overall play on the ice.
• What will change their success rate will be injuries. It’s been alarming the number of games we’ve seen lost to back spasms. I deal with them regularly, and they are pretty terrible. Chris Kreider and Pavel Buchnevich have missed a significant chunk of time already. If Ryan McDonagh or Brady Skjei go down on the blue line, then there will be serious issues.
• Speaking of the defense, there is a gaping hole at 1RD. Dan Girardi is improved this year, but shouldn’t be in that role anymore. Kevin Klein has been sneaky-bad thus far. Nick Holden wasn’t working there. Maybe Marc Staal can give it a go? If Skjei works on the right side, maybe he can play there? There are obvious pros/cons to this approach, but the need for a true 1RD is clear.
• Henrik Lundqvist is usually a slow starter. I wouldn’t worry too much about him right now.