Player Discussion Dan Girardi: Part V

[Machinehead]

Corgi, man.

Click to read more...

 

[Raspewtin]

Sorry. Next time I'll make a formal thesis presentation in case you happen to be feeling argumentative when you come across my post.

....what?

 

[eco's bones]

I'm not the one complaining about how we win. To me--that we win and win consistently is the main thing. Being the best in terms of possession stats should certainly help a team to win but it doesn't always. If I have to choose between winning a game--any game or being the better possession team and losing the game---I'm going to choose winning the game every ****ing time. End of story and I don't think that should be a controversial POV--but for some apparently it is.

As far as the goal of winning the Stanley Cup---it's a step at a time process--I'm in complete agreement with AV about that and he says it over and over (as did Torts with his one game at a time mantra). Winning the President's trophy does not hurt a team--it can very much help the team. In the playoffs you're not going to win a cup if you don't win your division quarterfinals, semifinals or finals. Each is a step and a goal to attain for a team to have the chance to compete in the Stanley Cup finals for the ultimate goal which is the Stanley Cup. None of these steps can be dismissed if your team is going to accomplish that.

Anyway I've been following this team since the 1971-72 season and I can assure everyone here that I want very badly for the Rangers to win another Stanley Cup. Winning trumps the stats--doesn't matter what stats--winning is it's own justification. This team has been in the conversation for a sustained period of time. They only need to take one last step and arguably they'll be the best Rangers team in my lifetime --better than even the 93-94 Rangers.

 

[True Blue]

Anyway I've been following this team since the 1971-72 season and I can assure everyone here that I want very badly for the Rangers to win another Stanley Cup. Winning trumps the stats--doesn't matter what stats--winning is it's own justification. This team has been in the conversation for a sustained period of time.

No one that has know you here doubts that. Actually, I have a hard time thinking that any Ranger fan would think that any other Ranger fan would not have that as a goal.

They only need to take one last step and arguably they'll be the best Rangers team in my lifetime --better than even the 93-94 Rangers.

That is still a BIG step to take

 

[haveandare]

....what?

You say "everyone knows" my point that possession isn't quite as telling in a game where one team has a big lead practically the whole time, yet I read the same stuff after every game like that - how they were lucky to eek out a win despite their poor possession. Clearly everybody doesn't know it. Clearly, as you of all people are aware of, there are many posters here who don't put much weight into possession at all in any game for any reason.

It was my understanding that someone was stating that G had a bad night last night, as evidenced by his possession numbers. Apparently that was a misread or a misinterpretation. It happens. This is a sports message board. There are plenty of ways to point that out without taking a sour tone and presuming to dismiss my opinions on behalf of everyone.

 

[eco's bones]

No one that has know you here doubts that. Actually, I have a hard time thinking that any Ranger fan would think that any other Ranger fan would not have that as a goal.

That is still a BIG step to take

The early to mid 90's Rangers had some awesome talent but apart from 93-94 there was a bit of underachievement. The 92-93 Rangers for instance did not even make the playoffs. The 94-95 Rangers squeaked in. the closest that team came again was in 1996-97 and after that year it all fell apart.

If we're looking at the current team--the 11-12 team--one point shy of the President's trophy--made it to the final four in the playoffs getting knocked off by a Brodeur (last hurrah) led Devils team. The Rangers might have gone further if Gaborik hadn't been all banged up and we'd had a third pairing that our coach could trust.

The 12-13 team made the playoffs but underachieved. The 13-14 team goes to the Stanley Cup finals and the 14-15 team wins the President's trophy and makes it to the final four again despite missing Zuccarello and having a washed up MSL as their only scoring RW and inconsistent production from key players and a very badly injured D.

It might be the most consistently sustained stretch of winning hockey played by this team pretty much since it's inception. The only real blemish is it hasn't won it all. Despite not winning the cup it's pretty much teased its fans with the possibility that it's capable at least 3 of the last 4 years. They've won numerous playoff series--some against high quality opponents. You need your stars to lead. Henrik seems up to the task for that.

 

[Igor Shestyorkin]

Anyway I've been following this team since the 1971-72 season and I can assure everyone here that I want very badly for the Rangers to win another Stanley Cup. Winning trumps the stats--doesn't matter what stats--winning is it's own justification. This team has been in the conversation for a sustained period of time. They only need to take one last step and arguably they'll be the best Rangers team in my lifetime --better than even the 93-94 Rangers.

They have to win a cup before they are anywhere close to the 93-94 Rangers.

 

[TheRightWay]

I'm not the one complaining about how we win. To me--that we win and win consistently is the main thing. Being the best in terms of possession stats should certainly help a team to win but it doesn't always. If I have to choose between winning a game--any game or being the better possession team and losing the game---I'm going to choose winning the game every ****ing time. End of story and I don't think that should be a controversial POV--but for some apparently it is.

I don't really know to whom you are ranting here. In an 82 game season you're going to play like **** sometimes. Finding a way to win a game 5-2 when you're playing like crap is nothing to hate. The problem here isn't that, but rather that some people here seem to think NYR (and Girardi) actually played WELL last night. I'm not really concerned about last night's performance on the whole because NYR were coming off a long break and clearly didn't have their legs. It happens. It's possible to be happy with a win while also pointing out they were fortunate to grab it.

As far as the goal of winning the Stanley Cup---it's a step at a time process--I'm in complete agreement with AV about that and he says it over and over (as did Torts with his one game at a time mantra). Winning the President's trophy does not hurt a team--it can very much help the team. In the playoffs you're not going to win a cup if you don't win your division quarterfinals, semifinals or finals. Each is a step and a goal to attain for a team to have the chance to compete in the Stanley Cup finals for the ultimate goal which is the Stanley Cup. None of these steps can be dismissed if your team is going to accomplish that.

Okay, sure. Don't really know where anyone argued against this.

Anyway I've been following this team since the 1971-72 season and I can assure everyone here that I want very badly for the Rangers to win another Stanley Cup. Winning trumps the stats--doesn't matter what stats--winning is it's own justification. This team has been in the conversation for a sustained period of time. They only need to take one last step and arguably they'll be the best Rangers team in my lifetime --better than even the 93-94 Rangers.

Yes, and our point is that subbing Girardi with a legitimate first-pairing defenseman (along with a couple other tweaks) could very well be that last step.

 

[JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK]

Girardi has gotten progressively better as the season has went on. He's been very steady for us. Staal is the one I worry about.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

Girardi has gotten progressively better as the season has went on. He's been very steady for us. Staal is the one I worry about.

Staal started last season terribly as well, but got better as the season went on. Girardi's much more consistent with his game, his streaks or slumps, either really good or really bad, are usually only five to 10 games. Staal can go 30 or 40 games playing terribly and the next 30 to 40 he's very good. He's very inconsistent. I'd be a lot more worried about Staal if he doesn't get his game together by the end of the season.

 

[we want cup]

I don't really know to whom you are ranting here. In an 82 game season you're going to play like **** sometimes. Finding a way to win a game 5-2 when you're playing like crap is nothing to hate. The problem here isn't that, but rather that some people here seem to think NYR (and Girardi) actually played WELL last night. I'm not really concerned about last night's performance on the whole because NYR were coming off a long break and clearly didn't have their legs. It happens. It's possible to be happy with a win while also pointing out they were fortunate to grab it.

At what point does those stop being games we're "fortunate" to win? Given the insane number of games of that variety that we have won over the last 4 years or so, isn't it clear that that is just the kind of game that we are the best at winning?

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Staal started last season terribly as well, but got better as the season went on. Girardi's much more consistent with his game, his streaks or slumps, either really good or really bad, are usually only five to 10 games. Staal can go 30 or 40 games playing terribly and the next 30 to 40 he's very good. He's very inconsistent. I'd be a lot more worried about Staal if he doesn't get his game together by the end of the season.

I don't know I'm worried about a guy playing terribly for half of an NHL season too.

 

[TheRightWay]

At what point does those stop being games we're "fortunate" to win? Given the insane number of games of that variety that we have won over the last 4 years or so, isn't it clear that that is just the kind of game that we are the best at winning?

We've been over this dozens of times. Having the best goaltender of this generation can cover up a lot of weaknesses. It's proven "over the last 4 years or so" to not be enough to win the Stanley Cup.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

I don't know I'm worried about a guy playing terribly for half of an NHL season too.

Thats Marc Staal though.

When he's on his game, he's among the best shutdown defenseman in the NHL. When he's not playing like that, he usually doesn't play like an NHL player. He's just incredibly inconsistent.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Thats Marc Staal though.

When he's on his game, he's among the best shutdown defenseman in the NHL. When he's not playing like that, he usually doesn't play like an NHL player. He's just incredibly inconsistent.

Well, I don't think you pay a guy like that what we paid him. I hope Skjei replaces him soon enough.

 

[Tawnos]

We've been over this dozens of times. Having the best goaltender of this generation can cover up a lot of weaknesses. It's proven "over the last 4 years or so" to not be enough to win the Stanley Cup.

I really wouldn't include 11-12 in that statement. The first year of a team's contention is incredibly unlikely to result in a Stanley Cup.

I really think that people put too much emphasis on the makeup of the roster to win the Cup. No team in the NHL would win a Stanley Cup against every single opponent. It's obviously speculation, but if the Rangers were healthy enough to get to the Final last season and if Chicago beats LA in game 7 two years ago, I feel pretty confident we would have won the Cup in either or both of those seasons. I also don't think LA beats Boston if they got past Montreal and the Rangers in 2014. But put the 2014 Bruins up agains the 2014 Blackhawks and you end up with a repeat of 2013.

The fact that we don't have a Cup is, in my opinion, the result of an SCF matchup and a string of injuries. Not the result of roster issues.

 

[TheRightWay]

I really wouldn't include 11-12 in that statement. The first year of a team's contention is incredibly unlikely to result in a Stanley Cup.

Okay.

I really think that people put too much emphasis on the makeup of the roster to win the Cup. No team in the NHL would win a Stanley Cup against every single opponent. It's obviously speculation, but if the Rangers were healthy enough to get to the Final last season and if Chicago beats LA in game 7 two years ago, I feel pretty confident we would have won the Cup in either or both of those seasons. I also don't think LA beats Boston if they got past Montreal and the Rangers in 2014. But put the 2014 Bruins up agains the 2014 Blackhawks and you end up with a repeat of 2013.

The fact that we don't have a Cup is, in my opinion, the result of an SCF matchup and a string of injuries. Not the result of roster issues.

Couldn't one then equally conclude that deep runs the last few years wasn't due to a successful team build but rather ideal matchups? Maybe if Boston finishes above Pittsburgh last season NYR don't even make it out of the first round! NOBODY KNOWS!!!

Here are two very basic facts:

1. Possession teams usually win the Stanley Cup.
2. Dan Girardi is not a good possession player.

Basically everything else that has been thrown in this thread has been conjecture.

 

[eco's bones]

Okay.



Couldn't one then equally conclude that deep runs the last few years wasn't due to a successful team build but rather ideal matchups? Maybe if Boston finishes above Pittsburgh last season NYR don't even make it out of the first round! NOBODY KNOWS!!!

Here are two very basic facts:

1. Possession teams usually win the Stanley Cup.
2. Dan Girardi is not a good possession player.

Basically everything else that has been thrown in this thread has been conjecture.

Here's another thing you might look at. When the Blackhawks win the Cup--Keith, Kane and Toews lead the way. When the Kings win the Cup you get great performances from Kopitar, Carter, Doughty, Gaborik. When the Bruins won the Cup Chara was a monster and Bergeron and Krejci were outstanding.

Those respective teams best players all stood out. Which brings us to the Rangers--Lundqvist has been great but then there is Rick Nash who does not stand out. He's missing more often than not.

 

[Tawnos]

Okay.



Couldn't one then equally conclude that deep runs the last few years wasn't due to a successful team build but rather ideal matchups? Maybe if Boston finishes above Pittsburgh last season NYR don't even make it out of the first round! NOBODY KNOWS!!!

Here are two very basic facts:

1. Possession teams usually win the Stanley Cup.
2. Dan Girardi is not a good possession player.

Basically everything else that has been thrown in this thread has been conjecture.

Of course it is. So is the idea that we could replace a hugely important cog on the team with someone with better possession abilities and have it result in a Cup, without accounting for what that cog means to the team in any other aspect. The constant search for objective meaning or proof in this regard is, in my opinion, misguided. There's a story involved that gets ignored.

We had a possession team in 2014. We didn't win. The answer lies elsewhere for this team.

 

[Filthy Dangles]

The Rangers aren't and have never been a good possession team. Over the past 6 seasons, the best possession season was a mere 51.4% Corsi team.

Then, one could argue, "Yeah, that's because Dan Girardi eats up like half the ice time...."

Girardi's off-ice Corsi over the past 6 seasons.

2014: 53.18
2015: 51.43
2010: 51.25
2013: 50.80
2011: 50.26
2012: 47.36

Still, with the exception of 2014 season, barely a or just a mere even possession team without Girardi on the ice. And, this is after Girardi has tooken care of the matchups and top possession players.

Every cup winning team has a top4D that is used like Girardi and sees their relative corsi suffer like Girardi's.

But, most cup winning teams are really good possession teams in general, which the Rangers certainly are not. So, their raw Corsi numbers aren't bad like G's despite having similar relative numbers.

The best comparable to the Rangers is that 09 Pitt team who were a bad possession team and Hal Gill, their #2/3 defenseman was a 47% CF player on that cup winning team.

Girardi certainly can do better for himself from a possession standpoint but his numbers looks worse because the Rangers are an average-bad possession team in general. And, Girardi's only concern is to stop goals against in the short term at the expense of conceding shot attempts against. This piles up and accumulates to make his numbers even more inflated. He doesn't play the game like most defensemen.

 

[True Blue]

It might be the most consistently sustained stretch of winning hockey played by this team pretty much since it's inception. The only real blemish is it hasn't won it all. Despite not winning the cup it's pretty much teased its fans with the possibility that it's capable at least 3 of the last 4 years. They've won numerous playoff series--some against high quality opponents. You need your stars to lead. Henrik seems up to the task for that.

I am not disagreeing with your assessment. But that is a big blemish when you want to consider who is the "best". Which is pretty sad when you think about it. One of the best eras of hockey that we have had, and no big ring. We are in the minority of sports franchises that can say that.

 

[Machinehead]

The Rangers aren't and have never been a good possession team. Over the past 6 seasons, the best possession season was a mere 51.4% Corsi team.

Then, one could argue, "Yeah, that's because Dan Girardi eats up like half the ice time...."

Girardi's off-ice Corsi over the past 6 seasons.

2014: 53.18
2015: 51.43
2010: 51.25
2013: 50.80
2011: 50.26
2012: 47.36

Still, with the exception of 2014 season, barely a or just a mere even possession team without Girardi on the ice. And, this is after Girardi has tooken care of the matchups and top possession players.

Every cup winning team has a top4D that is used like Girardi and sees their relative corsi suffer like Girardi's.

But, most cup winning teams are really good possession teams in general, which the Rangers certainly are not. So, their raw Corsi numbers aren't bad like G's despite having similar relative numbers.

The best comparable to the Rangers is that 09 Pitt team who were a bad possession team and Hal Gill, their #2/3 defenseman was a 47% CF player on that cup winning team.

Girardi certainly can do better for himself from a possession standpoint but his numbers looks worse because the Rangers are an average-bad possession team in general. And, Girardi's only concern is to stop goals against in the short term at the expense of conceding shot attempts against. This piles up and accumulates to make his numbers even more inflated. He doesn't play the game like most defensemen.

Who on the Blackhawks and the Kings has similar rel corsi to Girardi?

 

[Filthy Dangles]

Oduya was just a 50% possession player on this 2015 team that won the cup making him a -4.47 Relative possession player. Similar to Girardi, but not 45-46% raw possession because Hawks >> Rangers at puck possession.

Seabrook and Hammer were negative relative Corsi players on all 3 cup winning teams. Not by much but still by -2+ on the first two runs.

Robyn Regeher was a -4.00+ relative possession player while eating up 33% of the Kings total 5v5 ice time on that cup winning team. Think about that and how similar to Girardi it is.

The Kings iced someone for 1/3rd of their total ES ice time, despite that player getting 4% less of the shot attempts relative to his team, while he was out there. One third of their total ice time. Why would they do that? And, they still found a way to win the cup.

 

[Tawnos]

The thing you have to remember about 13-14 is that the full season numbers include the early part of the year. IIRC, the Rangers were top 5 or 6 from December 1 on.

31 posted some good stuff about that.

 

[Filthy Dangles]

The thing you have to remember about 13-14 is that the full season numbers include the early part of the year. IIRC, the Rangers were top 5 or 6 from December 1 on.

31 posted some good stuff about that.

7th


http://war-on-ice.com/teamtable.htm...14&splitseasons=0&usedaterange=1&tablegroup=1

5th in Shot Attempts created per 60, or CF60, though.