First, a disclaimer:
I have nothing personal against the New York Rangers. I am a Toronto Maple Leafs fan, so I hate all other teams equally - except for the Canucks; they REALLY suck - being a Leaf fan and living in Victoria will do that to you.
When I first started crunching numbers a few weeks ago this post was actually going to be about the Habs, Panthers and Rangers, since all were running high PDO numbers that were due for a correction. Since then, however, Montreal and Florida have gone in one direction, and the Rangers in the other. Yes, Price got injured and the result was a drop in Montreal's save percentage, but that's not the whole story, which I'll get to in a sec.
A few other points:
Most of the stats that I use are from war-on-ice.com. I highly recommend it. Don't use nhl.com for anything beyond wins and losses unless you want incorrect or useless stats.
All of the stats that I quote are based on even-strength play, and have been score-adjusted, as I feel it gives the most accurate representation, and rebuts the usual: "well, they sit back when they have a lead" argument fairly substantially.
PDO = shooting % + save percentage
CF% = Corsi For % (Corsi For / Corsi Against)
Corsi = shots on net + shots blocked + shots missed
SCF% = Scoring Chances For % (SC For / SC Against)
This is probably going to be long, so buckle up...
The season is roughly 1/4 done - with a few exceptions, teams have played 20/21 games, and we are likely all aware of the insane stats about teams in or out of playoff positions by American Thanksgiving. Vegas Vic had a good post about this a few days ago here: http://www.therxforum.com/showthread.php?t=1036838&p=11340286&highlight=#post11340286
The point is that we start to have a pretty good idea of what teams good, and which teams aren't, and that wasn't necessarily as clear a few weeks ago when I started thinking about posting something. At that point, teams had only played 11-13 games, so it was pretty early days.
As of Nov 2, 2015, this is what some of the numbers looked like on the Habs, Panthers and Rangers:
For that point in the season the PDO numbers are a bit high, but not crazily so. Goalies go on great runs, and shooters have streaks where everything seems to go in. Also, the PDO numbers are mostly high because of the save percentages, and it shouldn't be a shock to see Lundqvist, Luongo and Price having great save percentages at even strength. The team shooting percentages are a little high (long-term averages are around 8%), so might come down, but might not (2 teams in the last 5 years have finished above 10% on the season (82 games) - TB in 2011-2012, and Anaheim in 2013-2014). In the same time period though, no team has finished with a save percentage above 94.0, so those numbers were always going to come down.
Since Nov 2, this is what the numbers look like for the same 3 teams:
Notice anything interesting? You should expect some correcting of each team's PDO numbers, but to see the Rangers' set go WAY UP is pretty incredible. And this despite a pretty dramatic drop in possession (28th during the period) and scoring chances (dead last). Florida and Montreal saw both PDO metrics correct significantly, and while Florida was duly punished by getting only 8 points in their last 10 games, Montreal managed 12 in 9 thanks to their stellar possession and scoring chance generation. Montreal's save percentage struggled due to the loss of Price, but their shooting percentage tanked as well. What happened? Did they forget how to shoot accurately? Of course not - the law of averages just caught up with them.
This is what the numbers look like for each team today:
Again, does anything stand out? The Rangers, despite having a bottom-5 CF% and the WORST scoring-chances differential in the league are first overall, while the Panthers, with almost identical stats, are out of the playoffs. I have to tell you that when I started crunching these numbers, I had no idea that I would end up with that - 2 teams will very similar analytics, but massively different perceptions, goal differential and points. It doesn't mean that the Rangers and Panthers are the same in terms of ability, as it's still early in the season, but it's pretty suggestive should the numbers continue this way.
Why do I say that? Well, history tells us that, barring a coaching change or massive personnel turnover, it's very hard to make big changes to your possession and scoring chance metrics over the course of a season. I should mention now, that the notion that some teams (always seems to be the ones with shitty underlying metrics - see Roy, Patrick) take better quality shots, so can still win long-term despite bad Corsi, is utter bullshit. It's for that argument that I included the scoring-chance numbers as well. Yes, I'm aware that certain buildings and teams compile them differently, but those differences all come out in the wash/over time. IF the quality-shot argument held up long-term, then you'd see teams with poor Corsi and good scoring chance differential - but you don't. I'll show you in a minute.
Lots of anti-corsi crusaders love to trumpet the old LA Kings argument to disprove Corsi and its utility. "How could Corsi matter if the team with the best Corsi doesn't even make the playoffs?!" Variance, my friends, variance. And I might counter with: 2012-13 Toronto, or 2013-14 Colorado - 2 teams that did really well for a season despite horrendous analytics, but then crash and burned the next year as reality set in.
Take the following table as evidence:
Those are the top 5 teams in the last 5+ years in terms of 5v5, SA Corsi. Next to that is their league rank in scoring chances %. Pretty close correlation, don't you think? Lastly, check the PDO over that time. Don't you think that a team with "better shooters" or a "better goalie" like those teams would be much better than the league average in terms of shooting percentage + save percentage? (Boston has Tuukka to thank for their "outlier PDO at 101.2). Let me remind you now that the Rangers through 21 games are currently at 107.1, and you tell me that it's sustainable. Also, it's worth mentioning that the last 5 Stanley Cups have all been won by the teams above.
Now the flip-side:
This is pretty self-explanatory. And CF% and SCF% ranking for this group correlate perfectly. Which group would you rather be in?
This is also a good chance to remind you that the Rangers' CF% through 21 games is 47.2. and their SCF% is 45.9. Still think they're awesome?
By now you still might be thinking: "The Rangers are so fast and dangerous though; nobody can contain them they're so good see how many points they have and look at their goal differential dumbass! Lundqvist can absolutely keep this up!" If you are, there's not much more I can say, but I'll try once more.
The Rangers are 100% guaranteed to regress. How much nobody knows, but if they don't, it would be so many magnitudes of probability beyond what we've seen that heads will explode. This is what I mean:
This is what this year's #1 and #2 teams in terms of PDO look like:
SOS is Strength of Schedule per Sagarin. According to that, the Rangers are getting steamrolled analytically every night despite the 2nd-easiest schedule so far.
The Rangers are at 107.2. the NEXT closest team is Ottawa at 103.0 (reminder: the average is 100.0)
Last year this is what the leaders looked like after the same 21 games:
I included the Rangers for context. Last year they were above average PDO-wise, but not off the charts like this year.
This is how they each finished the year:
Calgary was a good example of a team that was hugely sub-par, but got lucky as hell. How's that going for them so far this year? The traditionalists keep trying to figure out what's wrong with Calgary this year. Well I'm here to tell you: THEY'RE A SHITTY TEAM. And they were a shitty team last year too, but got lucky when it mattered. As I alluded to before - luck can cover up a lot of deficiencies, but eventually the law of averages takes over.
Note also in comparing the start of the season to the end, is that with the Rangers, their CF% and SCF% improved in the last 3/4 of the season, but not by THAT much. Which makes their current run even more worrying.
I've got charts like this for every season going back to 2010-11, and can share them with any of you, but I can tell you right now that they all say the same thing.
2 takeaways though - the HIGHEST PDO (apart from the current Rangers) that we've seen in the last decade or so after 21 games is from the Rangers in 2011-12, and that was at 103.8. They finished the season at 101.0, which means they played the last 75% of games at a PDO of about 100.
And in the last 7 years only 2 teams have finished an 82 game season with a PDO higher than 102.5, and only just. If the Rangers finish at 102.5, that means they will play the rest of the schedule with a PDO of a little under 101.
In conclusion: The Rangers have been historically lucky so far, and it won't last. Even if they start to play better than they have, history is not their friend. That doesn't mean they'll miss the playoffs - even I'm not suggesting that, what with the cushion they now have. But even if they were playing really well I'd say they're due for a big hit - but winter is coming for them, and I'll be cashing in when it does.
As always, arguments are welcome on both sides, and if you have no fucking idea what I'm talking about at all, let me know and I'll steer you to some much smarter dudes who know a ton more than me about this stuff.
I have nothing personal against the New York Rangers. I am a Toronto Maple Leafs fan, so I hate all other teams equally - except for the Canucks; they REALLY suck - being a Leaf fan and living in Victoria will do that to you.
When I first started crunching numbers a few weeks ago this post was actually going to be about the Habs, Panthers and Rangers, since all were running high PDO numbers that were due for a correction. Since then, however, Montreal and Florida have gone in one direction, and the Rangers in the other. Yes, Price got injured and the result was a drop in Montreal's save percentage, but that's not the whole story, which I'll get to in a sec.
A few other points:
Most of the stats that I use are from war-on-ice.com. I highly recommend it. Don't use nhl.com for anything beyond wins and losses unless you want incorrect or useless stats.
All of the stats that I quote are based on even-strength play, and have been score-adjusted, as I feel it gives the most accurate representation, and rebuts the usual: "well, they sit back when they have a lead" argument fairly substantially.
PDO = shooting % + save percentage
CF% = Corsi For % (Corsi For / Corsi Against)
Corsi = shots on net + shots blocked + shots missed
SCF% = Scoring Chances For % (SC For / SC Against)
This is probably going to be long, so buckle up...
The season is roughly 1/4 done - with a few exceptions, teams have played 20/21 games, and we are likely all aware of the insane stats about teams in or out of playoff positions by American Thanksgiving. Vegas Vic had a good post about this a few days ago here: http://www.therxforum.com/showthread.php?t=1036838&p=11340286&highlight=#post11340286
The point is that we start to have a pretty good idea of what teams good, and which teams aren't, and that wasn't necessarily as clear a few weeks ago when I started thinking about posting something. At that point, teams had only played 11-13 games, so it was pretty early days.
As of Nov 2, 2015, this is what some of the numbers looked like on the Habs, Panthers and Rangers:
| All numbers at 5v5 and Score-Adjusted | ||||||||||
| As of November 2, 2015 | ||||||||||
| GP | PDO | NHL Rank | Osh% | Osv% | CF% | NHL Rank | SCF% | Points | NHL Rank | |
| Rangers | 11 | 105 | 1 | 9.2 | 95.8 | 49.3 | 17 | 50.3 | 16 | 5 |
| Panthers | 11 | 104.2 | 2 | 8.4 | 95.8 | 48.7 | 22 | 49.5 | 12 | 17 |
| Habs | 13 | 103.6 | 3 | 9.4 | 94.2 | 52.5 | 7 | 48.8 | 22 | 1 |
For that point in the season the PDO numbers are a bit high, but not crazily so. Goalies go on great runs, and shooters have streaks where everything seems to go in. Also, the PDO numbers are mostly high because of the save percentages, and it shouldn't be a shock to see Lundqvist, Luongo and Price having great save percentages at even strength. The team shooting percentages are a little high (long-term averages are around 8%), so might come down, but might not (2 teams in the last 5 years have finished above 10% on the season (82 games) - TB in 2011-2012, and Anaheim in 2013-2014). In the same time period though, no team has finished with a save percentage above 94.0, so those numbers were always going to come down.
Since Nov 2, this is what the numbers look like for the same 3 teams:
| GP | PDO | NHL Rank | Osh% | Osv% | CF% | NHL Rank | SCF% | Points | NHL Rank | |
| Rangers | 10 | 109.8 | 1 | 13.5 | 96.4 | 44.9 | 28 | 40.7 | 18 | |
| Panthers | 10 | 98 | 24 | 6.5 | 91.6 | 45.9 | 26 | 42.3 | 8 | |
| Habs | 9 | 97.4 | 28 | 6 | 91.4 | 54.5 | 4 | 51.9 | 12 |
Notice anything interesting? You should expect some correcting of each team's PDO numbers, but to see the Rangers' set go WAY UP is pretty incredible. And this despite a pretty dramatic drop in possession (28th during the period) and scoring chances (dead last). Florida and Montreal saw both PDO metrics correct significantly, and while Florida was duly punished by getting only 8 points in their last 10 games, Montreal managed 12 in 9 thanks to their stellar possession and scoring chance generation. Montreal's save percentage struggled due to the loss of Price, but their shooting percentage tanked as well. What happened? Did they forget how to shoot accurately? Of course not - the law of averages just caught up with them.
This is what the numbers look like for each team today:
| GP | PDO | NHL Rank | Osh% | Osv% | CF% | NHL Rank | SCF% | Points | NHL Rank | |
| Rangers | 21 | 107.1 | 1 | 11 | 96.1 | 47.2 | 27 | 45.9 | 34 | 1 |
| Panthers | 21 | 101.2 | 5 | 7.5 | 93.6 | 47.3 | 26 | 46 | 20 | 21 |
| Habs | 22 | 101.1 | 6 | 8.1 | 93.1 | 53.3 | 6 | 50.1 | 34 | 3 |
Again, does anything stand out? The Rangers, despite having a bottom-5 CF% and the WORST scoring-chances differential in the league are first overall, while the Panthers, with almost identical stats, are out of the playoffs. I have to tell you that when I started crunching these numbers, I had no idea that I would end up with that - 2 teams will very similar analytics, but massively different perceptions, goal differential and points. It doesn't mean that the Rangers and Panthers are the same in terms of ability, as it's still early in the season, but it's pretty suggestive should the numbers continue this way.
Why do I say that? Well, history tells us that, barring a coaching change or massive personnel turnover, it's very hard to make big changes to your possession and scoring chance metrics over the course of a season. I should mention now, that the notion that some teams (always seems to be the ones with shitty underlying metrics - see Roy, Patrick) take better quality shots, so can still win long-term despite bad Corsi, is utter bullshit. It's for that argument that I included the scoring-chance numbers as well. Yes, I'm aware that certain buildings and teams compile them differently, but those differences all come out in the wash/over time. IF the quality-shot argument held up long-term, then you'd see teams with poor Corsi and good scoring chance differential - but you don't. I'll show you in a minute.
Lots of anti-corsi crusaders love to trumpet the old LA Kings argument to disprove Corsi and its utility. "How could Corsi matter if the team with the best Corsi doesn't even make the playoffs?!" Variance, my friends, variance. And I might counter with: 2012-13 Toronto, or 2013-14 Colorado - 2 teams that did really well for a season despite horrendous analytics, but then crash and burned the next year as reality set in.
Take the following table as evidence:
| Overall Record | |||||
| Since 2010-11 | CF% | Rank | SCF% | Rank | PDO |
| LA | 55.4 | 1 | 53.7 | 2 | 99.6 |
| CHI | 54.3 | 2 | 53.5 | 3 | 99.9 |
| BOS | 53.4 | 3 | 52.8 | 5 | 101.2 |
| DET | 53.3 | 4 | 53 | 4 | 100.3 |
| STL | 53.1 | 5 | 52.3 | 7 | 100 |
Those are the top 5 teams in the last 5+ years in terms of 5v5, SA Corsi. Next to that is their league rank in scoring chances %. Pretty close correlation, don't you think? Lastly, check the PDO over that time. Don't you think that a team with "better shooters" or a "better goalie" like those teams would be much better than the league average in terms of shooting percentage + save percentage? (Boston has Tuukka to thank for their "outlier PDO at 101.2). Let me remind you now that the Rangers through 21 games are currently at 107.1, and you tell me that it's sustainable. Also, it's worth mentioning that the last 5 Stanley Cups have all been won by the teams above.
Now the flip-side:
| Overall Record | |||||
| Since 2010-11 | CF% | Rank | SCF% | Rank | PDO |
| BUF | 44.4 | 30 | 44.5 | 30 | 99.9 |
| EDM | 45.6 | 29 | 45.5 | 29 | 99.2 |
| TOR | 45.8 | 28 | 46.2 | 28 | 100.6 |
| COL | 46.6 | 27 | 47.6 | 27 | 100.3 |
| CGY | 47 | 26 | 47.8 | 26 | 99.6 |
This is pretty self-explanatory. And CF% and SCF% ranking for this group correlate perfectly. Which group would you rather be in?
This is also a good chance to remind you that the Rangers' CF% through 21 games is 47.2. and their SCF% is 45.9. Still think they're awesome?
By now you still might be thinking: "The Rangers are so fast and dangerous though; nobody can contain them they're so good see how many points they have and look at their goal differential dumbass! Lundqvist can absolutely keep this up!" If you are, there's not much more I can say, but I'll try once more.
The Rangers are 100% guaranteed to regress. How much nobody knows, but if they don't, it would be so many magnitudes of probability beyond what we've seen that heads will explode. This is what I mean:
This is what this year's #1 and #2 teams in terms of PDO look like:
| Date | Team | PDO | Rank | Osh% | Osv% | CF% | Rank | SC% | Rank | SOS | Win % | GP |
| After Game 21 | NYR | 107.1 | 1 | 11.0 | 96.1 | 47.2 | 27 | 45.9 | 30 | 29 | 1 | 21 |
| After Game 21 | OTT | 103.0 | 2 | 9.2 | 93.8 | 46.1 | 29 | 48.4 | 27 | 25 | 7 | 21 |
SOS is Strength of Schedule per Sagarin. According to that, the Rangers are getting steamrolled analytically every night despite the 2nd-easiest schedule so far.
The Rangers are at 107.2. the NEXT closest team is Ottawa at 103.0 (reminder: the average is 100.0)
Last year this is what the leaders looked like after the same 21 games:
| 2014-2015 Season | Team | PDO | Rank | Osh% | Osv% | CF% | Rank | SC% | Rank | Win % | GP | Record | |
| After Game 21 | NSH | 103.0 | 1 | 9.0 | 94.1 | 54.2 | 4 | 58.5 | 1 | 5 | 21 | 14-5-2 | |
| After Game 21 | CGY | 103.0 | 2 | 10.6 | 92.4 | 43.6 | 28 | 42.6 | 29 | 11 | 21 | 12-7-2 | |
| After Game 21 | NYR | 101.5 | 5 | 9.5 | 92.0 | 48.9 | 21 | 49.1 | 18 | 19 | 21 | 9-8-4 |
I included the Rangers for context. Last year they were above average PDO-wise, but not off the charts like this year.
This is how they each finished the year:
| Team | PDO | Rank | Osh% | Osv% | CF% | Rank | SC% | Rank | SOS | Win % | GP | Record | |
| End Season | NSH | 101.1 | 5 | 8.2 | 92.9 | 53.1 | 8 | 54 | 3 | 3 | 6 | 82 | 47-25-10 |
| End Season | CGY | 101.2 | 4 | 8.9 | 92.3 | 44.3 | 28 | 44.7 | 27 | 22 | 16 | 82 | 45-30-7 |
| End Season | NYR | 101.7 | 1 | 8.9 | 92.8 | 50.6 | 18 | 50.6 | 19 | 16 | 1 | 82 | 53-22-7 |
Calgary was a good example of a team that was hugely sub-par, but got lucky as hell. How's that going for them so far this year? The traditionalists keep trying to figure out what's wrong with Calgary this year. Well I'm here to tell you: THEY'RE A SHITTY TEAM. And they were a shitty team last year too, but got lucky when it mattered. As I alluded to before - luck can cover up a lot of deficiencies, but eventually the law of averages takes over.
Note also in comparing the start of the season to the end, is that with the Rangers, their CF% and SCF% improved in the last 3/4 of the season, but not by THAT much. Which makes their current run even more worrying.
I've got charts like this for every season going back to 2010-11, and can share them with any of you, but I can tell you right now that they all say the same thing.
2 takeaways though - the HIGHEST PDO (apart from the current Rangers) that we've seen in the last decade or so after 21 games is from the Rangers in 2011-12, and that was at 103.8. They finished the season at 101.0, which means they played the last 75% of games at a PDO of about 100.
And in the last 7 years only 2 teams have finished an 82 game season with a PDO higher than 102.5, and only just. If the Rangers finish at 102.5, that means they will play the rest of the schedule with a PDO of a little under 101.
In conclusion: The Rangers have been historically lucky so far, and it won't last. Even if they start to play better than they have, history is not their friend. That doesn't mean they'll miss the playoffs - even I'm not suggesting that, what with the cushion they now have. But even if they were playing really well I'd say they're due for a big hit - but winter is coming for them, and I'll be cashing in when it does.
As always, arguments are welcome on both sides, and if you have no fucking idea what I'm talking about at all, let me know and I'll steer you to some much smarter dudes who know a ton more than me about this stuff.
