New York Rangers: An all access analysis on analytics and more

Teaming up with some of the best in the business to talk analytics and more.

In this installment of State of the Rangers, I team up with Ian Fleming, Josh Khalfin, and Nick Mercadante to discuss some analytical New York Rangers topics. They are some of the brightest minds out there, and it is definitely worth reading their works.

Because of how in-depth these questions get, I am actually going to let them have the floor completely. While I consider myself analytics-savvy, these three are experts in the field. Give it a read!

Question #1: What would you say to the average fan who wants to get into analytics, but finds themselves intimidated by terms such as Corsi, Fenwick, etc? What are some good intro tools?

Ian Fleming:

A great, new resource for beginners is MetaHockey (@metahockey,) run by Prashanth Iyer and Mike Gallimore. They’re aggregating a list of the most influential articles online for hockey analysis, and you can’t go wrong giving their site a visit.

There, you can find a nice primer written by Dave Shapiro, who Rangers fans may already be familiar with. In book form, Rob Vollman’s “Stat Shot” and “Hockey Abstract” lines may be a less-daunting way of taking in the basics.

Josh Khalfin:

This is a funny question at this time for the analytics community.

With so many sites going down I find myself going back to where I first started getting into analytics with Rob Vollman’s website. Analytics are tough to get into at first and part of that, in my opinion, is because we need a better way to bridge the gap in explaining that the stats are just recordings of what happens on the ice. If Corsi and Fenwick are too much to start I think a real good intro would be Goals For %.

Why? At the very basis of hockey only one thing matters and that is goals, from my experience most people who have not delved into analytics usually use stats like +/- in their evaluations. Goals For% provides a more in depth way to look at that kind of stat.

We can then begin to make the bridge to what relative stats mean by GF%REL. I get Direct Messages on twitter a lot in an intro to analytics and I usually start with explaining Goals For due to this reason.

To me, it just seems way easier to explain and then we can get deeper into what Corsi/Fenwick mean.

I also think people may be intimidated by many stat names, hard for someone to understand or at least try to analyze something like WAR or other single metric stats without a nice foundation.

Nick Mercadante:

You like hockey, right? You like feeling smart, yea? Great! You’re qualified to do the unthinkable: learn math that is applicable to your hobby and learn more about your hobby through math.

Take the time to read explainer articles, and then relate them to what you actually see out on the ice. Digest a little at a time. Not all at once. Sip. Don’t gulp. Other consumption metaphors.

Easiest way to explain good statistical digestion: read an article, then reflect on what it means in your own words. If Fenwick is defined as all shot unblocked shot attempts that’s easy enough. If it’s value is defined as something along the lines of “because it is better at predicting goals than other measures, like past goals,” you start getting heartburn. Slow down and reread the explanation behind that. And the statistical evidence presented. Then read that again. Then try to put it in your own words that you might use to explain it to someone else in 30 seconds. As if you’re now the teacher.

If you follow that method of critical thinking, and take your time, you will be able to teach yourself without getting overwhelmed. And you’ll find that the next time you go back for more, you’ll have created your own foundational understanding. That’s all you need to get started.

Question #2: The Rangers swapped out Dan Girardi and in Kevin Shattenkirk. How much of an impact do you believe that will have on the roster as a whole? Will we see possession numbers improve across the board?

Ian Fleming:

Short answer: it’s complicated. The Rangers essentially “robbed Peter to pay Paul” by upgrading the defense at the cost of current Center quality.

The immediate benefit should, in theory, be that the days of over-relying on forwards to exit the defensive zone with possession are numbered. Better exits should lead to better neutral zone play which should lead to better offensive zone entries, with the end product being an increased share of shots.

This is all dependent upon Alain Vigneault learning to trust his defensemen as puck-movers, employing a system that can utilize them to the team’s advantage, and deploying them correctly in high-leverage situations.

Josh Khalfin:

I think it has a pretty significant impact for a variety of reasons. People can make the argument that Shattenkirk doesn’t exactly play against top lines all the time but in recent years, it’s not like Girardi was great at it either so even at the very least I expect to see improvements not only to McDonaghs play possession wise but to other forwards as well.

Getting more players like Shattenkirk and even DeAngelo who can move the puck up can really work with the Rangers rush attack and their willingness to generate big time scoring chances. We can also expect the powerplay as a whole to get better. Rangers have been missing not only a PPQB but also a Right handed PPQB.

Shattenkirk not only fills these holes but is probably top 5 in the league in this specific area, just look at his consistent production over the last few years. Due to this, I expect players that are usually the “bumpers” on the Power play such as Pavel Buchnevich to be getting a massive point increase.

When creative guys have the ability to distribute the puck to one of the best power play players we will see way more chances. Also, Given how the 2nd pair of Skjei/Smith played in the playoffs I think we now have a top 4 that may not necessarily have to play a lot but the coaching staff can now spread the ice time and that can pay dividends in the long run.

Nick Mercadante:

Big impact on the D depth. You can’t give first pair minutes to a bottom pair (or worse) contributor and expect it to go smashingly. It hasn’t. I’m glad that Gorton took some of AV’s broken toys away. AV loved his Girardi action figure. But it was clearly a choking hazard. It couldn’t even stand up straight. All it would do is fall over and get in the way.

No really, Girardi was a trooper for the team for a long time. His best seasons seem like eons ago. It was time to move on. Even without the upgrade to Shattenkirk it was addition by subtraction.

I don’t buy the “Shattenkirk is the new Yandle” angle. First of all, if he was that wouldn’t be so bad. But he is a more complete player and I think his ability to cover ice like a true #1 D will take a lot of pressure off of McD. It will be fun to watch those two play off of one another on the flow of AV’s vertical stretching offense. I anticipate that the tempo will tilt very heavily in the Rangers’ favor when those two are clicking.

Meanwhile, Skjei’s time is right now. There is little he can’t already do physically, and the gaps will fill in with experience. By season’s end this team could have 3 top D that would be the envy of nearly any team in the league.

Will possession improve across the board? Probably. We have enough data to know that Girardi was an absolute possession anchor when we use shot attempts as a proxy for possession. I would expect that by removing those minutes and replacing them with someone more adept with the puck on his stick, possession should improve at least some. But hockey is a 4 line game and there’s a lot that goes into team possession beyond just one guy or one line in a vacuum.

Related Story: The NHL doesn't get it

Question #3: Kevin Hayes and J.T. Miller’s possession numbers were poor last season, but to the naked eye they looked impressive until late in the season. What would you attribute that to? What do you make of their seasons, and how much confidence do you have in them moving forward?

Ian Fleming:

So this is a bit of a layered question that deserves a layered response. The first point that needs to be addressed is the dissonance between looking impressive to the eye and a lagging share of shots. I think one good way of looking at it is to break down the rather nondescript term “possession” into descriptive and predictive components. Corsi is the standard right now as a possession metric, but it’s outperformed by Expected Goals when we’re looking for a statistic to describe goals in games which have already occurred. Current Corsi, though, still outpaces the field when it comes to predicting goals in future games.

So what am I getting at here? Well, while Hayes and Miller struggled all season with CF%, they actually thrived early for the first half(ish) portion of the year in xGF%. xGF% described what we were seeing with our eyes, while CF% was predicting their eventual downfall. They often played an uptempo style of hockey which led to fast breaks and high-quality one-and-done chances, but it came at the cost of being outshot. It works great when you’re scoring, but if the well dries up even a little, you’re left with what we saw late in the year.

It’s really difficult to say where these two are going to end up. They’re both gifted with the individual skill necessary to succeed at a high level in this league, but they’ve both been so up-and-down that I don’t feel incredibly confident in making a prediction one way or the other.

Josh Khalfin:

This is a really interesting question, it is something that I have been thinking about for a while and honestly, I think each case is different. Is it possible that Kevin Hayes is simply aging? Some work done has shown the peak of a hockey player is around his age so maybe it is a possibility.

Another thing I wonder is how in previous seasons where Kevin Hayes was a pretty good possession player and producer he actually received negative press from media and the coaching staff. Now in arguably his worst season in this regard he has received more praise than ever, he is in for a tough season if he is the 2C but I think the best move would be to split him and Miller.

For Miller, it is clear that he needs to shoot way more to balance out his shot %. Even though the Rangers seem to be a team that consistently looks for the high danger chances which can contribute to the higher shooting% Miller’s success in this regard will likely decline soon. Whether it be this year or later only time will tell (see Klein).

I think the best thing in both cases would be to add another possession driving player. This will allow the first line to be the KZB line which dominated early on last year. The 2nd line to have Hayes being essentially cushioned by Rick Nash or Mats Zuccarello or both which can help his possession stats. Hayes has some serious skill we have seen him show it time and time again so perhaps playing with these two players can benefit him.

One reason I have been on the Tyler Bozak train is because he really can help drive shots, suppressing them is a problem but Bozak can likely be a good player to pair with Miller and Vesey on the third line. If not Bozak the Rangers should look for another shot generating center that doesn’t need to be as sheltered as Desharnais was.

In regards to confidence, I am not emotionally attached to either of them but they are still a nice young asset for the Rangers to either become serious core players or likely generate trade interest around the league.

The Rangers must put them in a position to succeed and that starts with separating both of them and insulating them with shot drivers that can put their on ice skills to good use.

Nick Mercadante:

The Rangers have been upside down in this department for a long time. I tend to think that neither are going to drive possession if we are talking in terms of winning the shot attempt battle. Neither plays a major role in the defensive zone breakout other than to receive the higher head man passes or occasionally facilitate the short chip to the higher head man moving with speed. They’re both long, and AV seems to like them to get free more than touch the puck in phone booth situations. When others on their lines aren’t A: capable of dislodging or creating turnovers (think McD, Smith, Stepan), or B: capable of making phone booth plays to move the puck through congestion (think Zucc), each will be part of shifts that are stuck on repeat in their own zone.

Does it mean they aren’t capable players? No. I think each has a great skill set. Unique even. But they probably need better line mates to help free them up a bit. I don’t know that this Rangers team has enough of those guys on offense and they may have just created a bigger hole with Stepan. That said, the D is going to be much better at preventing the Rangers from getting hemmed into those 2 minute spin cycles in their own zone they’ve been so fond of for the past…uh…10 years.

Hayes in particular is a player who is meant to play with really high skill linemates. He is an absolute menace with the puck on his stick. A physical freak with soft hands and incredible knack for creating space. Joe Thornton Light. I would love to see what he can do with Zucc if it ever comes to pass.

Question #4: Although the backup goalie position is not the greatest concern, how do you feel about Ondrej Pavelec? Should fans be worried about him? Confident?

Ian Fleming:

I feel good about Ondrej Pavelec. If you follow my ramblings on Twitter, you may have noticed at one time or another that I’ve been outspoken on Pavelec (maybe too much so) and how he’s been misportrayed as a bad goaltender. Goaltending is, unfortunately, still much in its analytical infancy, and most metrics that we rely on to evaluate goaltenders need to be viewed through a lens of context.

When we look at Pavelec’s save percentages over the years, they just aren’t very good, and it can be difficult to put raw numbers like those past your mind. Contextually, though, when we look to Expected Goals, he consistently outperforms what would be expected from a league average goaltender.

Winnipeg hung him out to dry over and over and over again, he did what he could under the circumstances, and caught the wrath of fans and the media for it. If he continues to outperform Expected Goals with a better team in front of him, I don’t think anyone will mind what we see from him this year.

Josh Khalfin:

I am not incredibly worried about Pavelec, I am just interested in the situation. I am not a goalie expert but Pavelec looks like he has skill to be a good goalie he just hasn’t put it all together. There’s not a better person to help reform his game than Benoit Allaire.

The key thing is that Pavelec DOES have the skill to succeed, he has shown that he can string together some good games and perhaps the Rangers goaltending staff can help that become more consistent. I was just intrigued that the Rangers signed him in the first hour of free agent to a 1.3 million dollar deal when he could’ve likely been had later in the summer for cheaper. Who knows maybe the Rangers are trying to get his agent to owe them something 😉

What I like is that the Rangers got themselves a serious 3rd string goalie who is nibbling at the heels. Georgiev has been one of the best goalies in the Finnish Elite League at such a young age and he can likely be called up to help if necessary.

That and goalies commonly go on waivers can be an option for the Rangers. The Ottawa Senators may bury Andrew Hammond once again at some point this season with them re-signing Condon so if the timing is right I can see us potentially claiming him.

Nick Mercadante:

I feel good! Pavs (yes, I call him Pavs…we go way back) is better than people give him credit for. Check the (good) stats these past few seasons at Ian Fleming’s site Dispelling Voodoo. It isn’t smoke and mirrors. He has made significant improvements to his game. Plays much more on control.

That said, he will always be prone to head-scratching decisions because you can’t fully neuter a goalie as aggressive as he is. He will never be the most consistent. But if he can steal games. If Hank is healthy Hank and looks more like second-half of last season Hank (knock on wood), Pavs can spell him in short stints. That’s ideal for a game-stealing aggressive mind-set type like him.

And even when he is bad, he’s entertaining as all heck. So there’s that!

Question #5: Who is a Ranger you feel is undervalued? Over-appreciated? Anyone stand out in the NHL as a whole as over-appreciated or undervalued by the average opinion?

Ian Fleming:

Undervalued? Probably Derek Step… oh yeah. In all seriousness, despite a lot more fans coming around on him, it’s Chris Kreider. He is an elite play-driver in the NHL. His skating is a nightmare for opponents, forcing them to back off and play more conservatively at their own blue line; his strength makes him difficult to knock off the puck; and his perceived weaknesses, defensive zone play and shooting, have improved immensely over the last few years. He’s become an irreplaceable part of the team.

On the flip side, I think Oscar Lindb… oh yeah. I’m not sure that there is anyone who is necessarily over-appreciated, but I think that we, as fans, need to be careful with our expectations of Brady Skjei.

That’s not to say that he isn’t or can’t be very good, but his points output far outstripped the inputs that usually go a long way toward creating on-ice situations where points are there to be had. I have a lot of hope for Skjei’s potential, but I think he could be due for a slide in point production, even if he improves as a player this year.

Around the league, it’s tough to pick a place to start. Carolina’s Elias Lindholm is a young player who is better than advertised, P.A. Parenteau is perennially under-rated, and Jonathan Marchessault deserves to be more of a household name.

Josh Khalfin:

I think one of the most underappreciated Rangers at the moment is Chris Kreider. He gets a lot of flack for his post season play this year, or being inconsistent, but he has been consistently a possession beast. He scores for the Rangers at a contract that is pretty cheap for what he does.

If playoff play is a huge concern for some I wonder why they forget about all of his timely goals in other playoff years. I simply think people are being unfair to him as he is no longer on that under 2.5 million dollar deal. I’ve even seen some people say he hasn’t worked hard enough or doesn’t have heart. I personally can’t imagine anyone saying that about an athlete, let alone someone who consistently comes into camp in great shape.

If we dig deeper and look at stats I suggest looking at every person who has developed a single all encompassing stat like WAR. Every different person who makes a stat has a list of rating the top forwards and defensemen for it and Kreider routinely ranks at the top forward portion for each. Either he is really good or they’re valuing something that doesn’t matter. The latter is unlikely as these analysts try to pick the stats that have the best correlation with winning games and scoring goals.

I think Jimmy Vesey is a little bit overrated but it’s not necessarily his fault. It’s more so the people who may put him above Pavel Buchnevich on the Rangers’ depth chart. Buchnevich is younger and more talented in my opinion but Vesey’s situation has given him a leg up according to some.

A player that doesn’t get enough recognition around the league are the truly talented defensive/two-way players. I absolutely adore guys like Chris Tanev and Nino Neiderreiter.

Nick Mercadante:

Mats Zuccarello is somehow still undervalued. He is a singular talent who makes everyone he plays with instantly better in nearly every way.

I think it is safe to say that any 4th liner that, by well-reasoned and evidenced analysis, should be a 4th liner on most teams is over-appreciated. Whether on the Rangers or elsewhere. 4th liners are by and large replaceable talent. Pay your irreplaceable stars a boatload. Fill in the gaps with smart contracts targeting undervalued players that give your team a better chance to score goals and/or prevent goals from being scored. The rest should be young players needing experience on ELCs or 1 year “show me” contracts. The 10 year vet career 4th liner isn’t so good in the room that he deserves to be a millionaire.

Next: State of Rangers hockey

This is the pros. Talent wins. If he isn’t talented enough to help score or not get scored on, there are plenty of beer league teams looking for good guys that can play a little.

Home/Analysis