??

He's being carried by Kreider and the underlying numbers show that. Kreider has always made whoever he plays with better. Panarin is the same. So, while he's not as bad as some claim, he's nothing more than a middle 6 C on a really talented offensive team. Also, his xGF% right now is over 14. That is not even funny. 14.21, it's nearly double that of Mika Zibanejad (NST for those looking to fight me on this)

kreider has made many centers great (Mika, Chytil, Stepan, etc.) however strome is a great complementing piece to anyone like lindgren is to fox. good by himself but great to anyone else

Lol! Kreider whom at last years trade deadline just about every Rangers hater claimed wasn't worth a 1st round pick. How about Strome's first season with the Rangers when he didn't play with Panarin and Kreider? What do your numbers say about that?

1st season with the Rangers Strome was garbage.

Kreider had a down year, he's one of the best play drivers around. He's a very good player and he's always made whoever he's played with better, going back to the days of Brassard or Stepan.

Strome's first season with the Rangers he had 18 Goals is only 63 games centering the third line behind Zibanejad and Hayes on the center depth chart. How could you claim he was garbage his first year with the Rangers when your "precious", (LOTR) numbers clearly state otherwise?

Kreider actually didn’t have a down year last season. It was his best goals per game of his career.. he was on pace for 31 in 82 games. I really don’t get why he gets all the hate. His contract is same $ value as many out there that do less. Sure he will be 34/35 at the end of it but Pavelski is killing it at the age of 36.. some guys can play till they are 40-45... Chara...obviously there’s a much longer list of guys but this is an example. In 6 years when the cap is over 90M there won’t be a discussion about his contract..

He was still the worst ranger in terms of xGA/60, GA%, and in xG%. He was NOT good.

I'm speaking from an analytical perspective, where he very did have a down year. His normal defensive stability wasn't there, and he was acting like a turnstile in his own zone. I don't know is that is due to injuries or something, but it wasn't Kreider being himself

It was a contract year so maybe he was more focused on production than D. He was top 2 in the league for breakaways if my memory serves me right so maybe he pinched a bit more than he normally would

Strome was great! Watched him play just about every game. Your numbers are inaccurate or are an anomaly and clearly do not define Strome, especially visually in real time.

Perhaps, or it might just be that the Rangers as a team don't really have a great defensive defenseman.

Yes, the numbers are wrong. Not your opinion, the numbers and the stats are wrong.

I’m sure it’s both. But if his numbers are better this year then I don’t think I’d put as much weight in the D. Are guys are still maturing and we don’t have an absolute defensive juggernaut on the team. Just some “season and tweak” for the kids on the blue line. I guess when they all are a bit better as a group it could show more

Strome only had like 9 assists on Panarin goals last year. 7 of them were the first assist meaning he set Panarin up.. it’s numbers like this that others never see and automatically jump to bread made him good. Meanwhile he scored at a lower rate with Panarin than he did without Panarin.

Thank you for proving my point! Strome is not a product of Panarin (or Kreider) like so many Rangers haters on this site incorrectly state.

The first half of last season the Rangers were still a work in progress and like the season before, were still allowing the most shots on goal per game. Give Quinn's coaching credit for turning it around the second half of last season and qualifying for the play in round.

Last season was a tale of two seasons. Which completely distorts your analitics and makes it completely invalid when applied to the Rangers. Analitics should be used secondary to go more in depth, but not used to distort reality like you're using them to do.

You made a post about this?
Perhaps should be in Rangers forum

Fox, Lindgren, Miller, and Trouba, have been great defensively this year. Which is why the he Rangers defense has been so much better this season. Rangers defense is on the way to being one of the better defenses in the league.

When you make a comment like this you're in essence admitting defeat. Truth hurts don't it... Admit you and all the other Rangers haters on this site were wrong about Strome. As well as all the Devil and Icelanders fans on the Rangers forums as well.

BAHAHAHA

Trouba is a pylon defensively, Fox's defense ain't great, but it's better than Trouba's. Lindgren is relatively meh in both zones, a good complimentary piece though. Miller has only played what 25 games? Let's wait and see there bud.

The analytics I'm using (this time from Evolving-Hockey) allow a 3 year sample size so that blips in seasons don't distort it. Guess what? Strome is still nothing more than a middle 6 C. Kreider is even better than I rememeber, and Buchnevich might be the most underrated player on the rangers, but Strome is still very meh

You're completely wrong about Fox, Lindgren, and Miller, not being good defensively. And Trouba is the good well rounded D-man the Rangers have been looking for for many years. I admit Trouba got off to a slow start, but has since played great defensively and is an absolute physical force. Unlike a pylon, you better not skate with you head down with the puck past Trouba! But let's just wait and see...

In the meantime, you and all the Rangers haters were completely wrong about Strome. And as time will prove you and the numbers you use to distort reality are completely wrong about Fox, Lindgren, Miller, and Trouba.

Honestly... I have no opinion on you, Ryan Strome or anything in this post.
Not something I have ever thought about.
Find another strawman.

The Rangers three years ago to today are like night and day. Using a three year sample size to define the Rangers is a complete manipulation of reality.