Fuel the tank: Statistically, the Rangers are horrible

Stop me if you’ve heard this before. The Rangers are not good when you look at their metrics.

Even if you tried to stop me, I’m going to continue. Piggybacking off the Larry Brooks note, that the current 15-13-5 record for the Rangers is both inflated by shootout wins (5) and lack of road games (4-9-2), the Rangers have been largely buoyed by Henrik Lundqvist’s heroics. In a league where the average SV% so far this season is .908, Hank’s .914 is well above average.

But all this we know. The Rangers have been relying on Hank to cover up the Swiss cheese defense for quite some time now. What is beginning to change is the Rangers are going from bad possession metrics to horrible. That 9-1-1 stretch had some solid hockey in it, but it’s been a steep downhill fall since.

Our own Rob Luker sent this to me in response to my tweet that the Rangers have been largely unable to generate shots on goal (going very far to the left of a graph – hence the joke). Over the past 30 days, the Rangers by far the worst team in the league.  They are 30th in raw CF% and 31st in xGF%. For the tankers in the group, this is where you want this team to be.

It’s not just the past month either. Sure that 9-1-1 stretch was fun, but the Rangers have had atrocious shot share numbers for a while now.

The Rangers are the worst in the non-Ottawa division in cumulative shot share. The Blueshirts are spending the majority of games without the puck. This again isn’t a surprise, as it’s something we’ve seen over the past two years anyway.

What is keeping them afloat? Well shootout wins for one. Their play at MSG is another. But it’s all summed up by PDO.

The Rangers are getting top-ten goaltending from Lundqvist. Alex Georgiev has looked better since his recall as well. Again, stop me if you’ve heard that before. Or don’t.

As Brooks pointed out (read his article, it’s a good one), the Rangers are likely in for a lot more losses in the coming months. This, coupled with some teams likely turning things around, means we should be seeing the Rangers fall in the standings. It isn’t out of the realm of possibility that the Rangers fall from 10th in the conference to last. There’s only six points separating them from that dubious distinction.

This isn’t doom and gloom. If anything, it’s cause for hope.

Maybe I’m mad, but there is always a silver lining. Lottery picks aside, bottoming out exposes holes that need to be fixed. For the Rangers, those holes are all on the blue line. It’s a fixable problem. There are some prospects in the system that can help. There are some kids on the roster that can help. It’s identified! It’s something that can be addressed! The forwards should be fine!

That is, assuming Jeff Gorton, Glen Sather, and David Quinn don’t take half measures.

"Fuel the tank: Statistically, the Rangers are horrible", 3 out of 5 based on 5 ratings.
Show More


  1. I see 4-8 over the next 12. And that is just about the time we trade away the core. 2019/20 won’t get too much better either. It’s a shame.

  2. In light of all this, yes, let’s keep every single Ranger, re-sign them all, because it’s going so well now.

    Just think of what this is going to look like when the real schedule kicks in. Up until now, this has been the easy part of the schedule, both in quality of opponent and home/road splits.

    Tanto, my good friend, this is not negativity, this is reality. Which is why the revamping of the team MUST continue with the trading of Hayes, Zuc, Names, and maybe even Kreider (wonder why he hasn’t been named the C yet?), if the price is right for Kreider, with a year left on his contract, after this year.

    1. Trade Kreider? I have no problem with that. You have to love his talent, there are times when he looks like the 3 Hanson brothers rolled into one when he’s storming up the ice into the offensive zone, then there’s times when you wonder if he left the ice for the press box. His value is at its highest point RIGHT NOW, probably because of Quinn.

      There’s been some silly suggestions that Colorado would trade Ottawa’s pick for Hayes, throw in Kreider and you MIGHT get them thinking. Point is: he has value, I say move him while the moving is good because we will be having the same discussion about 6-7 mil dollar salaries and movement clauses for this guy too.

      1. Kreider has been a 40 something point player and 20-21 goal scorer since 2014. There’s nothing dominant about his game in terms of game changing. I like to see them use him in a Tarasenko trade, add more of course but see if they have interest in him.

        He sets these cat and mouse screens because his hand eye isn’t good enough to deflect picks in. I’ll understand why Torts didn’t like him enough when he was the NYR coach and the head coach of team USA

        1. Actually he scored 28 goals in 2016/17 and 53 points in 75 games — that to me sounds a lot like a 30 goal scorer and a 55-60 point guy. The following year in 2017/18 physical issues held him back. This year he’s scored 15 goals in just 33 games (just about equaling his goal total for the prior year in 58 games). What does all that suggest to me? That Kreider is now a circa 30 goal scorer and a 50-60 point guy. Basically he’s developed into James Van Riemsdyk.

          1. Lol I was hoping someone would go there with Kreider’s 1 decent season.

            Dude JVR is in a different category than Kreider ( a better one ). He has…
            2014- 61 points with 30 goals
            2015- 56 points with 27 goals

            2015- 46 points with 21 goals
            2016- 43 points with 21 goals

            JVR joined the league at a younger age? Either way he started to produce at a way better pace than Kreider. Now consider that he putting up those points on some terrible Toronto team’s. Meanwhile Kreider was basically a 40 point player and 20 goal scorer during the Rangers prime time days.

            Kreider has the same point totals as Hayes did when he was a 3c. Give or take a few goals of course which are inflated by deployments. Under the conditions of Hayes breaking out as a 3c and playing in a shutdown 3c role. He still either matched or beat Kreider in 2015 and 2018

            After that JVR still had another 60+ and 50+ season’s. I’m not a fan of his game but there’s no way that you could tell a hockey fan that Kreider matched up well with JVR’s career. Only in NYR land would that be acceptable to say but all in all 360 in terms of production between the two.

          2. I’m talking about the Kreider of TODAY, this isn’t about comparing them years ago (also recall that Kreider is 2 years younger than JVR). Bottom line, the Kreider of TODAY is similar to the JVR of the last couple of years — and you made a factually incorrect statement when you tried to slip by everyone here that Kreider was merely a 20-21 goal scorer, it had to be corrected.

        2. What??? SINCE WHEN doesn’t Chris Kreider have “GOOD ENOUGH HAND EYE COORDINATION” to deflect pucks in??? Where’s the EVIDENCE for that bogus comment? He just deflected in a goal the other night vs. the Maple Leafs for the Rangers 3rd goal in the 3rd period which was about waist-high, and he has done so MANY TIMES BEFORE. How can you even a ridiculous comment which has no merit at all based on Chris Kreider’s history of standing in front of the goalie and creating a screen and allowing shots to get through, OR DEFLECTING the puck on the way to the goal and scoring himself.

      2. I’m not advocating either way to trade Kreider, but I would think that CK’s agent would point to Evander Kane’s ridiculous 7yr, $49M contract as a starting point. I would too.

        But I don’t think that the Rangers will, not for that price. To me CK should be the C now. This may be a reason why he’s not. Trade possibility.

      3. Cat – I have been an advocate of going after the Sens #1 from the Avs since before the season and I have posted on that topic numerous times

        And I still am.

        However, I have used words like blockbuster and “package” as that is what it is going to take that pick. Any notion that Hayes straight up would get the pick is, as you say, silly.

        In the “To trade Hayes or not” discussion from yesterday I noted that Hayes plus something could be a potential start. That something might be Zucc, it might be the Bolts #1, perhaps one of the high end young d-men in Hartford – it might be some combination thereof.

        There may be a perfect storm brewing as the Avs are playing well. They are 3rd in what is now becoming a tough division behind Winnipeg and Nashville. If they feel they have a shot this year they just may be in a position to look at a blockbuster.

        If Hayes plus the right other pieces can get the pick then I am all for it.

    2. Again though, I see NO reason why we should move Kreider and Hayes. Zucc and Namestnikov, sure I can see that — I can see Staal, McQuaid, Smith … even Shattenkirk and Skjei, if Skjei is the major component on a deal that brings me a top flight prospect.

      Of course if some team is willing to overpay on Hayes and Kreider, offer us at a minimum a 1st and a can’t miss potential elite prospect, then the equation changes. Point is, trade away the “issues” or those who definitely don’t fit into future plans (i.e. 2 years from now) FIRST, then patiently wait for the next round. Somebody is going to have to blow me away to pry Kreider and/or Hayes at this stage of the game —- but that’s just me.

      I believe you can only “sell” so much at one time. If you flood the market with too many assets (remember, there will be other sellers too) you run the risk of diminishing returns. PATIENCE grasshopper. 😉

      1. If Hayes is traded and does not fetch a #1 and at least a near top prospect then that’s the Rangers’ fault.

        Zuc should fetch at least a #1 as well.

        These 2 are perfect rentals for contenders. Vets that can play all facets of the game that would fit right in to almost any team. Their trade value is very high.

        1. If Hayes can’t fetch me a 1 and a TOP prospect then I would rather sign him and revisit trading him a year or two down the line. No question marks, the prospect needs to be top flight — the guy every other team wants in a trade.

          1. Yo Ritch, that’s a pointless question to ask. That obviously comes with this prove it contract, if you don’t want to believe it then fine. It won’t help if 30 people reply to this and express how they shouldn’t give him that kind of clause. All we can do as fans is speculate what happens next. It kind of reminds me of when the dad’s would put their take on who will be name captain. The locker room decides on that. Just like how the FO will decide on his term and clause.

          2. Any sensible agent repping a guy like Hayes would ask for one. 9 times out of 10 they get a modified version of a NMC/NTC and that’s what Hayes will get … something in the order of a 10 team no trade list. As long as it’s not a straight jacket it’s still worth signing him.

          3. Here’s how I keep Hayes, if at all:

            If the Rangers can either trade for Tarasenko or sign Panarin or sign Stone, and the Rangers sign Hayes to a 6×6 modified contract, so he could possibly be traded down the road, then I think that Hayes could get to another level.

            So, obviously no one is going to know now if either Panarin or Stone signs here in the offseason and the probability of trading for Tarasenko is slim to none. And extending Hayes in January not to get any of those 3 would be a waste IMO, the “safe” route is to trade Hayes.

        2. Yeah, shop Zuccarello to the BEST TEAM in the NHL RIGHT NOW and is a SERIOUS CONTENDER for the SC THIS SEASON — “RANGERS SOUTH” in Tampa. He can join RIGHT IN on the party down there with the other 5 ex-Rangers there already — McDonagh, Miller, Girardi, Stralman and Callahan — and he will FIT RIGHT IN there with the rest of them and he has a connection with all of them, so he’d probably WELCOME a trade to a TOP CONTENDER for the SC THIS SEASON with the rest of his buddies there.

          And hopefully the Rangers can trade him for one of their younger players who are ALREADY playing in Tampa at age 21 like Anthony Cirelli, D-man Erik Cernak, Mathieu Joseph, Adam Erne or Slater Koekkoek (who is 24 now). And if Zuccarello is NOT ENOUGH ALONE to bring back one of those young players from Tampa, then sweeten the pot and maybe add in Vlad Namestnikov and ship him back to them and I’m sure BOTH TEAMS WOULD BE VERY HAPPY TO MOVE HIM BACK TO TAMPA!! And he’ll possibly get a chance to win a SC with the team that he was probably hoping they would win it last year and was probably SO UPSET that he was traded away last Feb. and couldn’t play together with Kucherov and Stamkos anymore.

          And if they really want to get back Namestnikov and Zuccarello from the Rangers, then maybe they’ll give up Mikhail Sergachev who is only 20 now and doesn’t turn 21 till around the time of the NHL Draft in June. NOW THAT WOULD BE AN EXCELLENT DEAL if you ask me.

      2. I’m not saying move him for the fun of it. I would trade him for a certain someone though. Tarasenko would make this team better in every type of way. They would finally have that sniper/goal scorer and the PP would have multiple threats with Hayes, Zib and him patrolling the quadrants.

        1. I’m hearing a lot of “Hayes being extended” buzz right not. Congrats if it’s true.

          All I have to say is if they end up keeping everyone then I will have no faith in this team whatsoever.

          Too negative?

      3. TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU TANTO —- regarding selling Hayes and Kreider. Rangers are NOT going to make the playofffs this season, but why trade 2 of their BEST YOUNG VETERAN Forwards right now because we need to have SOME ESTABLISHED PLAYERS to justify the MOST EXPENSIVE TICKET PRICES IN THE NHL now!! Who wants to pay over $200 or more (or a minimum of about $70) to see a VERY MEDIOCRE TEAM on Broadway in NY and devoid of Kevin Hayes AND Chris Kreider, I’d be SURPRISED to see the Rangers even win 35 games next year —- unless they can get back an NHL player that has already DONE SOMETHING GOOD in the NHL like when they traded Brassard for Mika a few years ago.

        But personally I think the Rangers should focus on trying to deal Zuccarello because of his age as he’s currently 4-5 years OLDER than both Hayes and Kreider right now and I think his days of 50+ points are past him now. While I think BOTH Kreider and Hayes are JUST ENTERING THE “PRIME OF THEIR CAREERS” and can still see both of them possibly being 50-60+ point players for maybe 2-3 years or more, while Zuccarello turns 32 on Sept. 1st 2019 and unfortunately I don’t see him exceeding 50+ points again the rest of his career.

        And with Marc Staal turning 32 next month and still 2 years left on his $5.7M AAV of his current contract, and him looking better than I’ve seen him look in about 5 years now, I think instead of adding another $3M to their DEAD CAPSPACE (in addition to the $3.6M that Dan Girardi is costing them now and next year in Dead Capspace) and the $3.7M in Dead Capspace that Staal will cost them in 2020-21 and the additional 2 years of $1.2M in Dead capspace AFTER his contract actually has expired, the Rangers will only end up saving $2.4M over the 4 years of the Buy-out of the remaining 2 years of Staal’s current contract — which doesn’t really seem to be a SUBSTANTIAL SAVINGS enough to warrant buying out Staal in June 2019, especially since Quinn seems to LOVE him and he is the ONLY Rangers D-man to NOT have been a Healthy Scratch ALL SEASON so far.

        But based on what we’ve currently seen from Kevin Shattenkirk over the last 1.5 seasons on a $6.65M AAV 4 year deal and an $8M Salary this season and last season and $6.6M salary next season, and with missing 1/2 a season last year with a knee injury and this season now with a Shoulder injury, I think the Rangers should EXPLORE ANY OPTION THEY CAN TO TRY TO TRADE SHATTENKIRK OUT OF HERE ASAP —- but I know he has a M-NTC & NMC in his current contract so that makes it much harder to do I understand. But are the Rangers GETTING GOOD VALUE for Kevin Shattenkirk at that Salary and $6.6M AAV RIGHT NOW???? NO, NOT AT ALL. I would much rather see the young D-men like Neal Pionk and Tony D at < $1M a year at 23-24 years old now while Shattennkirk turns 30 in 1 month and he's NOT GETTING ANY BETTER at 30 years old now while there is still LOTS OF UPSIDE POTENTIAL and development for both Pionk and DeAngelo and even Skjei and Claesson as they are all 25 or under now, while Shattenkirk is on the way down —- and dramatically I predict.

        And then bring up Ryan Lindgren or Libor Hajek to play some minutes with the Rangers and it's unfortunate but Kevin Shattenkirk was HOPING to win a SC here on his boyhood Favorite home team but unfortunately with the dismantling of the CORE Veterans last season such as McDonagh & Nash, and moving Grabner, Holden and JT Miller also, the reality is that the Rangers will NOT be a SC contender for POSSIBLY 2-3+ years or longer. So the Rangers NEED TO DIVEST THEMSELVES of Kevin Shattenkirk's EXORBITANT CONTRACT that they TREMENDOUSLY OVERPAID for him — based on his injuries and lack of production now while turning 30 in 1 month.

    3. Yes and no. At this point, I don’t trade Chityl, Miller, maybe Kravtsov. These guys are at least lottery tickets for elite talent and the Rangers need elite talent. Otherwise, I’d trade anyone with two caveats. I want to trade players that are valued elsewhere more than here (so I can get a lot in return) and I need to have a plan. A key point to all of this is that Gorton et al need to evaluate their own talent and they need to do it better than others if they are going to succeed.

      The Rangers don’t have the same model as we do here. We look at Chityl, Andersson, Buchnevich, Kravtsov, Gettinger, Ronning, Lettieri, Pionk, Hajek, Rykov, and on and on with rose-colored glasses — while we look at Hayes, Kreider, Zuccarello warts and all. Some of the kids will emerge, but there is a big discount along the way. More often than not, I think the guys people here want to trade are the undervalued players.

      It should be pointed out that the Rangers have had only one elite player for the last few years and that guy is playing on a team with the best record in the league.

      1. Maybe Kravtsov? He needs to be untouchable. Trade him and it could go down as one of the worse trades ever made — right up there with getting rid of Middleton, etc. That is not a risk this team can afford to take … trading for a draft choice and making the pick, that’s an acceptable risk … but trading away a potential elite player isn’t IMO.

      2. I assume you are referring to Ryan McDonagh when you said that the Rangers have only had 1 Elite player the last few years who is now playing in Tampa — who currently owns the BEST RECORD in the NHL.

        And I think the Rangers should also SERIOUSLY CONSIDER trading Zuccarello there also and try to pry away one of their 21 year old players like Cirelli, Cernak, Erne or Joseph. Or maybe even a chance to get back Mikhail Sergachev —- if they sweeten the pot a little bit more like adding in Vlad Namestnikov and bringing him back there to play together with Stamkos and Kucherov again. Or even a lower round Draft pick like a 3rd or 4th rounder or even Ryan Lindgren or give them back Libor Hajek for maybe 2 of their young players currently playing on Tampa right now.

  3. Dave

    “Maybe I’m mad, but there is always a silver lining. Lottery picks aside, bottoming out exposes holes that need to be fixed. For the Rangers, those holes are all on the blue line. It’s a fixable problem.”

    As usual, we try half ass measures to fix holes, with instant gratification in mind. Case in point, Shatty. Everyone with any knowledge of defense knows the man can’t play a lick of it. He can score, run a PP, but defend, forgetaboutit!!!!! Then we have the turnstile in Staal, who hasn’t be a force since his eye injury, and the concussion he got from Eric. Knowing that, why haven’t we addressed this problem some three years ago? Well maybe this will be corrected soon, at least we can hope so. Getting guys like Mc Quade is a joke, and not giving ADA a fair shot at the beginning of the season speaks volumes as to what they are thinking.

    As for the team play, I didn’t expect them to be any good at all this season, and in spite of their record, they aren’t. Hank has stood on his head as usual, but what more can he do, he needs help! As the season progresses, teams start playing for real, with much more urgency, and we will see a much poorer team that will be exposed. I expected that, but if they play with some heart, I can take a loosing season, knowing there will be light at the end of the tunnel.

    As I see it, we will have another dump at the trade deadline, and get back as many picks as possible, along with prospects. That is a plan I can support, and build for the long term. We won’t win for another year, or so, but long term we will be a force, and that is all we can ask for after all!!!!!!!!!!!

    1. We all, well, mostly all (lol), love the King, but as long as he’s here starting 60+ games for the NY Rangers, we will not be in the bottom 5, no matter how bad the rest of the team is.

      1. Last year, the best goalie who played in 45+ games was Antti Raanta. He started 46 games and had a save percentage of .930. Arizona had the third worst record in the league. You can be bottom five with even the best performing goalie in hockey (which Raanta happened to be last year).

        Yes, maybe had Raanta played 61 games like Hank, Arizona might have creeped up a few spots, but 46 games of .930 is better than 61 games of .924 and the only full season that Hank was that high, he won a Vezina. If the Rangers were really bad, they could finish bottom 5 even with the old Hank.

        1. Antti Raanta isn’t an NHL starter. Give it up already. He can’t stay healthy enough to be considered a legitimate starting goalie. You trot out this disingenuous crap about Raanta every chance you get. Until he starts 60 games in one season in the NHL, he cannot be described as a starting NHL goalie.

    2. But Shatty= ADA in the DZ. What’s the point of blasting one player for the same deficiency?

      1. You really can’t be serious with that post???????? ADA is better than Shatty any day, and twice on Sunday when it comes to defense!!!!!!!!

  4. With so much youth injected into Ranger lineup it really an unknown how they will perform for the rest of the season. It’s the inability to predict that makes watching them so interesting.

  5. well need some solid D men, all picks and trades should be focused on that. I hope The FO is capable of doing that.
    i love hank but l time to lighten his load seems the best way for this team to move forward.

  6. Oh my gosh! It seems you analytics guys just can’t get off the sauce for even a minute. Oh, their underlying metrics are bad… well, of course they are! They’re supposed to be! Who cares? Nothing insightful here. Remember, it is a rebuild after all. Guess what… I bet the “underlying metrics” will be bad in March too. The important metrics will be how next season compares to this baseline.

    You guys can’t even enjoy the nice win streak they had this year. It’s sad. None of this is unexpected. But we have a good coach, there’s lots of young guys getting in the lineup, they’re working hard at re-defining the culture here, and the WJC is full of very promising NYR prospects. Get a grip, enjoy the holidays, get away from the analytics for a few mins, and just enjoy the start of a new foundation developing here.

    Happy holidays…. LGR!

  7. Clearly the Rangers have never been a darling of the analytics crowd … and yet year after year they defied the “underlying” numbers. At what point do analytics figure out that their paradigm isn’t all that it’s cracked up to be? At what point do analytics figure out that maybe they’re missing something? Analytics are useful, but they still don’t tell the whole story.

    1. and yet year after year they defied the “underlying” numbers.

      His name, is King Henrik Lundqvist. That’s the point and it’s always been the point since he’s been here.

      1. I love Hank but let’s not place it all on his shoulders. I mean shall we play that game with every team? Pittsburgh, it’s all Crosby … Washington, it’s all Ovi … etc. It’s a TEAM game, in the final analysis it’s the quality of the team’s depth that makes for winning.

        1. Your own statement was that the Rangers’ success defies the underlying stats. And I gave you the answer to that.

          The Pens, Caps, etc. don’t have those faulty underlying stats because they have much better players and team.

          1. … and I’m saying he isn’t the only reason. Now I’m not suggesting this is you in particular, but some fervent Hank supporters seem to act like every other goalie in the League is somehow chopped liver while Hank is the finest pate’.

          2. They’re not chop liver, but they have:

            Pens: Malkin, Crosby, Kessel, etc
            Caps: Ovi Backstrom, Kuz, etc.
            Jets: Laine, Scheifele, etc.

            Just to name a few teams. Our best forwards would be on those teams 2/3rd lines.

            The best Ranger teams were 2013/14 and 2014/15 during the King’s career. And nether of those teams had forwards even close to the teams above either.

          3. So you named 3 teams that tanked for a few years, you could probably find a few more like TO, Chicago and Edmonton. I remain UNIMPRESSED, we shouldn’t be comparing the Rangers who have not tanked to teams that do, that’s apples and oranges … and our best forwards would probably get sprinkled around on their 1st and 2nd lines regardless (not all 6 at once of course). If you think these teams wouldn’t have room on one of their top lines for guys like Kreider, Zucc (perhaps more so in the past). Hayes, etc. than you’re not paying attention. You need to watch other teams play more so you come to understand that every team in the League has flaws and warts.

            Another note, the JETS have won nothing yet … the Caps took a decade to build a team good enough to surround Ovi and win a SC, until then they couldn’t even get out of the 2nd round, usually the 1st round … the Pens, well they’re the definition of tanking so many years in a row that they couldn’t possibly screw things up. Once you get past the tanking years, how many elite players have they been able to draft?

      2. That’s YOUR point. Since AV became coach nearly 5-1/2 years ago, Hank’s W-L record is 165-145 while all other Ranger goallies have a W-L record of 76-56. The Rangers have been at their best defying the numbers when Lundqvist has been on the bench.

        If my numbers are correct, during the span 2005-2013, Hank was 276-227 while the other goalies were 54-64. THAT is what a Hall of Fame goaltender looks like.

        1. lol Raymond, way to only tell half the story. And how many shots has the King faced as opposed to his back ups, on a game by game basis? I think that you’ll find that Henrik faced a lot more high danger shots than his back ups did.

          Hank is 5th or 6th in the league this year in facing high danger shots. It’s been a recurring theme.

          1. Way to change the subject. Original Question: Why have the Rangers succeeded with bad metrics? Your answer: Hank. My observation: The bad metric Rangers actually do better when Hank does not play than when Hank does play (so it can’t be Hank).

            I don’t give a crap if Hank is better than his backups or not. What matters is results. OK, so you have numbers that “prove” that Hank is the unluckiest goalie in the world. If so, that is not a plus. Niemi won the Stanley Cup, but there is no way that an unlucky goalie will ever do it – that’s what bad luck means.

            Henrik Lundqvist has not been as good as you think he has been. You cite the ridiculous notion that Hank has saved a goal a game over his career. That simply can’t be true. Hank has a career GAA of 2.38. What you are literally saying is that an average goalie with the same teams that Hank has had in front of him would give up 3.38 goals per game. That was a GAA posted by Nittymaki back in 2006-2007. Among goalies who played 50+ games in a season over Hank’s career, that earned Nittymaki 268th place out of 269. Only 23 of the 269 were over 3.00.

            Theoretically one may be able to discern high difficulty shots, but so far no one has figured out to do it. When a suspect method leads to absurd facts, the method is invalid. Hank and his backups play behind the same team. And we have a lot of data.

          2. Raymond, every media person that bases their opinions on metrics, has said that Lundqvist has masked how bad his team has been during his career. Travis Yost has numerous articles on how the Rangers have wasted his career.

            If you look at the numbers from during Henrik’s career, he is the #1 goalie in playoff competition in goalie metrics and it’s not even close, from him to the 2nd goalie. I wish I knew how to post these graphs or even find them, but it does exist. I’ve seen others post it many times in the past.

            And yet, you and others, constantly diminish his success because of simplistic conclusions, without factoring in all the circumstances.

          3. First of all, I don’t focus on the playoffs. There is much less data and represents even less information than the data size indicates. We get so much data from the regular season that I use that. Sample size error is a big problem.

            You measure how good a player is by asking how a typical player would fare in his shoes. In hockey, this is very hard as it seems every player deals with unique circumstances, different linemates, different opponents, etc. All these sophisticated metrics try to get around this stuff but it is hard. What makes a shot tough? Lots of things, location, who takes it, how much time he has, is he being harassed, does he have a clear shot, can the goalie see him, what is the reaction time, … Well, people have tried, but the results are simply not credible so I ignore them. So please don’t mention Travis Yost again. I’ve read some of his crap. His conclusions are demonstrably moronic.

            We actually have some concrete information about what another guy would do in a goalie’s shoes because other goalies actually do step into his shoes. And with the Rangers post 2013, those goalies have done just fine. Those goalies acted like they had a pretty good defense in front of them. In 2013-2014, Cam Talbot, who is far far from a HOF goaltender, posted the second best save percentage in NHL history for tenders who played 20+ games in a season. That is a testament to the fact that the Rangers had a truly GREAT defense that year (and not, as you twist my words, that Talbot was great). Yet somehow these metrics give Lundqvist bonus points because the defense was inadequate.

            After so much of this data is accumulated, how can you put stock in iffy metrics.

            From 2005-2013, Henrik Lundqvist had what was probably one of the top five 8 year runs in the history of hockey. And he can still play individual games at that level, maybe even a few weeks. And he is still a solid goalie. But he is no longer great.

          4. DEFINITELY NOT 1 GOAL SAVED PER GAME — probably closer to about .25 – .50 — over his entire career would be more accurate. But that’s only HYPOTHETICAL so it’s very hard to say. But Hank has had a GREAT Career there is no denying that — but without winning a Stanley Cup Final and who’s to say that it was because HANK WASN’T “GOOD ENOUGH” to do so — mostly on his own because they never really had the offensive FIREPOWER needed to win a SC as other teams like the Penguins have had for years with Crosby, Malkin and Kessel — and good supporting players around those 3 Star players. And of course Ovechkin for the Capitals and Kuznetsov also.

            Rangers haven’t had a player like Ovechkin, Crosby or Malkin since Messier, Gartner and Leetch in the early 1990’s or Jaromir Jagr in the 2005-2008 seasons when he played here — especially the first 2 seasons in NY he was DEFINITELY ELITE then with 123 points in 2005-06 and 96 points in 2006-07.

  8. Sad note. The Rangers are dead last in ROW with 10 — the success really is shootout wins.

  9. Richter…pointing to Holtby…yup…he has a ring on his finger…yup Lundqvist none. Yup it’s a team game and yup you don’t need an elite goalie to win it. pointing to Price who also doesn’t have a ring.
    Really this Lundqvist kool aid is pure bias. When it comes to every skater there is “trade him” or “he is not good”.

    I think we realize as a collective things must be done and done differently. Many are forgetting patience and the ups and downs that comes with a rebuilding process. These kids are young and inexperienced. Put an inexperienced poker player in front of me and I’ll have all their money in hands that they do not have the nuts. Calm down and let them learn. If you are one who thinks Pionk sucks this definitely pertains to you. Pionk is learning and getting better. Yes he is raw. Time will either fix that or he’ll be the next car salesman on the lot, now is not the time to make that assessment

    1. Bro, honestly, comparing Holtby to the King is ridiculous.

      The Caps’ 4th best forward is better than any forward on the Rangers. Matt Murray has a ring too. I’m not confusing him with a HOF goalie.

      Perspective please.

        1. Murray will likely be out of the league in three more years at most. Just sayin. Will he still be great as a 27-year old AHLer?

          Are you stupid enough to call Trent Dilfer better than Dan Marino? Are you stupid enough to say Kevin Millar was better than Don Mattingly? Actually I’m asking the wrong person, you’re definitely dumb enough to do that.

          1. I gotta ask. Why is it you get all Butthurt and start berating people over a post? And again I much rather have 2 cups then 0 . Hell I could careless if the guy never played a game again. 2 Cups!

          2. I said it at the time the Pens were in the finals, that they would win without the help of Murray.

            Well, the Pens’ forwards had the puck the whole series against the Sharks. The only noteworthy thing that Murray did was a negative in giving up a bad goal late in a game that led to an OT win for the Sharks. So the Pens won in 6, not 5 like they should have.

            Average goalie, at best, on a great team. That’s all.

        2. Holy f–k really?

          And I had to pick up Casey Desmith because he replaced Murray as the starter. Just like Talbot’s been replaced in Edmonton. Just like Raanta is out for the season with another injury.

          1. You miss the point about Talbot and Raanta. When they were in NY, they were better than Hank. That doesn’t make them great. Better than Hank post 2013 is just not a very high bar to clear.
            And while we are attacking Raanta for getting hurt, Hank has been imjured three of the last four years (not counting this one). The iron man Lundqvist is also a memory, not a current day fact.

            The main point though is Leather’s up above about the kool-aid. The unrealistic appraisal of Hank leads to a bad assessment of the entire team. The Rangers had a really really good team when Lundqvist, Staal, and Stralman were on the ice together. Management gave too much credit to Hank and Marc, leaving not enough glory for Anton.

          2. Oh no you didn’t Ray! Think we can get you to add a few letters to the name? Something with a good ring to it? 🙂

          3. Raymond, I’m not even going to respond to this. If you think that Raanta and Talbot were better goalies while they were here, then there’s no reason to discuss this any further.

            And the accusation of games missed by Lundqvist is particularly comical especially since he got hit in the throat with a puck to miss those games.

          4. Maybe not better, but they played behind the same team and over the course of a few years both appeared to be perfectly capable goalies. Maybe they stole a few games less than Hank, but I think Ray’s point is simply that even if Hank makes a difference on some nights here and there, it isn’t enough to explain away the fact that the Rangers for YEARS defied the metrics.

          1. Yeah and Murray had nothing to do with either Cup. So what’s the point? The back up goalie got a ring too.

          2. ah, no, it’s a bad idea to give out bad big contracts like:

            Redden, G, Staal, Smith, Skjei, Shatty (for now), etc.

            And make bad player decisions like Boyle or G instead of Stralman.

            Again, you guys pick and choose what to say to drive your agenda. King has been the best goalie of his era, do yo think that he’s earned his contract? And he;’s a lock for the HOF. AND, the % of cap hit is in line or close to the NHL average for goalies.

            So WTF are you and others talking about, other than your hatred for this man?

            WHEN will you hold the rest of the team for sch accountability?

          3. I don’t hate the man Richter. I guess no matter what Ranger management has been known to screw up contracts over and over and over. Sucks but it happens all the time.

          4. Hey Richter, what about all the stuff they got right? I can assure you they got a lot more right than they did wrong which is why from 2005 on they have been one of the better teams in the League.

    2. How many playoff series has Holtby lost to Lundqvist?

      I’ll give you an hour to respond, but you won’t, because you know what the truth is here.

        1. Ovechkin, Backstrom, Kuznetsov, and Carlson all had seasons last year that no Lundqvist teammate has had since the Jagr/Nylander/Straka days.

          And no disrespect to Holtby—he’s a great goalie, but at one point last season he’d lost it mentally and lost his starting job, only regaining it due to injury. Even though he won the Cup he described last year as a difficult year for him.

          Hockey’s a difficult game, which is why longterm consistency should be respected, not dissed with some weak nickname. You come here to irritate people every time you post, face up to who/what you are.

          1. So it shows,not a good idea to build a team around a High Price-d goalie. Truth comes out, you are Butthurt over the name ???

          2. You know nothing of truth, or my motivations in countering your childish nonsense. Your immaturity speaks for itself, starting with your username.

          3. What a noble purpose in life. You’ve admitted you’re a troll, now the next step is getting help for yourself.

  10. As smart as you think you are Man Cun…in reality you’re an imbecile. How does insulting feel since this is a tactic of yours? All you ever post is not gospel and only your opinion. I will take Dilfer, Simms, Williams over Marino any day. Now had he won or the fellas I mentioned never won then I would take Marino. Championships is all that matters. This is my opinion and I am sticking to it.

    1. All goes back to the New York Rangers Leather,not the New York Lundqvists. It’s all in the name ??? , I should have kept it 3 but sometimes it would kick me out and it finally stuck on two so there it stood…. lol

    2. As far as intelligence is concerned, you have a five word post to your close close friend up there where you misspell two of the five words in the post. You also use commas instead of periods to attempt to create an ellipsis in that same post.

  11. “these holes are all on the blue line”

    I respectfully disagree. Watch the play by the Rangers’ forwards on the forecheck, the lack of back checking and their neutral zone play and then re-consider.

  12. A team this statistically and (largely visually) bad needs to be allowed to bottom out. enough half measures by management.

  13. I think that the angst and anger displayed above is rather meaningless. While Hank might not be as good as he once was consistently, he is still quite good. But most importantly, he is going to be here for the remainder of his contract due both to organizational loyalty and the size of his contract unless he suffers a career ending injury. It is rather pointless to argue about him because he will be the goalie at least until his contract ends.

    1. I meant to add, goaltending would appear to be the least of the Rangers’ concerns with Hank and the two Russian kids in the coming along

        1. I thought the original issue was why the Rangers perform better than their underlying metrics. It had nothing to do with whether Hank was the problem — plus I’m not sure anyone really believes he’s the problem, it’s just there are people (some more than others) that just don’t believe he walks on water. 😉

Back to top button
Skip to toolbar