Player Discussion Dan Girardi Part VI

[Hunter Gathers]

These two things don't have to be the same.

You can be thankful for Girardi's service to the Rangers while simultaneously ripping him to shreds because he's been rapidly declining the past two seasons.

Jonathan, not to single you out but I see your post quoted above... it's not like you don't rip on Hank and Eli Manning often. These guys, I'd wager, have given a lot more to their respective teams than Dan Girardi - but you can attack them all you want. That's your prerogative.

I suppose if your main point is that some posters are rewriting history because Girard is bad today, then yes, I understand. But if your point is that we can't rip on the Girardi of today because the Girardi of yesterday was such a warrior for this team, then I do not agree.

Again, please don't take this as a personal attack or call-out towards you. You're just the poster who I see being most vocal about this in here

I've gotten on Manning the last few years for sure. Hank though? That's all been constructive criticism. If you think otherwise, I would ask you to find the posts that are anything but constructive criticism. I get into arguments with nevesis when he's being a homer, but I don't go after Hank in any way but constructively. The Hank stuff is annoying because no one can ever provide examples.

Part of the issue with Manning is that he has the talent to be so much more than he is at times. I have a real issue with talented guys making boneheaded mistakes. Girardi? Not so much. Never was all that talented of a player.

You also don't see me saying that either player hasn't done much for the team, is the most overrated player ever, etc.

 

[silverfish]

I've gotten on Manning the last few years for sure. Hank though? That's all been constructive criticism. If you think otherwise, I would ask you to find the posts that are anything but constructive criticism. I get into arguments with nevesis when he's being a homer, but I don't go after Hank in any way but constructively. The Hank stuff is annoying because no one can ever provide examples.

Part of the issue with Manning is that he has the talent to be so much more than he is at times. I have a real issue with talented guys making boneheaded mistakes. Girardi? Not so much. Never was all that talented of a player.

You also don't see me saying that either player hasn't done much for the team, is the most overrated player ever, etc.

Yeah you're right. I understand now that the beef here is more with people rewriting history about said player by using what they currently are to project on said players past, and not what I originally thought it was.

All good

 

[Tawnos]

Agreed. Ripping Girardi himself to shreds would be moronic, anyway. It would just prove the point of those that there is a severe lack of respect from some. Ripping on his play is one thing, but the attacks on him are cringe-worthy.

silver doesn't do this, so I echo your last line.

I still think there's a distinction between ripping his play and criticizing his play respectfully. Calling a player garbage, even if you're only talking about his play on the ice, is a step too far for me when that player has earned a greater level of respect than that.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Yeah you're right. I understand now that the beef here is more with people rewriting history about said player by using what they currently are to project on said players past, and not what I originally thought it was.

All good

For sure. I think a lot of it, too, is just newer fans. It creates an echo chamber. Fans that talk a lot of ******** and newer guys that weren't following the team.

I still think there's a distinction between ripping his play and criticizing his play respectfully. Calling a player garbage, even if you're only talking about his play on the ice, is a step too far for me when that player has earned a greater level of respect than that.

True.

 

[gorangers0525]

Yeah, no.

I don't think you know what the word "average" means. He's been average many seasons and very good a few. Followed by the decline.

Simply saying so isn't going to convince me. The only things he's been above average in over his career are hits (Because the opponent always had the puck), blocked shots (because the opponent always had the puck) and scoring chances against (...you know). Tell me, what has Girardi ever excelled at that supports him ever being a "top pairing, shut down defenseman"

Great story, play style that makes fans love him, never better than average/good/mid pairing player.

 

[JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK]

Girardi was good between 2008 and 2012. He started to struggle in AV's system hard, but AV's system in general isn't particularly kind to most defenseman.

Loved Girardi in his earlier years. Was one of my favorites, but at this point he's done and I don't want to see him on the ice anymore. I think he could potentially be a good coach one day, though. Just a feeling.

As an aside, I never really admired players playing through injury. I always thought of it as stupid.

 

[Crease]

I admire players who are willing to play through injury. Absolutely.

It becomes problematic if the player hides his injury. Or when the coach goes with the injured-but-experienced instead of the healthy-but-inexperienced to the detriment of the team.

 

[True Blue]

I've followed the Rangers since I was six.

Which means since when? You know what? Never mind. That means little to this discussion.

Girardi was considered great when people though a defenseman's job was "grit".

No one ever thought that.

I think a defenseman's job is to prevent scoring chances and dictate play. Girardi has always been awful at that, except for 2 seasons when he was average.

What do you mean by dictating the level of play? Leading the rush? No that is not his strong suit. But when it comes to preventing scoring chances, again, the fact that he was considered to be a legit top-pairing shutdown defenseman, is probably an indicator of preventing scoring chances.

 

[True Blue]

Tell me, what has Girardi ever excelled at that supports him ever being a "top pairing, shut down defenseman"

What supports him being mediocre over his entire career?

 

[silverfish]

What supports him being mediocre over his entire career?

Not to get too deeply involved here, but, since 2007, he's only had a positive effect on relative goals against per 60 twice. 2008-2009, and somehow, last season.

For scoring chances, he's only had a positive effect on relative scoring chances against per 60 in 12-13 and 13-14.

This is only 5v5 play, so he's not being punished in the above for being mostly a PK and not a PP guy.

Yes, Girardi plays tougher competition and gets tougher zone start assignments, but the fact is, he hasn't been able to compete with that competition. There are plenty of other D in the NHL who face that competition and fare better than Girardi.

I'll refrain from drawing any further conclusions here as to avoid potentially derailing this conversation

 

[True Blue]

Yes, Girardi plays tougher competition and gets tougher zone start assignments, but the fact is, he hasn't been able to compete with that competition. There are plenty of other D in the NHL who face that competition and fare better than Girardi.

Strictly basing this on /60 would not work, IMO. There is no metric that measures going up against Crosby & Ovechkin all the time. There is also no metric that measures the degree of difficulty in being on the ice for more defensive draws than offensive.

Who says that in his prime that he could not compete against that competition? I seem to recall him competing quite well

 

[Tawnos]

A lot of the topic of evaluating Girardi in the past is like comparing iPhones/Androids to Blackberries. Because our understanding of what makes a good smartphone has evolved, we think of Blackberries as being these obsolete devices. At the time though, Blackberries were fantastic business tools. Just because the smartphone market has become much more casual consumer driven, and iPhones/Androids are great business devices as well, doesn't mean that Blackberries sucked. In fact, it was exactly the opposite.

The game has changed around Girardi, so the tools and expectations we have of defensemen have changed as well. But using modern tools and expectations to judge a player in a different game doesn't well reflect the way things were.

 

[silverfish]

Strictly basing this on /60 would not work, IMO. There is no metric that measures going up against Crosby & Ovechkin all the time. There is also no metric that measures the degree of difficulty in being on the ice for more defensive draws than offensive.

Who says that in his prime that he could not compete against that competition? I seem to recall him competing quite well

In 9 years of data (since 2007), Dan Girardi has logged 11850 minutes of 5v5 ice time. 302 of those minutes are against Ovechkin. 294 of those minutes are against Crosby. 2.5%.

Do we really think that Girardi is the only player in the league to play 5% of his minutes against Crosby and Ovechkin?

Why can Jake Muzzin own the puck against the likes of Getzlaf, the Sedins, Pavelski and Thornton, Monahan, Perry, and Jaime Benn?

Fact is, if you're playing top-pairing minutes, you are going to face top-pairing level competition. I don't think it's such a terrible thing to maybe admit that Girardi was in over his head against these guys for most of his career.

EDIT - This is much more time than I intended to spend in this thread, so please accept my apologies if you quote this post with an answer, and I do not respond

 

[TheTakedown]

Speaking of this guy, where has Girardi been? 2 preseason games and that's it? Maybe he's hurt and nobody is saying anything about it?

LTIR? One can hope I guess? For cap purposes obviously, not wishing hurt on G himself

 

[TheRightWay]

Strictly basing this on /60 would not work, IMO. There is no metric that measures going up against Crosby & Ovechkin all the time. There is also no metric that measures the degree of difficulty in being on the ice for more defensive draws than offensive.

Who says that in his prime that he could not compete against that competition? I seem to recall him competing quite well

I think an extremely frustrating part of the anti-analytics crowd is that they just make assumptions about what can and can't be measured without even bothering to investigate whether it's true or not. Like, it would make sense to me that you would want to at least understand what it is you're discussing before deciding how you feel about it.

Go to Puckalytics.com and you can see exactly how Dan Girardi performs against specific players. Then you can compare that to how other defensemen compare against those players. Spoiler Alert: The results don't reflect well on Girardi!

Go to literally any stat site and you can filter the stats for zone starts. That is, you can look at shifts that only start with neutral zone faceoffs or started in the middle of play. Spoiler Alert: the results don't reflect well on Girardi!

 

[Ail]

I think an extremely frustrating part of the anti-analytics crowd is that they just make assumptions about what can and can't be measured without even bothering to investigate whether it's true or not. Like, it would make sense to me that you would want to at least understand what it is you're discussing before deciding how you feel about it.

Go to Puckalytics.com and you can see exactly how Dan Girardi performs against specific players. Then you can compare that to how other defensemen compare against those players. Spoiler Alert: The results don't reflect well on Girardi!

Go to literally any stat site and you can filter the stats for zone starts. That is, you can look at shifts that only start with neutral zone faceoffs or started in the middle of play. Spoiler Alert: the results don't reflect well on Girardi!

Step right up, you're the next contestant on 'Who wants to argue with TrueBlue for 40 pages!?' The only game show where as everything changes, it always stays the same!

 

[True Blue]

I think an extremely frustrating part of the anti-analytics crowd is that they just make assumptions about what can and can't be measured without even bothering to investigate whether it's true or not. Like, it would make sense to me that you would want to at least understand what it is you're discussing before deciding how you feel about it.

Who said anything about being against statistics? I understand them just fine. What do you know about what I do or do not understand?

My point was on utilizing the specific stat.

 

[True Blue]

Step right up, you're the next contestant on 'Who wants to argue with TrueBlue for 40 pages!?' The only game show where as everything changes, it always stays the same!

Feel free not to. Or go and hide in a safe space where the only opinions rendered are your own or those that reflect your own. Have a nice time!

 

[Levitate]

At this point who cares what Girardi used to be, the problem is that right now he's not a good defenseman anymore. I think the coaches realize he's not playing well but the question is whether they think he should be given the chance to play his way out of it (which likely isn't possible at this point) or they realize they have to make the "tough" decision and bench a vet or at least limit his minutes.

While McIlrath has had some ups and downs, and I'm not completely sold on Clendenning stepping up for an entire season, they both look like they should be in the lineup over Girardi at this point and Girardi should be the 7th D. If they struggle, fine, put Girardi back in and see what happens, if for no other reason to keep the pressure on the other guys to play their best, but Girardi remains an anchor on the Rangers blueline at the moment and the coaches need to evaluate him realistically at this point.

I liked the guy a lot in the day and while I don't think I ever felt he was a true top pairing guy, he was a player who could eat a lot of minutes and be a decent compliment to a top pairing defenseman, absent something better. But it's been years since he's been that player. Something's gotta give at this point.

 

[True Blue]

Something's gotta give at this point.

There is no doubt that Girardi is being outplayed by several defensive possibilities.

 

[we want cup]

I think an extremely frustrating part of the anti-analytics crowd is that they just make assumptions about what can and can't be measured without even bothering to investigate whether it's true or not. Like, it would make sense to me that you would want to at least understand what it is you're discussing before deciding how you feel about it.

Thinking that there are qualitative features of the game that are difficult or impossible to capture with statistical analysis doesn't necessarily constitute a failure to understand the nature of such metrics.

 

[silverfish]

Thinking that there are qualitative features of the game that are difficult or impossible to capture with statistical analysis doesn't necessarily constitute a failure to understand the nature of such metrics.

And willfully ignoring the things that we can measure, and their additions to the player evaluation process, just because we can't measure everything, is just as harmful.

 

[Ghost of jas]

I've been a Ranger fan longer than some posters here have been alive, and I always believed Girardi has been both overrated by this fanbase, as well asked by coaching staffs to handle responsibilities above his capabilities. So age has nothing to do with ones perspective on Girardi.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

I've been a Ranger fan longer than some posters here have been sliver, and I always believed Girardi has been both overrated by this fanbase, as well asked by coaching staffs to handle responsibilities above his capabilities. So age has nothing to do with ones perspective on Girardi.

I think it definitely does to actual young people. It's comical hearing newer fans say that. While I disagree with you on this one, I at least respect your opinion on it.

 

[silverfish]

I think it definitely does to actual young people. It's comical hearing newer fans say that. While I disagree with you on this one, I at least respect your opinion on it.

10 Reasons why Millenials Hate Dan Girardi