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

[Doctyl]

That isn't what that point is. That point is coaching decisions + respect for the coach + wins. It isn't that the coach is infallible. It's that AV has earned the respect of some of us. It's that the decisions he's made have led to two highly successful seasons in terms of wins (although still missing that ultimate success).

This is no logical fallacy. It's a legitimate viewpoint.

K. Tanner Glass is a good hockey player.

 

[Tawnos]

K. Tanner Glass is a good hockey player.

Yeah. If you want my views on Glass, you should look at the Glass threads, although I may not have participated in a while. Suffice it to say that I think I understand what AV sees his value as.

 

[Doctyl]

Yeah. If you want my views on Glass, you should look at the Glass threads, although I may not have participated in a while. Suffice it to say that I think I understand what AV sees his value as.

He has no value. He is the worst player in the NHL. But yea coach knows more than a nerd. Coach is respect. Much respect. Much right.

 

[Filthy Dangles]

Coaching infallibility is the best arguments you guys can come up with? Yikes

What about having the best GF% of any top-4 defenseman on the NYR in 3 of the last 4 playoff seasons (11/12-14-15) despite an attrocious corsi percetage? Nope, thats because of strong forward core, lundy, pdo, unsustainable Sh%....

Dan Girardi can't raise his game in the playoffs and prevent goals like a #2D? Girardi is this supposed ******* non-NHL defeseman stuck in a #2 role, yet the Rangers don't even score one more goal out of 100 total goals than the opposition while he was off the ice during this time.

 

[Tawnos]

He has no value. He is the worst player in the NHL. But yea coach knows more than a nerd. Coach is respect. Much respect. Much right.

And this is why I haven't participated in those threads in a while.

At least this one has some interesting back and forth.

 

[Doctyl]

What about having the best GF% of any top-4 defenseman on the NYR in 3 of the last 4 playoff seasons (11/12-14-15) despite an attrocious corsi percetage? Nope, thats because of strong forward core, lundy, pdo, unsustainable Sh%....

Dan Girardi can't raise his game in the playoffs and prevent goals like a #2D? Girardi is this supposed ******* non-NHL defeseman stuck in a #2 role, yet the Rangers don't even score one more goal out of 100 total goals than the opposition while he was off the ice during this time.

So you think Girardi has some Crosby like effect on his teammates?

Also for the record
2014-2015 worst GF% of NYR top 4 dmen
2013-2014 2nd worst GF% of NYR top 4 dman
2013 worst GF% of NYR top 4 dmen
2011-2012 2nd worst GF% of NYR top 4 dmen
2010-2011 worst GF% of NYR top 4 dmen
2009-2010 2nd worst GF% of NYR top 4 dmen

2009-2015 worst GF% of any NYR dman to play 1000 minutes over this whole span

If youre going to come with a **** argument like that at least make sure you have your facts straight instead of making things up

 

[Filthy Dangles]

So you think Girardi has some Crosby like effect on his teammates?

Also for the record
2014-2015 worst GF% of NYR top 4 dmen
2013-2014 2nd worst GF% of NYR top 4 dman
2013 worst GF% of NYR top 4 dmen
2011-2012 2nd worst GF% of NYR top 4 dmen
2010-2011 worst GF% of NYR top 4 dmen
2009-2010 2nd worst GF% of NYR top 4 dmen

2009-2015 worst GF% of any NYR dman to play 1000 minutes over this whole span

If youre going to come with a **** argument like that at least make sure you have your facts straight instead of making things up

Read more carefully, I made nothing up. You're talking reg season, I am talking playoffs. In 3 of the last 4 playoff seasons, Dan Girardi had the best GF% of an top4D on NYR. And, once again, during that time the Rangers didn't even get 1 more goal out of 100 total goals than their opponents while he was off the ice.

The only D this year who had a better GF% than DG was KY, who was essentially used as a forward.

Yes, if you look at the much larger sample size like regular seasons over his career, DG is negative in both corsi and goals, but I can show you alot of guys who are used like him who are, guys who people on this board would laugh at the mere comparison to Girardi because 'player' >>>>> girardi AINEC because they can skate better and move the puck a bit better.

 

[Doctyl]

Read more carefully, I made nothing up. You're talking reg season, I am talking playoffs. In 3 of the last 4 playoff seasons, Dan Girardi had the best GF% of an top4D.

The only D this year who had a better GF% than DG was KY, who was essentially used as a forward.

Oh we're going with the ~20 game sample sizes? k

 

[Raspewtin]

The advanced stat I'd be interested in seeing is the one that shows me how many posts where you are NOT sarcastic.

Everybody understands and respects that you can do the math.

The tone does get a bit boorish though.

It has a lot more to do with the fact that I have no ****ing idea what these people think of the thought process behind these, as if everybody just shoves their thumb up their ass and goes on war on ice going "DURRR DURR CF% = BEST PLAYER!". As if we had no idea Girardi faces top competition and it might be something out of his control hurting his numbers. Like I needed to be reminded that there are other Rangers skaters on the ice, well, no ****. Do you think nobody thought of that? Do you think telling us Girardi's conditions are unfavorable and isn't just totally inconsequential is some super breakthrough that nobody thought of? (By you, I don't mean you lol). It's just aggravating.

Read more carefully, I made nothing up. You're talking reg season, I am talking playoffs. In 3 of the last 4 playoff seasons, Dan Girardi had the best GF% of an top4D on NYR. And, once again, during that time the Rangers didn't even get 1 more goal out of 100 total goals than their opponents while he was off the ice.

The only D this year who had a better GF% than DG was KY, who was essentially used as a forward.

Yes, if you look at the much larger sample size like regular seasons over his career, DG is negative in both corsi and goals, but I can show you alot of guys who are used like him who are, guys who people on this board would laugh at the mere comparison to Girardi because 'player' >>>>> girardi AINEC because they can skate better and move the puck a bit better.

This is still a really ****** sample size. Not only is it like 50 games with an extreme amount of variance between players from other teams, the playoffs in themselves are unreliable to draw conclusions.

 

[Doctyl]

Do you think telling us Girardi's conditions are unfavorable are just totally inconsequential is some super breakthrough that nobody thought of?

yes. also did you look at blocked shots and hits?

 

[Filthy Dangles]

Oh we're going with the ~20 game sample sizes? k

Yep. Analyzing defenseman performance in a playoff run by talking about the ratio of goals for their team vs the other team, and it can be repeated in 3 of the past 4 playoff runs. But, sample size.......

I understand prior GF% won't predict future GF%, and CF% would probably do a better job in this regard, but IMO, DG in both stats and eye test has passed with the exception of his attrocious 2014 playoff run and especially SCF, the biggest series of his career.

 

[Filthy Dangles]

This is still a really ****** sample size. Not only is it like 50 games with an extreme amount of variance between players from other teams, the playoffs in themselves are unreliable to draw conclusions.

It is, and it's not going to predict his future GF%, his CF% will most likely do a better job. But there's no denying the fact that in 3 of the last 4 playoff runs, he had the best GF% of NYRtop4D and that the Rangers didn't even score 1 more goal than their opponents while he was off the ice.

I don't think its ludicrous to suggest DG, being an #2D and 'shutdown D' can raise his game in the playoffs and get more goals than the other team, instead of yielding to the more typical argument of 'luck'.

 

[Raspewtin]

It is, and it's not going to predict his future GF%, his CF% will most likely do a better job. But there's no denying the fact that in 3 of the last 4 playoff runs, he had the best GF% of NYRtop4D and that the Rangers didn't score 1 more goal than their opponents while he was off the ice.

Well, okay then!

 

[Tawnos]

Sample size is important for predictive value. It doesn't matter for evaluating performance. Maybe Girardi would have slid back into his norm for the regular season. Maybe not. Sustainability really isn't the point 100Gs was making. What he's saying is that this is what actually happened.

 

[Filthy Dangles]

Sample size is important for predictive value. It doesn't matter for evaluating performance. Maybe Girardi would have slid back into his norm for the regular season. Maybe not. Sustainability really isn't the point 100Gs was making. What he's saying is that this is what actually happened.

Rick Nash and Derick Brassard in 56 and 54 games respectively, are only ~51% puck possessors but better than 60% goal getters. I think some also might be hinting Girardi might be benefitting from this, but still, it's not like the other top4D don't spend time with these guys.

Also, his GF% correlates a little better to his CF% if you look at the full span of his playoff career.

2007-2015 101GP
CF%: 46.38
GF%: 49.64

So, he still pretty much gets half of the goals for his team while only getting 46 of the shot attempts, per 100.

 

[SA16]

Rick Nash and Derick Brassard in 56 and 54 games respectively, are only ~51% puck possessors but better than 60% goal getters. I think some also might be hinting Girardi might be benefitting from this, but still, it's not like the other top4D don't spend time with these guys.

Also, his GF% correlates a little better to his CF% if you look at the span of his career.

07-15 101GP
CF%: 46.38
GF%: 49.64

So, he still almost gets half of the goals while only getting 46 of the shot attempts, per 100.

One thing you really need to know is what the baseline should be. It's not necessarily the case that >50 is good and <50 is bad. It's possible given opponent quality, teammates quality, ice time etc..that the breakeven point for that player is say...48 so in reality a 49 CF% could be a good thing in relative terms. Don't think it's possible to calculate this though but just blindly saying anyone under 50 is below average is not really correct.

 

[Filthy Dangles]

One thing you really need to know is what the baseline should be. It's not necessarily the case that >50 is good and <50 is bad. It's possible given opponent quality, teammates quality, ice time etc..that the breakeven point for that player is say...48 so in reality a 49 CF% could be a good thing in relative terms. Don't think it's possible to calculate this though but just blindly saying anyone under 50 is below average is not really correct.

I wasn't trying to show anything other than DG's CF% might not correlate to his GF% as well as other players over a longer span. When you consider quality, competition, ice time etc, thats more for providing context of the numbers. We know DG plays hard minutes. For how one performed relative to his team with him off the ice, there are actual relative metrics, but again these don't account for what you were speaking of. They just tell you how the team performed with him on the ice vs off the ice. Examples...

GFRel%: -1.62
CFRel%: -2.76

These mean, respectively, the Rangers got 1.62 more goals out of 100 total goals when DG was off the ice vs when he was on the ice; and the Rangers got 2.76 more shot attempts per 100 total shot attempts when he was off versus on the ice.

For a guy who plays almost a pure shutdown role and who won't be put on the ice for offensive situations (when goals are scored), these numbers are not terrible, but they're not neccesarrily great either.

 

[SA16]

Sorry I just meant in general. Not really related to what you were saying. In either case though when a guy is so far extreme like Girardi is it's an issue.

 

[haveandare]

He has no value. He is the worst player in the NHL. But yea coach knows more than a nerd. Coach is respect. Much respect. Much right.

Are you implying that a top NHL coach actually doesn't know more about NHL player evaluation than you do?

 

[Doctyl]

Are you implying that a top NHL coach actually doesn't know more about NHL player evaluation than you do?

yes.

 

[haveandare]

yes.

By all means, get a coaching job. If you're better than av you're wasting your time with this.

 

[Doctyl]

By all means, get a coaching job. If you're better than av you're wasting your time with this.

pls am not srs.

Although I was trying to point more at how no coach is infallible and that they all play favorites. Glass over Sheppard being a pretty good example of playing a far inferior player over another.

 

[Raspewtin]

By all means, get a coaching job. If you're better than av you're wasting your time with this.

Man did you really bite that obvious sarcasm?

 

[haveandare]

Man did you really bite that obvious sarcasm?

Did you just do the same?

Sometimes you really can't tell who thinks they're the worlds greatest gift to hockey analysis around here with all the self righteous sass that gets spouted around. Though I did realize that particular poster was being tounge in cheek there.

 

[Raspewtin]

Did you just do the same?

Sometimes you really can't tell who thinks they're the worlds greatest gift to hockey analysis around here with all the self righteous sass that gets spouted around. Though I did realize that particular poster was being tounge in cheek there.

..................oh.