Obviously it's the results that matter, but I think there's some encouraging signs that suggest that the Rangers might be operating a more sustainable success model this year under Laviolette early on.
It's been pretty eye-opening to see how basically changing the coach has had such an impact on some underlying stats for the team.
For instance, the Corsi For % (which basically measures how many shots are being generated by the team, as a percentage of all the shots being generated) is now at 59.49%...which ranks them 2nd in the league per Natural Stat Trick
If you look at the Expected Goal %, which takes into account the likelihood of scoring (so factors in where they're shooting from, rebounds etc) is a measure of quality of shot, puts them at 62.9%, or first in the league. In fact it's 3.3 higher than the Kings who are 2nd.
Small sample sizes for sure, and the quality of the teams they've played are ranked 22nd, 26th and 28th in GF% respectively (though also impacted by the Rangers success too).
Encouraging signs though, and are ~10% better on CF% than under Gallant, and ~8% better on the GF%
Only one advanced stat matters to me: # of wins. 🙂Â
Only one advanced stat matters to me: # of wins. 🙂Â
Only stat that matters to me is 16
Â
If they need me to bleed, then I'll bleed for my team
Hey y'all...you redecorated and changed the locks since last I was here!
Anyway, love them or hate them, no team can afford to ignore analytics in this day and age. Glad they're looking to improve on that now that Gallant is gone.Â
At best, these stats may help tease out variables from past events. Relying on them to predict future performance is foolish, IMO. Â There is no analytic measuring lost opportunities from blindly following the metrics.Â