On what planet are the Islanders not a legitimate contender
- eichiefs9

The one where I still think they don't have enough fire power to win it all.

I dunno. They keep winning games and making me look stupid, but I just can't make myself believe in that roster.

The one where I still think they don't have enough fire power to win it all.

I dunno. They keep winning games and making me look stupid, but I just can't make myself believe in that roster.
- BINGO!

The one where I still think they don't have enough fire power to win it all.

I dunno. They keep winning games and making me look stupid, but I just can't make myself believe in that roster.
- BINGO!

Maybe not, and I'm certainly not claiming that they should be #1 on anyone's "Cup Favorites" list, but I think two consecutive conference/semi finals trips proves that they're pretty high up there.

If they can find a way to add a winger that can score and lift up the PP a little then I'm feeling even better about things.

For all the sucking-off of teams like Colorado and Toronto I have to read from the "analytics is the only way" community on Twitter, I think it's hilarious that neither has made a conference final anytime in recent history.

No, that isn't me saying analytics is dumb and/or not useful. I just hate the people that throw a graph in your face and act like that's the end-all, be-all of evaluation.

My official position on the Rangers expansion decision is that they are in a great spot because Howden, Gauthier, Rooney and Blackwell all equally matter squat in the long term vision of this team.

The one where I still think they don't have enough fire power to win it all.

I dunno. They keep winning games and making me look stupid, but I just can't make myself believe in that roster.
- BINGO!

I agree with u, mediocre roster with one of the best coaches and systems in the league.

lol "contender"
- BINGO!

That doesn't apply to the Blues, either

My official position on the Rangers expansion decision is that they are in a great spot because Howden, Gauthier, Rooney and Blackwell all equally matter squat in the long term vision of this team.
- jimbro83

Ur one of the few that don’t like Gauthier. Might be the only one actually.

Maybe not, and I'm certainly not claiming that they should be #1 on anyone's "Cup Favorites" list, but I think two consecutive conference/semi finals trips proves that they're pretty high up there.

If they can find a way to add a winger that can score and lift up the PP a little then I'm feeling even better about things.
- eichiefs9

Yeah I think they might be able to add a guy like Saad for cheaper than expected and they'll be golden.

I do think they could use another shifty offensive minded guy though. Maybe Tatar is an option? He'd be cheap with revenge on his mind.

Yeah I think they might be able to add a guy like Saad for cheaper than expected and they'll be golden.

I do think they could use another shifty offensive minded guy though. Maybe Tatar is an option? He'd be cheap with revenge on his mind.
- BINGO!

I have no issue with Tatar but it's a little concerning to me that he sat out the entire playoffs when he was healthy. Not sure he's a Trotz/Lou kinda guy, but I'd love to add him to play with Pageau/Wahlstrom on the 3rd line.

Sounds like Tarasenko may be a real possibility...not entirely sure how I feel about that, but it's out there.

Landeskog is obviously an unrealistic pipedream, but man I can't think of a guy better suited to play for this team. He's a more-skilled Lee.

Alex Edler not re-signing with Vancouver.

From the last blog:

This is a totally unpopular opinion in Ranger-land, but I stand by it. Ryan Strome and Thomas Hertl are essentially the same exact player. Why give up assets and pay someone more for marginal difference?

I’ll give in to the fact that Hertl is much better at the dots, but I just don’t have the same kind of love for Hertl that many of you do. Seems like a minor improvement, if any.

From the last blog:

This is a totally unpopular opinion in Ranger-land, but I stand by it. Ryan Strome and Thomas Hertl are essentially the same exact player. Why give up assets and pay someone more for marginal difference?

I’ll give in to the fact that Hertl is much better at the dots, but I just don’t have the same kind of love for Hertl that many of you do. Seems like a minor improvement, if any.
- Bean_Dip

Hertl's no bruiser, but he can stay on his skates better than Strome. He's "harder to play against," which seems to be the mandate from on high.
edit: And he's faster than Strome, which isn't hard to do, but ...

From the last blog:

This is a totally unpopular opinion in Ranger-land, but I stand by it. Ryan Strome and Thomas Hertl are essentially the same exact player. Why give up assets and pay someone more for marginal difference?

I’ll give in to the fact that Hertl is much better at the dots, but I just don’t have the same kind of love for Hertl that many of you do. Seems like a minor improvement, if any.
- Bean_Dip

Hertl is significantly better than Ryan Strome. He's played on a crap team for the last two years and Strome has played significant ES and PP time with Panarin.

From the last blog:

This is a totally unpopular opinion in Ranger-land, but I stand by it. Ryan Strome and Thomas Hertl are essentially the same exact player. Why give up assets and pay someone more for marginal difference?

I’ll give in to the fact that Hertl is much better at the dots, but I just don’t have the same kind of love for Hertl that many of you do. Seems like a minor improvement, if any.
- Bean_Dip

Think I have to disagree here, Hertl is an upgrade over Strome.

Maybe not, and I'm certainly not claiming that they should be #1 on anyone's "Cup Favorites" list, but I think two consecutive conference/semi finals trips proves that they're pretty high up there.

If they can find a way to add a winger that can score and lift up the PP a little then I'm feeling even better about things.

For all the sucking-off of teams like Colorado and Toronto I have to read from the "analytics is the only way" community on Twitter, I think it's hilarious that neither has made a conference final anytime in recent history.

No, that isn't me saying analytics is dumb and/or not useful. I just hate the people that throw a graph in your face and act like that's the end-all, be-all of evaluation.
- eichiefs9

I'll say it:

Analytics are dumb and not very useful. Nobody has won a Cup with fancy charts and stats yet. The eye test is a far more useful, proven tool. There is a reason why scouts get paid to travel and watch people play in person.

The only time I would concede analytics could help is if you are trying to decide between 2 very equally rated players and you needed a tie-breaker. Thats it!

From the last blog:

This is a totally unpopular opinion in Ranger-land, but I stand by it. Ryan Strome and Thomas Hertl are essentially the same exact player. Why give up assets and pay someone more for marginal difference?

I’ll give in to the fact that Hertl is much better at the dots, but I just don’t have the same kind of love for Hertl that many of you do. Seems like a minor improvement, if any.
- Bean_Dip

Hertl is a better skater, better defensively, better at the dots and has performed equal to Strome with a fraction of the skill players. Hes not a bruiser, but being a bruiser isnt the definition of hard to play against. Active feet, being involved and defensively responsible which is more Hertl than Strome.

I'll say it:

Analytics are dumb and not very useful. Nobody has won a Cup with fancy charts and stats yet. The eye test is a far more useful, proven tool. There is a reason why scouts get paid to travel and watch people play in person.

The only time I would concede analytics could help is if you are trying to decide between 2 very equally rated players and you needed a tie-breaker. Thats it!
- TommyGTrain

The GM of the Tampa Bay Lightning is an accountant.

I'll say it:

Analytics are dumb and not very useful. Nobody has won a Cup with fancy charts and stats yet. The eye test is a far more useful, proven tool. There is a reason why scouts get paid to travel and watch people play in person.

The only time I would concede analytics could help is if you are trying to decide between 2 very equally rated players and you needed a tie-breaker. Thats it!
- TommyGTrain

Well that I mostly don't agree with.

Like anything else, they're a tool that helps give you a piece of the bigger picture. They're absolutely useful and often accurate, I just can't stand the media/Twitter analytics community that loves to shove some seizure-inducing scatterplot in people's faces when they try to argue against whatever said-chart says.

Teams have their own analytics departments that have their own tools to evaluate guys, that aren't necessarily the same as the ones you and I get to see all the time.

Well that I mostly don't agree with.

Like anything else, they're a tool that helps give you a piece of the bigger picture. They're absolutely useful and often accurate, I just can't stand the media/Twitter analytics community that loves to shove some seizure-inducing scatterplot in people's faces when they try to argue against whatever said-chart says.

Teams have their own analytics departments that have their own tools to evaluate guys, that aren't necessarily the same as the ones you and I get to see all the time.
- eichiefs9

There are many that use publicly available data, but most of those have their own evaluation tools as well. Depends what you're emphasizing and how you're interpreting the data.

Shooting based metrics seem to be good at predicting future outcomes, but they don't explain HOW or WHY those things occur. That's where the eye test and coaches come into play. If something isn't adding up, you can sit down with scouts and coaches and figure out why. Maybe there's something there you can exploit.

Think I have to disagree here, Hertl is an upgrade over Strome.
- nyrangers9479

I just don’t think he’s that much of an upgrade. And to pay Hertl an extra 2M over Strome…idk.

But like I said, unpopular opinion. And I get why.

There are many that use publicly available data, but most of those have their own evaluation tools as well. Depends what you're emphasizing and how you're interpreting the data.

Shooting based metrics seem to be good at predicting future outcomes, but they don't explain HOW or WHY those things occur. That's where the eye test and coaches come into play. If something isn't adding up, you can sit down with scouts and coaches and figure out why. Maybe there's something there you can exploit.
- BINGO!

I like to use Justin Faulk and Jeff Skinner as examples of this.

Two guys that were possession and analytics darlings but never seemed to get great results.

Turns out they were shooting, a lot, but they both (frank)ing suck at it. So yeah, the numbers on the page looked pretty good, but an analytics driven team that was watching more than the publicly available data identified them both as being negative impact players despite great looking possession numbers and turfed them.

I just don’t think he’s that much of an upgrade. And to pay Hertl an extra 2M over Strome…idk.

But like I said, unpopular opinion. And I get why.
- Bean_Dip

How much do you think Strome and Hertl will get that the gap will be as much as 2m?

Well that I mostly don't agree with.

Like anything else, they're a tool that helps give you a piece of the bigger picture. They're absolutely useful and often accurate, I just can't stand the media/Twitter analytics community that loves to shove some seizure-inducing scatterplot in people's faces when they try to argue against whatever said-chart says.

Teams have their own analytics departments that have their own tools to evaluate guys, that aren't necessarily the same as the ones you and I get to see all the time.
- eichiefs9

That's EXACTLY the part that makes no sense to me! Everything is open to interpretation by each team. There's no standard across all teams. Who defines what a "hit" is, or what a "takeaway" or what a "great scoring chance" is? My interpretation will be different than the next guy's.

I remember watching some game this year between Vegas and I forget who else, and they had a stat that Vegas had like 70 hits or something. It was crazy. Commentators were even discussing how outlandish it was.

I can see how it could be useful when comparing players on the same time because you're more likely to have consistent interpretations, but to compare players on different teams? I don't believe it.

The GM of the Tampa Bay Lightning is an accountant.
- BINGO!

True. And he helped them exploit a loophole that allowed them to exceed the league cap by nearly $18 mill. Analytics didn't win the Cup.

That's EXACTLY the part that makes no sense to me! Everything is open to interpretation by each team. There's no standard across all teams. Who defines what a "hit" is, or what a "takeaway" or what a "great scoring chance" is? My interpretation will be different than the next guy's.

I remember watching some game this year between Vegas and I forget who else, and they had a stat that Vegas had like 70 hits or something. It was crazy. Commentators were even discussing how outlandish it was.

I can see how it could be useful when comparing players on the same time because you're more likely to have consistent interpretations, but to compare players on different teams? I don't believe it.
- TheMessiah94

As someone else said, it's a tool to help the GM and scouts do their job. If you hold hammer by the handle and swing it properly, you can build something useful. If you hold it by the head and pound nails with the handle, you wind up with a piece of junk. Use analytics the wrong way and you build something like the Sabres or.Coyotes.