Dan Girardi: Part IV

[Raspewtin]

Let's stop asking each other if we watch games. I think it's established.

Nah, obviously people who don't watch hockey would post on a forum called HFBoards. Makes perfect sense to me.

 

[Igor Shestyorkin]

Not my problem either.

The point is that post of yours--#22--makes out like everyone and anyone who doesn't put all their credence into these stats that some like yourself do are out to persecute those who do with questions of whether or not they watch the games--which is a pretty big exaggeration on the one hand and the other thing is why does it even matter to you that much whether someone thinks you're watching the games or not?

It doesn't matter to me, but I just don't think it's right to blindly accuse someone of something. Unless the have credible evidence to prove said person doesn't watch said game or team.

 

[eco's bones]

It doesn't matter to me, but I just don't think it's right to blindly accuse someone of something. Unless the have credible evidence to prove said person doesn't watch said game or team.

Did I accuse you or anyone else here of not watching the games?--I'd like to see the post. Your lumping everyone who disagrees with you all together as people who don't respect you or the people who put so much (blind) faith in advanced stats/metrics strikes me as a persecution complex on your part. That's definitely not my problem. I have not accused you of not watching the Rangers. Nor can I remember accusing anyone else of such. To make such a claim would be absurd.

And I still don't agree with how you or most of the crew you seem to belong to parse all the fancy stats. Silverfish seems to have a grip on reality. Most others--not. For some of you others it's like talking to some Jehovah's Witnesses who've come banging on the door just to have a chat about heaven and hell---something I'm not interested in at all. I don't like anything that smells of dogmatism.

 

[silverfish]

Did I accuse you or anyone else here of not watching the games?--I'd like to see the post. Your lumping everyone who disagrees with you all together as people who don't respect you or the people who put so much (blind) faith in advanced stats/metrics strikes me as a persecution complex on your part. That's definitely not my problem. I have not accused you of not watching the Rangers. Nor can I remember accusing anyone else of such. To make such a claim would be absurd.

And I still don't agree with how you or most of the crew you seem to belong to parse all the fancy stats. Silverfish seems to have a grip on reality. Most others--not. For some of you others it's like talking to some Jehovah's Witnesses who've come banging on the door just to have a chat about heaven and hell---something I'm not interested in at all. I don't like anything that smells of dogmatism.

Thanks, man! Just trying to spread the good word

Wait a minute....

 

[DanielBrassard]

Did I accuse you or anyone else here of not watching the games?--I'd like to see the post. Your lumping everyone who disagrees with you all together as people who don't respect you or the people who put so much (blind) faith in advanced stats/metrics strikes me as a persecution complex on your part. That's definitely not my problem. I have not accused you of not watching the Rangers. Nor can I remember accusing anyone else of such. To make such a claim would be absurd.

And I still don't agree with how you or most of the crew you seem to belong to parse all the fancy stats. Silverfish seems to have a grip on reality. Most others--not. For some of you others it's like talking to some Jehovah's Witnesses who've come banging on the door just to have a chat about heaven and hell---something I'm not interested in at all. I don't like anything that smells of dogmatism.

Nothing against Silverfish because I think he's a good poster with many good points and ideas, but what a laughable comment.

 

[Ail]

Did I accuse you or anyone else here of not watching the games?--I'd like to see the post. Your lumping everyone who disagrees with you all together as people who don't respect you or the people who put so much (blind) faith in advanced stats/metrics strikes me as a persecution complex on your part. That's definitely not my problem. I have not accused you of not watching the Rangers. Nor can I remember accusing anyone else of such. To make such a claim would be absurd.

And I still don't agree with how you or most of the crew you seem to belong to parse all the fancy stats. Silverfish seems to have a grip on reality. Most others--not. For some of you others it's like talking to some Jehovah's Witnesses who've come banging on the door just to have a chat about heaven and hell---something I'm not interested in at all. I don't like anything that smells of dogmatism.

"Hey guys silverfish agrees with me so he's smart and every else is a crazy dum dum head fundamentalist religious stats nerd trying to sell me a numbers bible on a Sunday morning at 8:00 a.m."

I think the worship of Girardi around here is dogmatic, so that's a wash. Thanks for sharing.

 

[RGY]

"Hey guys silverfish agrees with me so he's smart and every else is a crazy dum dum head fundamentalist religious stats nerd trying to sell me a numbers bible on a Sunday morning at 8:00 a.m."

I think the worship of Girardi around here is dogmatic, so that's a wash. Thanks for sharing.

Then I don't think you know what the definition of "dogmatic" is. But go on with your rant.

 

[haveandare]

"Hey guys silverfish agrees with me so he's smart and every else is a crazy dum dum head fundamentalist religious stats nerd trying to sell me a numbers bible on a Sunday morning at 8:00 a.m."

I think the worship of Girardi around here is dogmatic, so that's a wash. Thanks for sharing.

More like, silverfish actually admits that his understanding of every stat and the countless contextual points that play into it might not be 100% perfect all the time and usually is open to questions/criticisms of the new, interesting comparisons he often shares.

Many/most others who are heavily invested in, and constantly talking about, the newer stats seem to believe that everything they think about them or see in them is totally 100% accurate, no further context need, no further discussion to be had. Ask a question and you get "lol rongos duh statz r dumb" or a profanity laced tirade about why they're not going to waste their time explaining something to you despite them requiring you to understand it in order to be worth discussing anything else with.

Simply put, silverfish is a helpful poster with a good attitude. A lot of other people seemingly just want to be sarcastic and belittle other posters.

 

[eco's bones]

"Hey guys silverfish agrees with me so he's smart and every else is a crazy dum dum head fundamentalist religious stats nerd trying to sell me a numbers bible on a Sunday morning at 8:00 a.m."

I think the worship of Girardi around here is dogmatic, so that's a wash. Thanks for sharing.

I really doubt that Silverfish and I agree completely on everything. We might not actually even agree on a lot. And to go a step further I don't think/believe there's anyone on this board I completely agree with on everything either. He at least is not confining himself to a narrow parameter of somewhat abstract values when defining just how good this player or that is or what value they might have to (emphasis on the singular) 'a' particular team/coaching staff.

Saying someone worships Girardi by the way is just about as dumb as someone saying you're not watching the games. For now I think Girardi is a very good player in his current role on the team. That's not worship. How good he'll be at the end of next year or the year after or 3 or 5 years from now is another thing. Like all players there is a shelf life--age and the breaking down that comes with age. There's also the potential for his role to become more marginalized as the game continues to evolve as it has inevitably always done since the game first began. As of today he fits the role he plays very well. He is hardly a future HOF'er though.

 

[Doctyl]

Girardi performs like a bottom pairing/AHL dman in the role he's asked to play.

I don't see anything wrong with this statement.

 

[Off Sides]

Girardi is a warrior and I like him. He reminds me of Tom Berrenger's character form the movie Major league. Jake Taylor. Since the Indians do not win the title without his many tutorials both on on off the field, I think that is directly related to the Rangers success, albeit not ultimate success, that they have had these past recent years.

Take that Moneyball.

 

[Tawnos]

Girardi performs like a bottom pairing/AHL dman in the role he's asked to play.

I don't see anything wrong with this statement.

Nobody seriously having this discussion believes there's anything wrong with having that opinion (which is what it is). That isn't the same as thinking the opinion itself is wrong, as many of us do.

It's not wrong to have opinions so strongly influenced by numbers. I disagree with it, but there's nothing wrong with it.

 

[Doctyl]

It's not even that heavily based on numbers. I disliked Girardi before I even tried understanding these statistics. They just happen to confirm what I've been watching for a while.

 

[Tawnos]

It's not even that heavily based on numbers. I disliked Girardi before I even tried understanding these statistics. They just happen to confirm what I've been watching for a while.

Well, confirmation bias does work both ways.

 

[silverfish]

Is this the Girardi thread or the silverfish thread? Come on, guys.

 

[Infinitum Vitae*]

It's not even that heavily based on numbers. I disliked Girardi before I even tried understanding these statistics. They just happen to confirm what I've been watching for a while.

Is it his face? Because i have that problem to with players.

 

[Doctyl]

Is it his face? Because i have that problem to with players.

uh...no

 

[Raspewtin]

Did I accuse you or anyone else here of not watching the games?--I'd like to see the post. Your lumping everyone who disagrees with you all together as people who don't respect you or the people who put so much (blind) faith in advanced stats/metrics strikes me as a persecution complex on your part. That's definitely not my problem. I have not accused you of not watching the Rangers. Nor can I remember accusing anyone else of such. To make such a claim would be absurd.

And I still don't agree with how you or most of the crew you seem to belong to parse all the fancy stats. Silverfish seems to have a grip on reality. Most others--not. For some of you others it's like talking to some Jehovah's Witnesses who've come banging on the door just to have a chat about heaven and hell---something I'm not interested in at all. I don't like anything that smells of dogmatism.

Please re-word this to "Silverfish kind of sort of agrees with me and is a stats guy therefore he's right" because we all know that's exactly what you meant.

 

[Ail]

Then I don't think you know what the definition of "dogmatic" is. But go on with your rant.

I don't think you do:

dog·mat·ic
dôɡˈmadik/
adjective
inclined to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true.
"he gives his opinion without trying to be dogmatic"
synonyms: opinionated, peremptory, assertive, insistent, emphatic, adamant, doctrinaire, authoritarian, imperious, dictatorial, uncompromising, unyielding, inflexible, rigid
"your being so dogmatic does not attract me to your religious philosophy"

Sounds exactly like the majority of the Girardi support group to me.

 

[Ail]

More like, silverfish actually admits that his understanding of every stat and the countless contextual points that play into it might not be 100% perfect all the time and usually is open to questions/criticisms of the new, interesting comparisons he often shares.

Many/most others who are heavily invested in, and constantly talking about, the newer stats seem to believe that everything they think about them or see in them is totally 100% accurate, no further context need, no further discussion to be had.

lmao

This is the best criticism you guys have and it is completely reliant on MAKING **** UP.

The bold section is so ridiculous. Maybe if you post it a dillion more times it will finally be true. I am actually surprised you didn't use the idiotic phrase "end all be all" which is the favorite of metrics critics. I can't read that enough.

Edit:

I can't imagine why anyone would want to belittle people or be sarcastic. It couldn't possibly be related to constantly being put on the defensive over and over with the same senseless and completely false accusations about their beliefs and conclusions based on stats.

Nope, I'm sure these people are just really *******s and want to be nasty for no reason.

 

[RGY]

I don't think you do:



Sounds exactly like the majority of the Girardi support group to me.

Oh because some of us disagree with the advanced stat crew around here (not disregarding advanced stats in general as i see them as a guide to a discussion) or dont hate the Girardi that means we are "laying down principles as inconvertibly true." Yeah you got a handle this man...

 

[Ail]

Oh because some of us disagree with the advanced stat crew around here (not disregarding advanced stats in general as i see them as a guide to a discussion) or dont hate the Girardi that means we are "laying down principles as inconvertibly true." Yeah you got a handle this man...

Coaches
First Pair
Rangers Post-season success
Warrior
Heur Heur

therefore Girardi is good, the end.

Yeah, never heard anything like that before in this thread(s).

Okay.

 

[Doctyl]

Coaches
First Pair
Rangers Post-season success
Warrior
Heur Heur

therefore Girardi is good, the end.

Yeah, never heard anything like that before in this thread(s).

Okay.

I havent heard a legitimate argument fir why hes a good player. Ive heard arguments where he is overused and thats why plays so horribly, but never heard anyone prove why hes good.

 

[DanielBrassard]

I havent heard a legitimate argument fir why hes a good player. Ive heard arguments where he is overused and thats why plays so horribly, but never heard anyone prove why hes good.

There really isn't much of an argument for Girardi's individual success. Its always with the caveat of team success

 

[Doctyl]

There really isn't much of an argument for Girardi's individual success. Its always with the caveat of team success

Its like the same argument thats used to support Tanner Glass.