Machinehead
HFNYR MVP
Fancystat nerds insist he's trash.
Can't speak for other posters but Girardi has drastically failed my eye test for several seasons now. The #fancystats only agree with what I already thought.
Fancystat nerds insist he's trash.
Can't speak for other posters but Girardi has drastically failed my eye test for several seasons now. The #fancystats only agree with what I already thought.
Can't speak for other posters but Girardi has drastically failed my eye test for several seasons now. The #fancystats only agree with what I already thought.
Ok but what grade did you get on the Girardi eye test? Are you a poor test taker? Need to know before passing judgement.
K thx.
But...but... WARRIOR!! SHOT BLOCKS!
Girardi is getting the grade. He gets a C.
I would gladly take his physical presence and shot blocking on my 3rd pair and PK. I wouldn't give him a role any bigger than that. He wouldn't be allowed to watch our PP, let alone play on it.
Outside of hitting and blocking, he's literally not good at anything. Him getting 1st pair minutes is a huge, huge reason why our goaltenders have consistently been in shooting galleries since 2007. And nobody here should need stats to tell them we get phenomenal goaltending and require phenomenal goaltending to keep teams off the board. It's pretty damn obvious if you "watch the games bro".
I think we need to call in the judges on this one. Did we find delegates on this board who are impartial and have a standardized eye test along with answer key to apply to his playing or have we not stumbled across those posters yet?
There is no standardized way of observing a player, or else everyone would agree. You're allowed to disagree with me. And thereby disagree with every stat under the sun, but I digress...
So pretty much what we're left with is the undeniable fact that we have a good, not great, defense, that has led us to 9 playoff runs, out of a possible 10, under Girardi's tenure and his part in this defense, which is to play (and have played) top 2 defender minutes throughout these 10 years. At which point you wonder why people harp on hating on Girardi as much as they do rather than enjoying our defensive play collectively good hockey (for the most part).
There is no standardized way of observing a player, or else everyone would agree. You're allowed to disagree with me. And thereby disagree with every stat under the sun, but I digress...
So pretty much what we're left with is the undeniable fact that we have a good, not great, defense, that has led us to 9 playoff runs, out of a possible 10, under Girardi's tenure and his part in this defense, which is to play (and have played) top 2 defender minutes throughout these 10 years. At which point you wonder why people harp on hating on Girardi as much as they do rather than enjoying our defensive play collectively good hockey (for the most part).
The stats aren't being manipulated. Girardi gets more shots attempted against him than any other Rangers defenseman over the past several years and any other first pairing D-man over the last several years. That's a fact just like "the sky is blue" is a fact. You can choose to interpret those stats to fit your argument, but the facts are the facts.
Stats are absolutely part of the equation. To suggest that stats can't be used to obtain an answer is naive. They help a lot.
But they are easily manipulated. I.e. you have an opinion, you find a statistic that fits that opinion, viola you have "evidence".
They fit a popular narrative - not evidence
They don't fit a popular narrative - not evidence
Which is it?
To be fair, that isn't what he was saying. It's more like, stats can prove or assist in proving that Girardi is not great at generating or maintaining possession. Not that he's a bad defensemen, if you believe there is more to being a defensemen than that. No need to eliminate nuance.
Then maybe we should rethink using the word "literally" like you did a few posts back.
Stats are absolutely part of the equation. To suggest that stats can't be used to obtain an answer is naive. They help a lot.
But they are easily manipulated. I.e. you have an opinion, you find a statistic that fits that opinion, viola you have "evidence".
So many statistics comprise a player's value. Much more so than the mere few that people throw around here to prove a point.
Appraisals are holistic. Stats are a tool that can help you get to an answer. They aren't the answer.
What are his strengths outside of blocking and hitting?
I'd say Girardi's neutral zone positioning is his absolute worst quality.
They fit a popular narrative - not evidence
They don't fit a popular narrative - not evidence
Which is it?