Dan Girardi: Part III

[Megustaelhockey]

Continue from: http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1865897

Click to read more...

 

[Machinehead]

Rangers defensemen turnovers per 60 minutes played

Ryan McDonagh - 2.70
Keith Yandle - 2.60
Dan Girardi - 2.37
Kevin Klein - 1.98
Marc Staal - 1.59
Dan Boyle - 1.35

Just a friendly reminder re: some of the stuff being brought up in part 2.

 

[DanielBrassard]

Rangers defensemen turnovers per 60 minutes played

Ryan McDonagh - 2.70
Keith Yandle - 2.60
Dan Girardi - 2.37
Kevin Klein - 1.98
Marc Staal - 1.59
Dan Boyle - 1.35

Just a friendly reminder re: some of the stuff being brought up in part 2.

Turnover/touch would be better than /60 but still pretty staggering

 

[KingDeathMetal]

Rangers defensemen turnovers per 60 minutes played

Ryan McDonagh - 2.70
Keith Yandle - 2.60
Dan Girardi - 2.37
Kevin Klein - 1.98
Marc Staal - 1.59
Dan Boyle - 1.35

Just a friendly reminder re: some of the stuff being brought up in part 2.

If you look at turnover +/- per 60 mins, Dan Boyle has a better rating than Drew Doughty, Jake Muzzin, Brent Seabrook, Victor Hedman, and is barely below Anton Stralman. The guys who are paid to move the puck tend to turn it over in high volume, it seems, but I really don't know what to make of turnover stats unless there is something I'm missing that you can clue me in to. The context of the turnover is what should really matter.

And of course, this is 100% eye test here, but when I watch Dan Boyle play, I see a guy turning the puck over at the blueline during PPs, someone who can't battle along the boards and retrieve the puck, whose speed is vastly diminished, and a guy who gets worse as the game wears on. Other teams try and match their best scorers against him constantly, with pretty good success. I just don't see his value. Yandle I'll defend all day...

 

[DanielBrassard]

If you look at turnover +/- per 60 mins, Dan Boyle has a better rating than Drew Doughty, Jake Muzzin, Brent Seabrook, Victor Hedman, and is barely below Anton Stralman. The guys who are paid to move the puck tend to turn it over in high volume, it seems, but I really don't know what to make of turnover stats unless there is something I'm missing that you can clue me in to. The context of the turnover is what should really matter.

And of course, this is 100% eye test here, but when I watch Dan Boyle play, I see a guy turning the puck over at the blueline during PPs, someone who can't battle along the boards and retrieve the puck, whose speed is vastly diminished, and a guy who gets worse as the game wears on. Other teams try and match their best scorers against him constantly, with pretty good success. I just don't see his value. Yandle I'll defend all day...

I dont know how you can say that when he had the best GA/60 and CF% out of all of our defenseman

 

[Machinehead]

If you look at turnover +/- per 60 mins, Dan Boyle has a better rating than Drew Doughty, Jake Muzzin, Brent Seabrook, Victor Hedman, and is barely below Anton Stralman. The guys who are paid to move the puck tend to turn it over in high volume, it seems, but I really don't know what to make of turnover stats unless there is something I'm missing that you can clue me in to. The context of the turnover is what should really matter.

And of course, this is 100% eye test here, but when I watch Dan Boyle play, I see a guy turning the puck over at the blueline during PPs, someone who can't battle along the boards and retrieve the puck, whose speed is vastly diminished, and a guy who gets worse as the game wears on. Other teams try and match their best scorers against him constantly, with pretty good success. I just don't see his value. Yandle I'll defend all day...

The context of turnovers is significant, this is true.

My point is you can't sit there and tell me Boyle turns the puck over too much when he cearly doesn't.

Boyle had the best GF% CF% SCF% and HDSCF% out of our D-men, so "pretty good success" is just not the truth.

The only possible criticism of Boyle is his usage. He's succeeded with flying colors at his role. Any argument to the contrary is baseless.

 

[KingDeathMetal]

I dont know how you can say that when he had the best GA/60 and CF% out of all of our defenseman

Our other CF% leaders were John Moore, Matt Hunwick, and Keith Yandle.

In terms of GA/60, relative to his teammates, Boyle still leads...followed by Staal, Hunwick, Klein, Yandle. Does that mean McDonagh and Girardi were our two worst? To me, there's just a huge disconnect here. So for some perspective on this, let's take a look at the LA Kings.

Brayden McNabb and Robyn Regehr lead among Kings D-men in GA/60, followed by Alec Martinez. Broken down by GA/60 RelTM, same deal. Doughty and Muzzin are 4th and 5th best in both categories.

For the Blackhawks, Duncan Keith and Brent Seabrook are near the bottom in GA/60 and GA/60 RelTM.

CF RelTM does put those guys at the top of their respective teams' D-corps, but you're talking about ENTIRE D-Corps of players with CF% above 50. The Rangers leaders in CF RelTm are Boyle, Hunwick, and Yandle, again. Does anybody believe those are our top 3?

I think these numbers are more valuable as team stats, rather than individuals, but maybe I'm alone on that. Like you guys, I watch the Rangers for 82+playoffs every year, and when I watch Boyle, I don't see a defenseman who is worthy of more than 17 mins per game. I see a guy who does generate attempts, but misses the net a ton considering his relatively low SOG totals, and who is constantly beat to the puck.

At the risk of sounding like a "dinosaur", he fails my eye test big time. But hey, people tell me the same eye test stuff about Yandle, who I defend because I see the value in what he brings.

 

[KingDeathMetal]

The context of turnovers is significant, this is true.

My point is you can't sit there and tell me Boyle turns the puck over too much when he cearly doesn't.

Boyle had the best GF% CF% SCF% and HDSCF% out of our D-men, so "pretty good success" is just not the truth.

The only possible criticism of Boyle is his usage. He's succeeded with flying colors at his role. Any argument to the contrary is baseless.

I'll agree with you on the usage. At the end of the day, he had 8 goals in 65 games, pretty good for a d-man especially in this era. Much of my criticism of him revolves around things we can't measure, like BAD turnovers. I think he could have been a lot more effective on the PP, whereas I see Yandle as the guy who immediately improved us in that dept. when he was acquired. Even when we didn't score, you could tell Yandle was in control at the point. I'm scared when Boyle is back there, and dumb as it sounds, I think Girardi should get more PP minutes. He has a good shot (according to Hank, hardest shot on the team), and his GF% on the limited PP time he saw was pretty good.

I'll say this: my 62 year old Dad, who is the biggest eye-test "F the advanced stats!" old guy in the world, thinks Boyle passes his eye test big time. So maybe I need to borrow my dad's eyes? haha

 

[Doctyl]

Rangers defensemen turnovers per 60 minutes played

Ryan McDonagh - 2.70
Keith Yandle - 2.60
Dan Girardi - 2.37
Kevin Klein - 1.98
Marc Staal - 1.59
Dan Boyle - 1.35

Just a friendly reminder re: some of the stuff being brought up in part 2.

You have to have the puck in order to turn it over

 

[DanielBrassard]

Our other CF% leaders were John Moore, Matt Hunwick, and Keith Yandle.

In terms of GA/60, relative to his teammates, Boyle still leads...followed by Staal, Hunwick, Klein, Yandle. Does that mean McDonagh and Girardi were our two worst? To me, there's just a huge disconnect here. So for some perspective on this, let's take a look at the LA Kings.

Brayden McNabb and Robyn Regehr lead among Kings D-men in GA/60, followed by Alec Martinez. Broken down by GA/60 RelTM, same deal. Doughty and Muzzin are 4th and 5th best in both categories.

For the Blackhawks, Duncan Keith and Brent Seabrook are near the bottom in GA/60 and GA/60 RelTM.

CF RelTM does put those guys at the top of their respective teams' D-corps, but you're talking about ENTIRE D-Corps of players with CF% above 50. The Rangers leaders in CF RelTm are Boyle, Hunwick, and Yandle, again. Does anybody believe those are our top 3?

I think these numbers are more valuable as team stats, rather than individuals, but maybe I'm alone on that. Like you guys, I watch the Rangers for 82+playoffs every year, and when I watch Boyle, I don't see a defenseman who is worthy of more than 17 mins per game. I see a guy who does generate attempts, but misses the net a ton considering his relatively low SOG totals, and who is constantly beat to the puck.

At the risk of sounding like a "dinosaur", he fails my eye test big time. But hey, people tell me the same eye test stuff about Yandle, who I defend because I see the value in what he brings.

Your first couple of paragraphs are a different argument. You said that the other team was successful when DB was on the ice, which wasn't the case.

 

[Raspewtin]

Our other CF% leaders were John Moore, Matt Hunwick, and Keith Yandle.

And there's nobody that thinks those three are our best defenders.

In terms of GA/60, relative to his teammates, Boyle still leads...followed by Staal, Hunwick, Klein, Yandle. Does that mean McDonagh and Girardi were our two worst? To me, there's just a huge disconnect here. So for some perspective on this, let's take a look at the LA Kings.

Brayden McNabb and Robyn Regehr lead among Kings D-men in GA/60, followed by Alec Martinez. Broken down by GA/60 RelTM, same deal. Doughty and Muzzin are 4th and 5th best in both categories.

For the Blackhawks, Duncan Keith and Brent Seabrook are near the bottom in GA/60 and GA/60 RelTM.

CF RelTM does put those guys at the top of their respective teams' D-corps, but you're talking about ENTIRE D-Corps of players with CF% above 50. The Rangers leaders in CF RelTm are Boyle, Hunwick, and Yandle, again. Does anybody believe those are our top 3?

No but nobody actually just looks at raw corsi numbers, without considering anything else, and comes to conclusions.

Nobody actually sits here and says "hm, John Moore's CF% was higher than McDonaghs. John Moore is secretly a norris candidate!"

I think these numbers are more valuable as team stats, rather than individuals, but maybe I'm alone on that. Like you guys, I watch the Rangers for 82+playoffs every year, and when I watch Boyle, I don't see a defenseman who is worthy of more than 17 mins per game. I see a guy who does generate attempts, but misses the net a ton considering his relatively low SOG totals, and who is constantly beat to the puck.

Didn't you just say in that other thread that using them to judge teams is lazy?

 

[Machinehead]

Nobody looks at raw CF% or GF% and makes a deduction. When it's all of them, that's a different animal.

Dan Boyle lead our D in pretty much every imaginable category.

 

[KingDeathMetal]

And there's nobody that thinks those three are our best defenders.



No but nobody actually just looks at raw corsi numbers, without considering anything else, and comes to conclusions.

Nobody actually sits here and says "hm, John Moore's CF% was higher than McDonaghs. John Moore is secretly a norris candidate!"



Didn't you just say in that other thread that using them to judge teams is lazy?

Right, but I was only presented with the CF% and GA/60 as to why Boyle was good (until other posters jumped in). And like I've said previously, these aren't situational stats, there's no real control for costly errors or puck retrieval, unless there is and I haven't seen it.

I did say that judging teams based on Corsi/Fenwick ALONE was lazy. I didn't say they weren't valuable stats, they definitely are...and more-so for teams. We were discussing whether or not these limited, imperfect possession stats condemn the Rangers D, and in my opinion, boiling a team down to Corsi/Fenwick is lazy. Especially when there are a mountain of video breakdown and analytical tools that are being used across the game that the public doesn't have access to. Advanced passing stats are just starting to creep out, actual possession time per zone seems to be on the horizon...and we're on Corsi/Fenwick like it's painting anywhere close to a clear picture? It's nice, but it's not enough, and while everybody readily admits that "it's just the best we've got"...observational analysis from people who (like you) watch and have played a crap ton of hockey and know the game pretty well often gets dismissed because "it's not Corsi...and that's the best we've got."

So in the case of Dan Boyle, I'm not going to forget about all the deficiencies I see in his game on a week to week basis because we have like, a corner worth of pieces of the advanced stats puzzle that tells me Boyle is a Giraffe when I'm pretty sure he's a ******* Llama. And until we have better stats, there is a huge chunk of Boyle's game where the eye test is "the best we've got."

 

[KingDeathMetal]

Your first couple of paragraphs are a different argument. You said that the other team was successful when DB was on the ice, which wasn't the case.

You brought up GA/60, so I stuck with that.

My only argument against Boyle is that despite some good offensive work (I do defend his offensive stats - they weren't bad at all and I think that's where the advanced stats do him justice because they are better at measuring offense than the nuances of defense, IMO), he is the obvious weak link when it comes to being outskated and outworked by the opposition. Teams with all the video review and stats at their disposal know this. Mike Babcock is the biggest proponent of analytics out there - the dude hired some kid out fresh out of college to run numbers for him, so you know he's as progressive as they come on the topic of advanced stats. I wonder who he matched Zetterberg and his top offensive line against during regular season meetings? I would bet my life it was Dan Boyle's pairing. Jon Cooper and staff are absolutely on the cutting edge of analytics, and Tampa had the Triplets against him at every opportunity.

Oddly enough, I didn't think he was bad against Tampa in that series. He was atrocious against the Caps.

I respect your opinions here, but this might be one where we agree to disagree lol.

Crap, what is this, a Girardi thread? How did Boyle hijack it? Er, my fault. I think my original point was that instead of Danny B. stepping up and taking minutes from Danny G., we use Hunwick more instead.

 

[eco's bones]

You brought up GA/60, so I stuck with that.

My only argument against Boyle is that despite some good offensive work (I do defend his offensive stats - they weren't bad at all and I think that's where the advanced stats do him justice because they are better at measuring offense than the nuances of defense, IMO), he is the obvious weak link when it comes to being outskated and outworked by the opposition. Teams with all the video review and stats at their disposal know this. Mike Babcock is the biggest proponent of analytics out there - the dude hired some kid out fresh out of college to run numbers for him, so you know he's as progressive as they come on the topic of advanced stats. I wonder who he matched Zetterberg and his top offensive line against during regular season meetings? I would bet my life it was Dan Boyle's pairing. Jon Cooper and staff are absolutely on the cutting edge of analytics, and Tampa had the Triplets against him at every opportunity.

Oddly enough, I didn't think he was bad against Tampa in that series. He was atrocious against the Caps.

I respect your opinions here, but this might be one where we agree to disagree lol.

Crap, what is this, a Girardi thread? How did Boyle hijack it? Er, my fault. I think my original point was that instead of Danny B. stepping up and taking minutes from Danny G., we use Hunwick more instead.

This thread has got to where it's got (over 2000 posts now) because some people want to hammer home the idea that Girardi sucks--that the Rangers should have kept Stralman (which is hardly controversial--most everybody agrees on that though how exactly was going to be accomplished is subject to some disagreement) but now that he's gone Boyle should get much more ice time and Girardi much less--and for some that Girardi should be moved to the bottom pairing--even better than that traded. There may even be a few that think Girardi's not even NHL worthy. Anyway the notion is that Girardi should not be getting 25 minutes of ice time a night. Some even seem to think Boyle should be getting it instead and not withstanding whether or not Boyle even has enough gas left in the tank at 39 years old to be able to physically handle that or not.

The entire thread pretty much coming down to bickering over whether or not Girardi is a good player or not. What I find particularly hilarious is the notion that Renney, Tortorella (who is usually demeaned in some way) and Vigneault don't know better. Apparently they don't pore over the advance stats after every game and they even seem to have all managed to fail the eye test. However successful the team has been under the three is something to be dismissed. That Vigneault continues to play Tanner Glass ('the worst player in the NHL'--I could find about 50 even worse players) is used to support the idea that AV doesn't know what the **** he's doing.

 

[silverfish]

Player usage.

Boyle absolutely dominated his minutes, but his minutes were crazy easy. Every NHL defender should be able to dominate those minutes.

inb4Girardiwouldn't

 

[Bluenote13]

I'll agree with you on the usage. At the end of the day, he had 8 goals in 65 games, pretty good for a d-man especially in this era.

Not alot of timely goals. 3 were PP goals, all early on in the season. And the rest were in games the Rangers scored 4 to 6 goals on average minus two games early on that were 3-0(win) and 3-4(loss).

This is not good for a guy brought in to work the PP. Even when Klein went out, Boyles numbers were pretty lackluster, something like 4 points(2 in one game). 1PP point in his last 44 regular season games. And his shots on goal decreased alot at the end of the season. Defensively he was about even when Klein went down.

 

[True Blue]

Not alot of timely goals. 3 were PP goals, all early on in the season. And the rest were in games the Rangers scored 4 to 6 goals on average minus two games early on that were 3-0(win) and 3-4(loss).

This is not good for a guy brought in to work the PP. Even when Klein went out, Boyles numbers were pretty lackluster, something like 4 points(2 in one game). 1PP point in his last 44 regular season games. And his shots on goal decreased alot at the end of the season. Defensively he was about even when Klein went down.

I think that this is coming down to beauty being in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Filthy Dangles]

From 06-07 reg season till now.

DG 282 GV in 11084 TOI in 651GP
DB 334 GV in 10760 TOI in 614GP

Over that span, DB saw usage more akin to a top4D, 54% ZS compared to just 62% ZS. DG is the more conservative player, he'll dump the puck off the boards lots of times. Boyle is the more high risk high reward player.

And, as someone said, if these stats were relative to touches in the defensive zone, I think the stats would be much more in favor of Girardi. Girardi plays against the best players in the league (literally, confirmed by QoC stats, and to Girardi naysayers we know, he isnt deserving of that) and has had to handle the puck under pressure in his own end exponentially greater times than Boyle did, this past year.

 

[Raspewtin]

From 06-07 reg season till now.

DG 282 GV in 11084 TOI in 651GP
DB 334 GV in 10760 TOI in 614GP

Over that span, DB saw usage more akin to a top4D, 54% ZS compared to just 62% ZS. DG is the more conservative player, he'll dump the puck off the boards lots of times. Boyle is the more high risk high reward player.

And, as someone said, if these stats were relative to touches in the defensive zone, I think the stats would be much more in favor of Girardi. Girardi plays against the best players in the league (literally, confirmed by QoC stats, and to Girardi naysayers we know, he isnt deserving of that) and has had to handle the puck under pressure in his own end exponentially greater times than Boyle did, this past year.

Does it mean anything that Boyle's usage was much different before this year and his results were still similar?

 

[Tawnos]

Does it mean anything that Boyle's usage was much different before this year and his results were still similar?

Not particularly, since Boyle is a player with diminishing ability.

 

[Raspewtin]

Not particularly, since Boyle is a player with diminishing ability.

Not sure what that has to do with anything.

 

[Tawnos]

Not sure what that has to do with anything.

As his usage gets easier, his performance should get better. If his usage gets easier and his performance stays the same, it actually means he's playing worse. But that makes sense, because he's got diminishing ability.

And not for nothing, but Boyle was brought in here to put up 35-40 points. He didn't. Whatever else he did well, he did not have a good season.

 

[Raspewtin]

As his usage gets easier, his performance should get better. If his usage gets easier and his performance stays the same, it actually means he's playing worse. But that makes sense, because he's got diminishing ability.

Ah, alright.

He was never the same after the LaPierre hit.

 

[Filthy Dangles]

As his usage gets easier, his performance should get better. If his usage gets easier and his performance stays the same, it actually means he's playing worse. But that makes sense, because he's got diminishing ability.

And not for nothing, but Boyle was brought in here to put up 35-40 points. He didn't. Whatever else he did well, he did not have a good season.

This. And aint it ironic that the guy he essentially replaced on this roster, had a career 40 point season.