Player Discussion Dan Girardi Part VI

[Hunter Gathers]

10 Reasons why Millenials Hate Dan Girardi

Oh, God.

To be fair, I am somehow considered a "Millennial"

 

[TheRightWay]

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.

Your claim was that the stats can't measure those things. I then explained to you that the stats do measure those things and exactly how to go about seeing it for yourself. Are you saying that you knew this but lied about it? Or you didn't know it, and therefore didn't understand them?

Can you explain how, in my examples, the stats in the way I told you they can be utilized can't measure the things you brought up?

 

[True Blue]

Your claim was that the stats can't measure those things. I then explained to you that the stats do measure those things and exactly how to go about seeing it for yourself. Are you saying that you knew this but lied about it? Or you didn't know it, and therefore didn't understand them?

Can you explain how, in my examples, the stats in the way I told you they can be utilized can't measure the things you brought up?

What I am said was that the metrics do not measure certain things. If you look at just the per 60 stat, those do not take into account of who your opposition is or where you are positioned on draws. So to take data, extrapolate it, and try to equalize it against the entire field and then point to it as the ultimate indicator is faulty.

You then told me to compare stats of how he does against other players. That's great except that the /60 does not weigh that into consideration. Which then leaves you with looking at more statistics to justify the use of prior statistics as valid.

This has nothing to do with understanding or not understanding metrics. You have no idea of who I am or what I know or do not know. Performance of anything is measured in both quantative and qualitative facts. Do you not know this? If you not know that, then perhaps you do not understand how to properly measure performance. I only point this out as you have decided that I am either lying or not properly educated in statistics or performance analysis.

Varying opinions are just that. Let's not act that a different viewpoint makes someone stupid or ignorant.

 

[Raspewtin]

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.

I've watched Girardis entire NYR career, do i get the same respect?

 

[DanielBrassard]

What I am said was that the metrics do not measure certain things. If you look at just the per 60 stat, those do not take into account of who your opposition is or where you are positioned on draws. So to take data, extrapolate it, and try to equalize it against the entire field and then point to it as the ultimate indicator is faulty.

You then told me to compare stats of how he does against other players. That's great except that the /60 does not weigh that into consideration. Which then leaves you with looking at more statistics to justify the use of prior statistics as valid.

We have stats that are used to extrapolate out who a player plays against, I'm not sure what points per 60, which is only intended to measure points, measuring QoC would add. If you are so concerned about QoC then its your responsibility to look for it.

 

[gorangers0525]

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

No one ever thought that.

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.

If his job is preventing scoring chances, he's been awful at that for the vast majority of his career...a quantitative fact. Lundqvist has also been excellent at making sure most of those scoring chances haven't ended up in the net, also a fact.


The standards for Ranger's defenseman is absurdly low, and the praise of a guy who peaked as a decent middle pairing player, playing over his head for his entire career, proves that.

 

[Machinehead]

I've watched Girardis entire NYR career, do i get the same respect?

No. Unless you vividly remember the second World War, you know nothing about hockey.

 

[True Blue]

We have stats that are used to extrapolate out who a player plays against, I'm not sure what points per 60, which is only intended to measure points, measuring QoC would add. If you are so concerned about QoC then its your responsibility to look for it.

I am not concerned about it at all.

 

[Machinehead]

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

No one ever thought that.

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.

Silly me, I always thought preventing scoring chances was an indicator of preventing scoring chances

 

[Tawnos]

If his job is preventing scoring chances, he's been awful at that for the vast majority of his career...a quantitative fact. Lundqvist has also been excellent at making sure most of those scoring chances haven't ended up in the net, also a fact.


The standards for Ranger's defenseman is absurdly low, and the praise of a guy who peaked as a decent middle pairing player, playing over his head for his entire career, proves that.

Well, he has quantitatively struggled at preventing scoring chances only when your scoring chance metric is wildly flawed.

 

[Tawnos]

Oh, God.

To be fair, I am somehow considered a "Millennial"

I am just about as old as you can be and still be a millennial (I'm 33).

 

[DanielBrassard]

Well, he has quantitatively struggled at preventing scoring chances only when your scoring chance metric is wildly flawed.

Who's it flawed to, you? That doesn't mean they are actually flawed. What about the scoring chance metrics we have now makes it flawed?

 

[Machinehead]

Well, he has quantitatively struggled at preventing scoring chances only when your scoring chance metric is wildly flawed.

The Rangers have struggled at winning Cups the past 75 years. The Cup-winning metric must be wildly flawed.

 

[gorangers0525]

The goal metric seems pretty flawed as well in that case. Not straight forward enough.

 

[Tawnos]

Who's it flawed to, you? That doesn't mean they are actually flawed. What about the scoring chance metrics we have now makes it flawed?

It's pretty flawed to the Rangers too. We've been over this.

Every shot taken within a high danger area is not a high danger shot.

 

[Blais to Win]

No team won more than us since 2011-2012 than the Chicago Blackhawks.

During that time span DG played about 24 minutes a game.

That pretty much sums up all I need to know about his importance to the team. He helped us win a lot of games. He was a huge part of that.

If he's worse now, due to age or injury, I'm sure his toi will be reduced accordingly, as it has been over the past few years. Sooner or later his time here will be done, just like it is for every player. One difference, though, is that this guy is a career Ranger. I won't forget that and the great time I had watching this team while he was in his prime. Can he get it back together? I'm sure we'll see shortly.

I say good luck to him, hope he does, because for whatever reason (maybe his decline, maybe coaching decisions, etc.) last season hurt my eyes at times.

 

[mandiblesofdoom]

Maybe they won in spite of DG? The biggest factor in our winning ways 2012-2015 was Lundqvist.

We traded away/let people go that it turns out are valuable on other winning teams: Stralman, Hagelin, Boyle. I submit they are more important to winning than Girardi.

In any event, our days of winning more than the other teams may be over.

How much bad Girardi do you need to see before you would agree to bench him?

 

[Blais to Win]

Maybe they won in spite of DG? The biggest factor in our winning ways 2012-2015 was Lundqvist.

We traded away/let people go that it turns out are valuable on other winning teams: Stralman, Hagelin, Boyle. I submit they are more important to winning than Girardi.

In any event, our days of winning more than the other teams may be over.

How much bad Girardi do you need to see before you would agree to bench him?

He was one of the guys who played the most, in terms of number of games and toi over that span. So, not sure how you'd say that. Lundqvist played more than him, of course he was a huge part of it as well. No coincidence they're playing worse now - these two guys don't look the same anymore.

He could ride the pine right now with what we've seen. I'd give him some games to see what he's got though. There's no-one really better for the #6 position at this moment.

I agree they're great players in their own rights, but the point you miss on Stralman, Hagelin and Boyle is that they are more important to winning on other teams right now. Best to get over it.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

10 Reasons why Millenials Hate Dan Girardi

#4: He's not mobile friendly.

 

[Irishguy42]

#4: He's not mobile friendly.

Niiiiice....

 

[Ail]

Every shot taken within a high danger area is not a high danger shot.

Why does that matter?

Surely the majority of them are? If the majority were not, would anyone bother tracking them? You are willing to write off HDSCs and call them flawed because of random events that can neither be measured or controlled?

Also, the Rangers thinking it is flawed isn't really saying much is it? If it were not for Lundqvist this team would probably be #1 in GA every year. I wouldn't really be too confident in anything the Rangers view as "flawed" when it comes to shots against metrics.

 

[mandiblesofdoom]

He could ride the pine right now with what we've seen. I'd give him some games to see what he's got though. There's no-one really better for the #6 position at this moment.

I'm concerned that, after an entire season of bad Girardi, not playing McIlrath or taking another path to rebuild the D, we are going to spend more time determining what Dan's got left. This is not fair to the fans or the other players imo.

With him as #6 is what would the defense pairs be?

 

[Tawnos]

Why does that matter?

Surely the majority of them are? If the majority were not, would anyone bother tracking them? You are willing to write off HDSCs and call them flawed because of random events that can neither be measured or controlled?

Also, the Rangers thinking it is flawed isn't really saying much is it? If it were not for Lundqvist this team would probably be #1 in GA every year. I wouldn't really be too confident in anything the Rangers view as "flawed" when it comes to shots against metrics.

Unlike a lot of people in the analytics world, I very highly value the viewpoint of the people involved in the game.

And no, I don't think the majority of shot attempts from high danger areas are actually scoring chances.

 

[silverfish]

#4: He's not mobile friendly.

 

[TheTakedown]

He was one of the guys who played the most, in terms of number of games and toi over that span. So, not sure how you'd say that. Lundqvist played more than him, of course he was a huge part of it as well. No coincidence they're playing worse now - these two guys don't look the same anymore.

He could ride the pine right now with what we've seen. I'd give him some games to see what he's got though. There's no-one really better for the #6 position at this moment.

I agree they're great players in their own rights, but the point you miss on Stralman, Hagelin and Boyle is that they are more important to winning on other teams right now. Best to get over it.

That's about the only positive thing you could say about Girardi right now--a $5.5M defenseman is most suitable for #6 minutes, that's 10 even strength minutes and 3 PK minutes per game.

That's an embarrassment as a player. I hope Dan sucks it up and retires honestly. I'm being generous by saying he stopped earning that paycheck starting last year--let's no go back to that Stanley Cup FInal when he really started losing it