Rangerland Forum Information

[Hockey101]

Wouldn't the Pens be first with 45 wins?

Perhaps. I'm not near a computer right now.

....

Riiiiiiighhhhh..............t.

[Knight of Dight]

going to be a lot of "I told you so" after the season

Yeah, regardless what happens, someone is going to be spouting this shit.

[jkman61494]

Oh and by the way. If the two teams followed their past ten game trends?

NYR: 4-5-1 = 104 points.
Philly: 7-2-1 = 105 points

So for the last two weeks you've been using Jan 1st as the barometer for the Rangers. Now that I use that you switch it to the last 10 games.

Pick a time frame that everyone should follow to debate you with.

You were the same guy spouting off how it was and still is absurd to say the Pens wouldn't catch New York. But it happened.

I think it was that the Rangers would win the division. Which according to some has already been won by Pittsburgh? Interesting.

That's amazing. I never knew Valentine's Day was on January 1st!!! Boy, are you using some Mayan calendar?

I've been using the time period where they lost to Chicago on February 16th as the barometer on numerous occasions now. Are you now using a strategy to troll by just making intentionally erroneous statements to keep us interested in replying to you?

[Greatone]

KOD used the Winter Classic in one his posts which I confused with one of yours. But as you just admitted, you've used V-Day and the 16th for weeks. Now in this you only use the last ten games.

Anyway, more to KOD and spitz point. I even said that it looks like Pittsburgh might end up winning the division. I'm just debating this loser mentality of the race being settled already. Pittsburgh can win it. Rangers can win it. Who knows. But the only people who would get the "told you so" garbage is Dunc and jk since they have pretty much proclaimed the race over.

[Greatone]

I've been using the time period where they lost to Chicago on February 16th as the barometer on numerous occasions now. Are you now using a strategy to troll by just making intentionally erroneous statements to keep us interested in replying to you?

I know you like to piggy back trash talking but seriously dude. I never knew it was trolling to debate the idea that with 11 games left the Rangers wont win the division when they'd be in the lead or tied tonight.

And if I'm not interesting enough for you than stop replying. No one is forcing you to. Maybe you'd be better off spending more research time for your slideshows or whatever it is you do for free.

[Rocha]

Wouldn't the Pens be first with 45 wins?

Yup. Which is why I said the Rangers might be in 4th by the time the take the ice next.

[Greatone]

To kinda wrap up this for me, how awesome is it to be debating if we will win the division and finish 1st in the Conference and not if we might make the playoffs and who'd we want to avoid in the 1st round?

About time.

[Rocha]

Flyers win with .09 left in OT. Rangers hang on to first by a hair. Those two teams are playing really well right now.

[Greatone]

Flyers win with .09 left in OT. Rangers hang on to first by a hair. Those two teams are playing really well right now.

And don't they play twice in the last 4 or 5 games of the season?

One point lead with 11 games left for both the Rangers and Penguins with one matchup left. Damn this is exciting.

[Knight of Dight]

To kinda wrap up this for me, how awesome is it to be debating if we will win the division and finish 1st in the Conference and not if we might make the playoffs and who'd we want to avoid in the 1st round?

About time.

Actually, that is a really good point. The last several years, it was "Fuck, we need to beat X and Y needs to lose so that we can make the playoffs/don't have to play the Penguins/Caps in the first round!"

This post has been edited by Knight of Dight: Mar 18 2012, 02:20 PM

[SpanishJack]

Fuck the Flyers!

[Greatone]

To those who watched the game, how did Callahan and Del Zotto look?

[SpanishJack]

To those who watched the game, how did Callahan and Del Zotto look?

very good.

Edit: I hit the submit too soon. In my opinion, Callahan was very pesky in offensice zone. You know, the usual Callahan effort. The rest probably refilled the gas tank. DZ played a simple game without any glaring blunders. He did a couple of nice things on the PP.

This post has been edited by SpanishJack: Mar 18 2012, 02:40 PM

[Mike B.]

Flyers win with .09 left in OT. Rangers hang on to first by a hair. Those two teams are playing really well right now.

Wooo! First place, yesssssss!

[Hockey101]

Flyers win with .09 left in OT. Rangers hang on to first by a hair. Those two teams are playing really well right now.

Wooo! First place, yesssssss!

Would it really make a difference if the Rangers play the 8h or 7th seed, though? So, Washington, Ottawa, Winnipeg, Boston, or Buffalo? Obviously Winnipeg would be the ideal team to play against.

[Rocha]

To kinda wrap up this for me, how awesome is it to be debating if we will win the division and finish 1st in the Conference and not if we might make the playoffs and who'd we want to avoid in the 1st round?

Come on, this is as desperate as KoD saying the Rangers are a longshot to win the division they still lead. They coughed up a 12 point lead in the last few weeks, most of it on a homestand, and a big part of that is because the Rangers went 2-5 in their last 7. Yes, the Penguins have been flying, but the Rangers have also been sucking at a .285 clip, let's not pretend this part doesn't exist.

You said they'd beat the Penguins the other night, you said they'd hang onto the division/conference lead, and now you're retreating into broad statements of appreciation. You sound like Leeds last night, who after weeks of angrily pointing out the Rangers' first place status and how that was indicative of a team that didn't really have any concerns or need any outside help, now says just making the playoffs is what's important.

You guys are both on record aggressively arguing against doubters by pointing out the Rangers' body of work to date as of a week ago. Are you now abandoning this position or is this still an NHL-elite, first place team? Maybe if you guys weren't so aggressive in yelling at everyone who had concerns about this team weeks ago, I wouldn't be going the extra mile right now in pointing out how your statements of bravado have so far rung hollow, and you're both backpedaling into inane sayings and platitudes.

I want the Rangers to win as badly as you or anyone else does. But I also consider it incredibly frustrating that every year people point out how these Ranger teams are too thin and not talented enough to be great in today's NHL, and people try to wash this away with the "oh, it's just Rangers fans being typically unappreciative and hyperbolic" meme. This is certainly not a bad team but it also certainly hasn't looked in any way special in the last month since the level of competition has picked up around the league. I very much want to be wrong about this and enjoy a long post-season. Maybe Kreider will make a big enough difference, the lines you posted the other night with him in them looked really solid.

[Eric]

I just want to let you guys know that the Rangers would have still been in first place even if the Penguins won. Wins alone is not the tiebreaker. Regulation+OT wins is. The Rangers have 41 and if the Penguins had won in regulation or OT they would have had 36.

http://www.nhl.com/ice/standings.htm#?navid=nav-stn-main

This post has been edited by Eric: Mar 18 2012, 03:03 PM

[Rocha]

I just want to let you guys know that the Rangers would have still been in first place even if the Penguins won. Wins alone is not the tiebreaker. Regulation+OT wins is. The Rangers have 41 and if the Penguins had won in regulation or OT they would have had 35.

http://www.nhl.com/ice/standings.htm#?navid=nav-stn-main

Is that for division leaders, too?

Having it default to ROW instead of head-to-head is pretty stupid because what's a better measure of whether team X or Y is better than which one defeated the other more, but this will be better for us.

[SorryaboutthatWh...]

I just want to let you guys know that the Rangers would have still been in first place even if the Penguins won. Wins alone is not the tiebreaker. Regulation+OT wins is. The Rangers have 41 and if the Penguins had won in regulation or OT they would have had 35.

http://www.nhl.com/ice/standings.htm#?navid=nav-stn-main

Is that for division leaders, too?

Having it default to ROW instead of head-to-head is pretty stupid because what's a better measure of whether team X or Y is better than which one defeated the other more, but this will be better for us.

Everyone bitches about the teams who make good in the standings because of the shoot out, so the first tie breaker is regulations and overtime wins, so that you avoid that. How is that stupid?

[Greatone]

You said they'd beat the Penguins the other night

Contrary to you saying they would lose, right? Or did you not chime in until after the game?

you said they'd hang onto the division/conference lead

WHICH THEY STILL HAVE!

Holy shit. I said they would hang on and win the division which in turn would have them finish 1st. Has this not happened? Has the season ended today? Which even if it did would see the Rangers winning the division and conference?

Have I backtracked on this? Nope. Am I more open to them not pulling it off? Sure. But thats this crazy thing called flexibility. It would be stupid of me to sit here with a 1 point lead and guarantee that it would get done. And just as stupid is sitting here and saying it wont happen. Or can I call you out if the Rangers are about to advance past Round 2 and you act happy about it?

and now you're retreating into broad statements of appreciation.

What in the hell are you talking about? So I mention that this is a nice change of pace from the last 15 years and I'm retreating?

I said that the Rangers will win the division and conference. Have I since stated otherwise except to give a little more credibility to Pittsburgh passing us? No. I don't know why you and Leeds and others need to make it like a political debate where you are completely on one side and 100% the other without ever budging. The Rangers were up by six or eight points when I said they would pull it off. They are now one. I still think they will do it, but does the streak Pittsburgh went on force me to realize it may not happen? Absolutely. Its common sense.

Even when the playful Positive v. Negative stuff happened I continually acknowledged the flaws you pointed out. I just took the side that they would pull it off. So dont paint me as some lollipop licking moron who turns turds into diamonds. The only time I have not budged or have and will continually to ridicule is the loser mentality that people have. The race isnt over but people are pretending it is.

You wanna debate Leeds on his stance? Fine. I even debated him on his "we dont need any depth we are in 1st!" stuff. But dont paint me with the same brush as "retreating" because I happened to enjoy this debate better than the "should be try for the 8th seed or tank for a lottery pick?" threads.

[Knight of Dight]

I just want to let you guys know that the Rangers would have still been in first place even if the Penguins won. Wins alone is not the tiebreaker. Regulation+OT wins is. The Rangers have 41 and if the Penguins had won in regulation or OT they would have had 35.

http://www.nhl.com/ice/standings.htm#?navid=nav-stn-main

Is that for division leaders, too?

Having it default to ROW instead of head-to-head is pretty stupid because what's a better measure of whether team X or Y is better than which one defeated the other more, but this will be better for us.

I'm pretty confident that ROW is the first tiebreaker, regardless. They made that change in an effort to make the shoot-out less important.

[steamroller]

Flyers win with .09 left in OT. Rangers hang on to first by a hair. Those two teams are playing really well right now.

Wooo! First place, yesssssss!

Would it really make a difference if the Rangers play the 8h or 7th seed, though? So, Washington, Ottawa, Winnipeg, Boston, or Buffalo? Obviously Winnipeg would be the ideal team to play against.

We dont play the seventh seed in any scenario that has any likelihood , as far as seeding if we start to fall we'd be better really falling to 6th.

[Greatone]

I just want to let you guys know that the Rangers would have still been in first place even if the Penguins won. Wins alone is not the tiebreaker. Regulation+OT wins is. The Rangers have 41 and if the Penguins had won in regulation or OT they would have had 35.

http://www.nhl.com/ice/standings.htm#?navid=nav-stn-main

Is that for division leaders, too?

Having it default to ROW instead of head-to-head is pretty stupid because what's a better measure of whether team X or Y is better than which one defeated the other more, but this will be better for us.

Everyone bitches about the teams who make good in the standings because of the shoot out, so the first tie breaker is regulations and overtime wins, so that you avoid that. How is that stupid?

Because then he isnt right.

[Knight of Dight]

If we end up in 4th, there is a very good chance we'll either be playing Philly or NJ in the first round. Not sure how I feel about that.

[Greatone]

If we end up in 4th, there is a very good chance we'll either be playing Philly or NJ in the first round. Not sure how I feel about that.

Any matchup would present drawbacks and potentialy dangerous circumstances IMO. The only matchup I'd prefer is Florida or Winnipeg.

[SorryaboutthatWh...]

If we end up in 4th, there is a very good chance we'll either be playing Philly or NJ in the first round. Not sure how I feel about that.

Any matchup would present drawbacks and potentialy dangerous circumstances IMO. The only matchup I'd prefer is Florida or Winnipeg.

Impossible, we've already lost the division two weeks ago.

[Greatone]

If we end up in 4th, there is a very good chance we'll either be playing Philly or NJ in the first round. Not sure how I feel about that.

Any matchup would present drawbacks and potentialy dangerous circumstances IMO. The only matchup I'd prefer is Florida or Winnipeg.

Impossible, we've already lost the division two weeks ago.

Did you know that if we go 0-11 and Washington goes 11-0 we'd miss the playoffs? Frankly I dont know how you can have confidence this wont happen.

[Knight of Dight]

If we end up in 4th, there is a very good chance we'll either be playing Philly or NJ in the first round. Not sure how I feel about that.

Any matchup would present drawbacks and potentialy dangerous circumstances IMO. The only matchup I'd prefer is Florida or Winnipeg.

Impossible, we've already lost the division two weeks ago.

Did you know that if we go 0-11 and Washington goes 11-0 we'd miss the playoffs? Frankly I dont know how you can have confidence this wont happen.

It would actually be tragically amusing if that were to happen.

[Greatone]

If we end up in 4th, there is a very good chance we'll either be playing Philly or NJ in the first round. Not sure how I feel about that.

Any matchup would present drawbacks and potentialy dangerous circumstances IMO. The only matchup I'd prefer is Florida or Winnipeg.

Impossible, we've already lost the division two weeks ago.

Did you know that if we go 0-11 and Washington goes 11-0 we'd miss the playoffs? Frankly I dont know how you can have confidence this wont happen.

It would actually be tragically amusing if that were to happen.

Could you imagine? Holy shit

[Rocha]

I just want to let you guys know that the Rangers would have still been in first place even if the Penguins won. Wins alone is not the tiebreaker. Regulation+OT wins is. The Rangers have 41 and if the Penguins had won in regulation or OT they would have had 35.

http://www.nhl.com/ice/standings.htm#?navid=nav-stn-main

Is that for division leaders, too?

Having it default to ROW instead of head-to-head is pretty stupid because what's a better measure of whether team X or Y is better than which one defeated the other more, but this will be better for us.

Everyone bitches about the teams who make good in the standings because of the shoot out, so the first tie breaker is regulations and overtime wins, so that you avoid that. How is that stupid?

It's great as the #2 tiebreaker rather than adding SO wins, but let's say the Rangers and Flyers at the end of the season are tied in points for 4th, and they get the home ice in the upcoming playoff round between the two of them because they have more ROW even though the Rangers have kicked the shit out of them all season long. That's an ideal way to do it right? Right, greatone? Or did you guys not think of that and instead just assumed I was looking for ways to be negative.

[Greatone]

I just want to let you guys know that the Rangers would have still been in first place even if the Penguins won. Wins alone is not the tiebreaker. Regulation+OT wins is. The Rangers have 41 and if the Penguins had won in regulation or OT they would have had 35.

http://www.nhl.com/ice/standings.htm#?navid=nav-stn-main

Is that for division leaders, too?

Having it default to ROW instead of head-to-head is pretty stupid because what's a better measure of whether team X or Y is better than which one defeated the other more, but this will be better for us.

Everyone bitches about the teams who make good in the standings because of the shoot out, so the first tie breaker is regulations and overtime wins, so that you avoid that. How is that stupid?

It's great as the #2 tiebreaker rather than adding SO wins, but let's say the Rangers and Flyers at the end of the season are tied in points for 4th, and they get the home ice in the upcoming playoff round between the two of them because they have more ROW even though the Rangers have kicked the shit out of them all season long. That's an ideal way to do it right? Right, greatone? Or did you guys not think of that and instead just assumed I was looking for ways to be negative.

I wouldnt mind really.

[SorryaboutthatWh...]

It's great as the #2 tiebreaker rather than adding SO wins, but let's say the Rangers and Flyers at the end of the season are tied in points for 4th, and they get the home ice in the upcoming playoff round between the two of them because they have more ROW even though the Rangers have kicked the shit out of them all season long. That's an ideal way to do it right? Right, greatone? Or did you guys not think of that and instead just assumed I was looking for ways to be negative.

I wouldn't care. If we are in the position to be tied with Philly, but they won more games in regulation or overtime instead of a shootout, don't they deserve the higher spot? I think so.

[Rocha]

It's great as the #2 tiebreaker rather than adding SO wins, but let's say the Rangers and Flyers at the end of the season are tied in points for 4th, and they get the home ice in the upcoming playoff round between the two of them because they have more ROW even though the Rangers have kicked the shit out of them all season long. That's an ideal way to do it right? Right, greatone? Or did you guys not think of that and instead just assumed I was looking for ways to be negative.

I wouldn't care. If we are in the position to be tied with Philly, but they won more games in regulation or overtime instead of a shootout, don't they deserve the higher spot? I think so.

Because in deciding a head-to-head tie between two teams, they should first rely on those teams' record against other teams and not each other. Yes, that makes perfect sense.

[SorryaboutthatWh...]

It's great as the #2 tiebreaker rather than adding SO wins, but let's say the Rangers and Flyers at the end of the season are tied in points for 4th, and they get the home ice in the upcoming playoff round between the two of them because they have more ROW even though the Rangers have kicked the shit out of them all season long. That's an ideal way to do it right? Right, greatone? Or did you guys not think of that and instead just assumed I was looking for ways to be negative.

I wouldn't care. If we are in the position to be tied with Philly, but they won more games in regulation or overtime instead of a shootout, don't they deserve the higher spot? I think so.

Because in deciding a head-to-head tie between two teams, they should first rely on those teams' record against other teams and not each other. Yes, that makes perfect sense.

um, you play against other teams more so than you do one team in a season, so standings our based on your record against other teams more than matchups if you want to get really technical with your logic

[Kusand]

It's great as the #2 tiebreaker rather than adding SO wins, but let's say the Rangers and Flyers at the end of the season are tied in points for 4th, and they get the home ice in the upcoming playoff round between the two of them because they have more ROW even though the Rangers have kicked the shit out of them all season long. That's an ideal way to do it right? Right, greatone? Or did you guys not think of that and instead just assumed I was looking for ways to be negative.

I wouldn't care. If we are in the position to be tied with Philly, but they won more games in regulation or overtime instead of a shootout, don't they deserve the higher spot? I think so.

Because in deciding a head-to-head tie between two teams, they should first rely on those teams' record against other teams and not each other. Yes, that makes perfect sense.

They're using it as the primary tiebreaker in order to devalue the "loser point." Standings already use teams records against "other" teams. In order to reduce the influence of shootouts, they favor teams who didn't need shootout wins over teams who did first; THEN they go to H2H record in order to differentiate the teams further.

[Rocha]

It's great as the #2 tiebreaker rather than adding SO wins, but let's say the Rangers and Flyers at the end of the season are tied in points for 4th, and they get the home ice in the upcoming playoff round between the two of them because they have more ROW even though the Rangers have kicked the shit out of them all season long. That's an ideal way to do it right? Right, greatone? Or did you guys not think of that and instead just assumed I was looking for ways to be negative.

I wouldn't care. If we are in the position to be tied with Philly, but they won more games in regulation or overtime instead of a shootout, don't they deserve the higher spot? I think so.

Because in deciding a head-to-head tie between two teams, they should first rely on those teams' record against other teams and not each other. Yes, that makes perfect sense.

They're using it as the primary tiebreaker in order to devalue the "loser point." Standings already use teams records against "other" teams. In order to reduce the influence of shootouts, they favor teams who didn't need shootout wins over teams who did first; THEN they go to H2H record in order to differentiate the teams further.

That's fine, there's not a huge disparity between either method, but to me head to head, which is also what the NFL uses, makes more sense to me in being the primary tiebreaker between two teams.

[SorryaboutthatWh...]

It's great as the #2 tiebreaker rather than adding SO wins, but let's say the Rangers and Flyers at the end of the season are tied in points for 4th, and they get the home ice in the upcoming playoff round between the two of them because they have more ROW even though the Rangers have kicked the shit out of them all season long. That's an ideal way to do it right? Right, greatone? Or did you guys not think of that and instead just assumed I was looking for ways to be negative.

I wouldn't care. If we are in the position to be tied with Philly, but they won more games in regulation or overtime instead of a shootout, don't they deserve the higher spot? I think so.

Because in deciding a head-to-head tie between two teams, they should first rely on those teams' record against other teams and not each other. Yes, that makes perfect sense.

They're using it as the primary tiebreaker in order to devalue the "loser point." Standings already use teams records against "other" teams. In order to reduce the influence of shootouts, they favor teams who didn't need shootout wins over teams who did first; THEN they go to H2H record in order to differentiate the teams further.

That's fine, there's not a huge disparity between either method, but to me head to head, which is also what the NFL uses, makes more sense to me in being the primary tiebreaker between two teams.

So what if Philly wins the season series, but shoot outs between the two teams were the difference. That wouldn't bother you? The whole point is to not reward loser points.

[jkman61494]

I still think it would be a hell of a lot easier to just eliminate loser points period!

You win....You lose.... period. Teams would go an extra mile then to get the two points and not rely on a shootout as a 1 point crutch.

It's something that's really irked me with this new NHL points format. Pepole like simple stuff. Th NHL ey like to be able to see who wins and who loses. You see that in every other professional sport outside of soccer, which is a sport routinely criticized because there are ties. Well, the NHL got it half right.

But to see the NHL standings read, W.....L......OTL.....ROW etc. If I were just a general sports fan? I'd be asking myself what in the hell a ROW was.

[Dunc]

Greatone likes instigating flame wars.

Ignore him.

You got me. Me calling people out for giving up is starting a flame war. How are those Fire Torts chants going by the way?

EDIT: Unless me quoting you is "taking you out of context" again.

But he wasn't giving up-- he was being realistic. With the way both teams have played for the last month, it is highly unlikely the Rangers will be able to hold on to 1st place. That is ALL he's saying-- finishing 4th doesn't mean they should pack it in and accept a 1st round exit.

Man am I glad you guys dont coach teams. "Listen team, we've been in first all season and can hang with anyone. But we've struggled a bit lately and ___ is on a streak. So I think we should just not worry about winning the division since its impossible and concentrate on coming in 2nd. Hands in!"


And being realistic is fine. But dont act like the race is over. It is not. 11 games left. Basically my point is yes, it looks like there is a very good chance Pittsburgh will end up winning the division, but its not final. You dont just stop fighting because another team is playing well. Who knows is all I'm saying.

The truly funny part about this is that GreatOne seems to think that how some people on Rangerland feel the Rangers will finish actually has some sort of effect on how the Rangers finish, and that by posting an opinion that the Rangers will fall out of 1st place we are somehow guilty of causing that to happen.

Which I guess is no more silly than me putting on my Hank jersey to watch the game (you BETTER be wearing your jersey, GreatOne!).

[Knight of Dight]

If it were up to me, regulation/OT wins would be 2 points, SO wins would be one point, and losers get nothing.