Dan Girardi: Part II (All Girardi Talk here pls)

[Machinehead]

Fancystat nerds insist he's trash.

Can't speak for other posters but Girardi has drastically failed my eye test for several seasons now. The #fancystats only agree with what I already thought.

Click to read more...

 

[The Gloaming]

Can't speak for other posters but Girardi has drastically failed my eye test for several seasons now. The #fancystats only agree with what I already thought.

But...but... WARRIOR!! SHOT BLOCKS!

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

Can't speak for other posters but Girardi has drastically failed my eye test for several seasons now. The #fancystats only agree with what I already thought.

Ok but what grade did you get on the Girardi eye test? Are you a poor test taker? Need to know before passing judgement.

K thx.

 

[Machinehead]

Ok but what grade did you get on the Girardi eye test? Are you a poor test taker? Need to know before passing judgement.

K thx.

Girardi is getting the grade. He gets a C.

I would gladly take his physical presence and shot blocking on my 3rd pair and PK. I wouldn't give him a role any bigger than that. He wouldn't be allowed to watch our PP, let alone play on it.

Outside of hitting and blocking, he's literally not good at anything. Him getting 1st pair minutes is a huge, huge reason why our goaltenders have consistently been in shooting galleries since 2007. And nobody here shouldn't need stats to tell them we get phenomenal goaltending and require phenomenal goaltending to keep teams off the board. It's pretty damn obvious if you "watch the games bro".

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

But...but... WARRIOR!! SHOT BLOCKS!

Ah yes, you see the pissing on Girardi narrative only works when you actually criticize something he's actually bad at... like catalyzing offensive breakouts or being more careful with the puck.

Guess you missed the memo on that cause this post is just downright silly. D- sarcasm at best, imo... considering you tried to shed a negative light to things he actually excels at... which is battling through seemingly every injury to stay in the lineup and sacrificing his body to block shots.

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

Girardi is getting the grade. He gets a C.

I would gladly take his physical presence and shot blocking on my 3rd pair and PK. I wouldn't give him a role any bigger than that. He wouldn't be allowed to watch our PP, let alone play on it.

Outside of hitting and blocking, he's literally not good at anything. Him getting 1st pair minutes is a huge, huge reason why our goaltenders have consistently been in shooting galleries since 2007. And nobody here should need stats to tell them we get phenomenal goaltending and require phenomenal goaltending to keep teams off the board. It's pretty damn obvious if you "watch the games bro".

I think we need to call in the judges on this one. Did we find delegates on this board who are impartial and have a standardized eye test along with answer key to apply to his playing or have we not stumbled across those posters yet?

 

[Machinehead]

I think we need to call in the judges on this one. Did we find delegates on this board who are impartial and have a standardized eye test along with answer key to apply to his playing or have we not stumbled across those posters yet?

There is no standardized way of observing a player, or else everyone would agree. You're allowed to disagree with me. And thereby disagree with every stat under the sun, but I digress...

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

There is no standardized way of observing a player, or else everyone would agree. You're allowed to disagree with me. And thereby disagree with every stat under the sun, but I digress...

I think we've arrived at 50% of the conclusion that i'm getting at... which is the "eye-test" argument is a flawed because it is, for lack of a better term, an opinion that varies from person to person and therefore highly subjective.

The other 50% of the conclusion is that statistics are highly capable of being manipulated to fit any person's argument/opinion, and as such, aren't necessarily the most accurate or conclusive forms of sealing off an argument.

So pretty much what we're left with is the undeniable fact that we have a good, not great, defense, that has led us to 9 playoff runs, out of a possible 10, under Girardi's tenure and his part in this defense, which is to play (and have played) top 2 defender minutes throughout these 10 years. At which point you wonder why people harp on hating on Girardi as much as they do rather than enjoying our defensive play collectively good hockey (for the most part).

 

[Machinehead]

The stats aren't being manipulated. Girardi gets more shots attempted against him than any other Rangers defenseman over the past several years and any other first pairing D-man over the last several years. That's a fact just like "the sky is blue" is a fact. You can choose to interpret those stats to fit your argument, but the facts are the facts.

 

[Raspewtin]

There is no possible way to manipulate possession stats to make Girardi look good. None.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

So pretty much what we're left with is the undeniable fact that we have a good, not great, defense, that has led us to 9 playoff runs, out of a possible 10, under Girardi's tenure and his part in this defense, which is to play (and have played) top 2 defender minutes throughout these 10 years. At which point you wonder why people harp on hating on Girardi as much as they do rather than enjoying our defensive play collectively good hockey (for the most part).

Good job of using advanced facts.

 

[Tawnos]

There is no standardized way of observing a player, or else everyone would agree. You're allowed to disagree with me. And thereby disagree with every stat under the sun, but I digress...

Then maybe we should rethink using the word "literally" like you did a few posts back.

 

[Raspewtin]

So pretty much what we're left with is the undeniable fact that we have a good, not great, defense, that has led us to 9 playoff runs, out of a possible 10, under Girardi's tenure and his part in this defense, which is to play (and have played) top 2 defender minutes throughout these 10 years. At which point you wonder why people harp on hating on Girardi as much as they do rather than enjoying our defensive play collectively good hockey (for the most part).

I very much attribute this team's post lockout success to the goalies, and not the defense.

Our defense is overrated and has been for years imo.

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

The stats aren't being manipulated. Girardi gets more shots attempted against him than any other Rangers defenseman over the past several years and any other first pairing D-man over the last several years. That's a fact just like "the sky is blue" is a fact. You can choose to interpret those stats to fit your argument, but the facts are the facts.

Stats are absolutely part of the equation. To suggest that stats can't be used to obtain an answer is naive. They help a lot.

But they are easily manipulated. I.e. you have an opinion, you find a statistic that fits that opinion, viola you have "evidence".

So many statistics comprise a player's value. Much more so than the mere few that people throw around here to prove a point.

Appraisals are holistic. Stats are a tool that can help you get to an answer. They aren't the answer.

 

[Raspewtin]

Stats are absolutely part of the equation. To suggest that stats can't be used to obtain an answer is naive. They help a lot.

But they are easily manipulated. I.e. you have an opinion, you find a statistic that fits that opinion, viola you have "evidence".

They fit a popular narrative - not evidence

They don't fit a popular narrative - not evidence

Which is it?

 

[TheDirtyH]

They fit a popular narrative - not evidence

They don't fit a popular narrative - not evidence

Which is it?

To be fair, that isn't what he was saying. It's more like, stats can prove or assist in proving that Girardi is not great at generating or maintaining possession. Not that he's a bad defensemen, if you believe there is more to being a defensemen than that. No need to eliminate nuance.

 

[Raspewtin]

To be fair, that isn't what he was saying. It's more like, stats can prove or assist in proving that Girardi is not great at generating or maintaining possession. Not that he's a bad defensemen, if you believe there is more to being a defensemen than that. No need to eliminate nuance.

His implication that "backing up an opinion with stats" isn't evidence is ridiculous.

My eyetest tells me Girardi sucks. Stats back it up. But for some reason I'm not using context, watching the games, or whatever other copout when an unpopular opinion is brought up.

 

[Machinehead]

Then maybe we should rethink using the word "literally" like you did a few posts back.

What are his strengths outside of blocking and hitting?

Stats are absolutely part of the equation. To suggest that stats can't be used to obtain an answer is naive. They help a lot.

But they are easily manipulated. I.e. you have an opinion, you find a statistic that fits that opinion, viola you have "evidence".

So many statistics comprise a player's value. Much more so than the mere few that people throw around here to prove a point.

Appraisals are holistic. Stats are a tool that can help you get to an answer. They aren't the answer.

Find an individual stat (not the Rangers success or team GA/G) which supports Dan Girardi being a 1st pairing defenseman.

 

[Tawnos]

What are his strengths outside of blocking and hitting?

Positioning, reading plays, stick work, communication, leadership.

 

[Raspewtin]

I'd say Girardi's neutral zone positioning is his absolute worst quality.

 

[Tawnos]

I'd say Girardi's neutral zone positioning is his absolute worst quality.

His neutral zone positioning is fine. If he was a better skater, he would have a closer gap, for sure. He doesn't have one on purpose and he relies on reading what's coming at him and reacting properly to break it up. He does it extremely well. It's a matter of him recognizing a deficiency in his game and compensating for it.

Gap control is not the only element of neutral zone positioning.

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

They fit a popular narrative - not evidence

They don't fit a popular narrative - not evidence

Which is it?

This is why I hate getting into arguments with you. You twist what I say. If you can refrain from arguing how you normally argue then I am more than happy to oblige and continue.

I should say, when used properly, stats help get an answer.

#1 - I don't even think top NHL analysts have figured out how to use NHL analytics entirely properly... just yet. That's why so many teams haven't adopted analytics in this sport yet and it is not because statistical analysis isn't important. They just haven't figured out how the stats relate to player appraisal and team building. So to pretend like anyone on this board has a good grasp of what some stats say is incredibly arrogant considering there are some trying to revolutionize how the sport is thought and haven't been able to bring consistent answers/results yet.

#2 - My point there was to say that when looked at a broad spectrum and when we completely understand how to use those statistics/what is an appropriate amount and combination of statistics to investigate... that's when we should be able to use it as "evidence". Now, posters constantly use a combination of say 3 statistics together to "prove a point". That's not proving a point. That's manipulating statistics to fit your opinion.

You handing me 3 ****ing statistics does nothing for me besides point to the fact that Girardi has weaknesses for SOME reason in those 3 areas. Doesn't tell me the reason. And it's so limited it's not proving much of a point.

 

[Loff]

edit

 

[Kwayry]

Can we summarize this thread this way. Some people hate Girardi because he is not a good puck mover, some others appreciate other parts of his game. Nobody has convinced anybody, They are just talking past each other at this point.

 

[NYR]

OK..I'm gonna say this and don't really give a rats a** about whatever ridiculous response this might get but anyone who thinks that Girardi is not an elite shut down D-man in this league has absolutely no clue about hockey or how the game is played...Period!

If he were to miss any significant amount of time for whatever reason, this teams D would be in big trouble. Stick your stats up your a**!!

PS..This post wouldn't be as hostile sounding if people weren't constantly being attacked over having their own opinion as per usual..