Dan Girardi: Part IV

[TheRightWay]

You're well aware that you don't speak for everyone who might possibly visit this page right?

Just a few posts up someone is saying G played poorly and is leaning on his possession as the main indicator.

I'm no using raw possession numbers out of context. I'm using long-term data looked adjusted for score and zone starts.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

I'm no using raw possession numbers out of context. I'm using long-term data looked adjusted for score and zone starts.

Does that also apply to the wayward drunk driving metaphor?

 

[TheRightWay]

Does that also apply to the wayward drunk driving metaphor?

Not sure what context would be needed there beyond the description. Maybe that he wasn't outrunning a gang of ninjas trying to murder him.

 

[haveandare]

Can you tell us the criteria you used to determine that he had a good game, then?

Certainly looks like the implication here is that a bad corsi for this game is used to determine it was bad

 

[TheRightWay]

Certainly looks like the implication here is that a bad corsi for this game is used to determine it was bad

Huh? I asked him for what criteria he used to evaluate him having a good game. I didn't even look at the numbers last night. What I saw was a defenseman who was stuck in his own end for majority of the game and took an awful penalty after getting beat.

 

[Raspewtin]

Certainly looks like the implication here is that a bad corsi for this game is used to determine it was bad

No this seems more like an assumption rather than an implication.

 

[eco's bones]

In a sense, yes. Imagine finding out your kid got absolutely plastered and decided to drive home anyway, swerving through lanes and running red lights. And you yell at him for making such a stupid decision and he says, "wow dad, but I made it home safe AND saved money that would have gone to a cab. So who cares?"

Yeah, your kid got away with it and in the short-term actually benefited. Does that mean you're happy? Hell ****ing no. Because you know that he got away with one there. If he continues trying to do that then it's eventually going to bite him in the ass. He's either going to get pulled over and have a DUI to his name or he's going to crash the car and hurt himself or someone else.

The Rangers are the drunk kid who made it home. Reality is that the Rangers got away with one there. They go the two points. Wonderful. Take it and run. But they're not winning anything in the long-run getting out-possessed 2-to-1.

Rangers got 5 goals. Add to that we hit at least three posts and missed a last second second period goal by about 2 tenths of a second. Add to that some more--our two biggest goal scoring threats Nash and Kreider went missing again. I'm sorry but I don't think the Caps deserved to win that game. I don't think Holtby played as well as he usually does but their defense was much worse than ours. This isn't to say that the Rangers as a team are firing on all cylinders--they're not. IMO this team has not played nearly as well as they can or should but even when the Rangers don't play well they find ways to win and they're on pace for a 120+ season. I'd rather not complain. Too much complaining gets boring really fast even in the worst of times.

I'm almost amazed that this is what you extrapolated from criticism of Dan Girarid.

Almost? I don't think you're amazed at all. The point to be made here is the team wins and then there's this debate going on whether or not they deserved to win. And this team seems to win against the odds all the time. I know it's Henrik! It's Henrik! It's Henrik!---but they even won when it was Cam! It's Cam! It's Cam! And meanwhile there are other teams that have better possession stats and a history of failure--I know they don't have Henrik but even so we didn't have Henrik for a while last year and the team went from 6th in the East to first overall in the standings with our backup goalie backupped by a 7th round draft pick in his first pro season which he began in the ECHL.

 

[JohnC]

Tell the 2013-2014 Rangers that scoring a bunch of goals but losing the attempted shots battle won't come back to haunt you in the grand scheme of things :/

 

[CHGoalie27]

I don't think he played poorly last night, nor do I blame him for Krieder not covering for him as he shot off the post.

Without looking at stats, only thing I usually see G doing wrong is screening his own goalie.

 

[True Blue]

Girardi was on the ice for 3 NYR shot attempts and 9 WSH shot attempts when Ovechkin was not on the ice. That's terrible.

Oh, wow. Where does one even go when presented with drivel like this?

There are many ways to "weigh that in."

Start weighing. Please show me where Corsi factors in who is on the ice.

Just because you're ignorant to it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

What pray tell am I ignorant to? Believing that Cors is an inherently flawed statistic does not make one ignorant. It makes for a different viewpoint. You would probably do well to comprehend that dissenting opinions are just that. Not personal attacks.

In fact, you not understanding the ways in which Corsi are used makes it strange that you're questioning it in the first place.

How and where do I not understand the ways in which Corsi is used? I understand it very well. I just do not see it as the end all and it all of ways to evaluate an individual player.

Don't you think it's silly to dismiss something you do not understand?

What I think is silly is to compare a different opinion to an inability to comprehend something.

 

[haveandare]

No this seems more like an assumption rather than an implication.

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

 

[TheRightWay]

Rangers got 5 goals. Add to that we hit at least three posts and missed a last second second period goal by about 2 tenths of a second. Add to that some more--our two biggest goal scoring threats Nash and Kreider went missing again. I'm sorry but I don't think the Caps deserved to win that game. I don't think Holtby played as well as he usually does but their defense was much worse than ours.

Switch goaltenders and what do you think the score looks like?

This isn't to say that the Rangers as a team are firing on all cylinders--they're not. IMO this team has not played nearly as well as they can or should but even when the Rangers don't play well they find ways to win and they're on pace for a 120+ season. I'd rather not complain. Too much complaining gets boring really fast even in the worst of times.

That's your choice. "We're winning despite crappy possession numbers" is something that Randy Carlyle, Patrick Roy, and Bob Hartley all prided themselves in the last few years. It hasn't sustained itself. Whether that's something you choose to complain about is completely your own personal thing. But objectively speaking, the Rangers will lose many games if they play like they did last night.

Almost? I don't think you're amazed at all. The point to be made here is the team wins and then there's this debate going on whether or not they deserved to win. And this team seems to win against the odds all the time. I know it's Henrik! It's Henrik! It's Henrik!---but they even won when it was Cam! It's Cam! It's Cam! And meanwhile there are other teams that have better possession stats and a history of failure--I know they don't have Henrik but even so we didn't have Henrik for a while last year and the team went from 6th in the East to first overall in the standings with our backup goalie backupped by a 7th round draft pick in his first pro season which he began in the ECHL.

And meanwhile the team that WAS backed by Henrik had their seasons ended by elite possession teams the last two years. Despite average possession numbers, the Rangers continually find ways to get into the semifinals. Fantastic. Let me know when your goal is to win the Stanley Cup.