Tawnos
A guy with a bass
Way to completely misrepresent the argument. That poll doesn't really combat anything I or others were saying.
It's not who is more valuable. It's who has actually provided more to their team.
Dan Girardi: Part IV
- Thread starter aufheben
- Start date
- Status
Way to completely misrepresent the argument. That poll doesn't really combat anything I or others were saying.
It's not who is more valuable. It's who has actually provided more to their team.
hi
Sell sell sell
- May 23, 2008
- 7,612
- 5,089
SA16
Sixstring
I would be extremely surprised if Girardi provided more value than Letang despite playing in 43% more games since 2010.
Here's a baseball comparison. From 2010 to 2014 338 hitters have enough PA to qualify. If you calculate the WAR/162 for each of those players the average is 2.3 [Obviously biased slightly up as the guys who don't qualify would drag it down a bit] (155 players > 2.3. 183 < 2.3). If you miss 43% of games that would be 92 games played. Let's set the two players at providing equal value when they play. So an average guy puts up 2.3 WAR. An above average injury prone guy would put up his 2.3 WAR in 92 games (4.05 per 162). 50 players in the MLB since 2010 have averaged > 4.05 WAR/162.
Now let's say our baseline is 1 win above average so 3.3 WAR. If our very above average injury prone guy were to put up 3.3 WAR in 92 games that would be like 5.8 WAR in 162. 14 Players since 2010 have average > 5.8 WAR/162.
Here's a baseball comparison. From 2010 to 2014 338 hitters have enough PA to qualify. If you calculate the WAR/162 for each of those players the average is 2.3 [Obviously biased slightly up as the guys who don't qualify would drag it down a bit] (155 players > 2.3. 183 < 2.3). If you miss 43% of games that would be 92 games played. Let's set the two players at providing equal value when they play. So an average guy puts up 2.3 WAR. An above average injury prone guy would put up his 2.3 WAR in 92 games (4.05 per 162). 50 players in the MLB since 2010 have averaged > 4.05 WAR/162.
Now let's say our baseline is 1 win above average so 3.3 WAR. If our very above average injury prone guy were to put up 3.3 WAR in 92 games that would be like 5.8 WAR in 162. 14 Players since 2010 have average > 5.8 WAR/162.
Last edited:
Machinehead
HFNYR MVP
Baseball and hockey can't even be considered in the same realm of relativity.
How an individual player plays is so much dependent on how someone he plays with is playing in hockey than it is in baseball.
Playing 43% more is a HUGE deal in the NHL. That is only magnified more when you're a top player. Who replaces Letang when he is missing those 43% more gsmes? The effect on the team is immense and probably even adverse. Girardi not missing games doesn't have the same negative effect.
People please. We all know Letang is better. Girardi has provided more value to his team the last 3 years.
How an individual player plays is so much dependent on how someone he plays with is playing in hockey than it is in baseball.
Playing 43% more is a HUGE deal in the NHL. That is only magnified more when you're a top player. Who replaces Letang when he is missing those 43% more gsmes? The effect on the team is immense and probably even adverse. Girardi not missing games doesn't have the same negative effect.
People please. We all know Letang is better. Girardi has provided more value to his team the last 3 years.
DanielBrassard
It's all so tiresome
The point SA was making with his baseball comparison is that it doesnt matter how many games you have played in., If in Letang's 65 games he was worth 3.3 wins, and in Girardi's 82 games he was worth 2, Letang would have been more valuable, provided more, however you want to phrase it. Just because Girardi played in those 17 games extra doesnt mean he was a positive influence in those games either.
Good job at s**t stirring the pot while throwing out warnings Machinehead.
How to do people compare Letang to Girardi? They're completely different types of Dmen. One's an offensive dman while the others a defensive dman. It's a long yet ridiculous way to go to try and make a point.
You AS guys only look at one side of the coin. The offensive side while completely neglecting the primary nature of the position...DEFENCE!
At the end of the day..Letang's, although soft charman is better offensively and Girardi's better defensively. Go figure....
No. It's not a good comparison. Because in baseball, a team's success depends on individual success. A team's success in hockey is interdependent. Everyone is connected. That's not the case in baseball.
DanielBrassard
It's all so tiresome
DanielBrassard
It's all so tiresome
But we arent talking about a teams success, we are talking about how valuable the player is to his team.
That seems to go hand in hand for top players. Girardi currently plays a role that requires him to face top players and bear top player responsibility. The success of the team will likely correlate to his success. And his success is both dependent on personal skill and the guy he plays with - McD.
SA16
Sixstring
Yea I wrote up a whole response and then deleted it. But essentially it's not even a baseball comparison. It's a numerical comparison and I just used baseball as a tool because it has stats that are simple enough and do a good job at what we're trying to approximate. Obviously hockey stats aren't nearly far enough along to do anything like that but the same point still stands. It's the exact same thing for hockey as baseball. Girardi is worth some value X. Letang is worth some value Y. If they both played in the same amount of games I think we can all agree that Y >>> X. Letang is so much better that even by playing some decent percentage of games less he still likely provides more value. These curves are very right skew. There's a ton of players close together around and slightly above the zero point and then very very few as you reach far out where is closer to where Letang would be.
I have to say though a defensemans role isn't to "play defense." It's the same as every other player which is to do things that will provide the largest differential possible between GF and GA. That includes defense, offense, and all sorts of things. Nobody thinks Erik Karlsson at "defense" but he's still one of the best defenseman because of how great he is at doing other things. There's no effective difference between a player who say has true talent 4 GF/60, 3 GA/60 and a player who is 2 GF/60, 1 GA/60 except the first player is higher variance. In terms of expected value they are the same.
DanielBrassard
It's all so tiresome
I'd disagree with you on that but fair enough. I think there's so many other players, luck, goaltending etc to correlate team success with just a single player.
DanielBrassard
It's all so tiresome
Machinehead
HFNYR MVP
SA16
Sixstring
I could do the same thing for hockey. Let's pretend that the only thing that matters to value is goals and we'll use that to judge value (in reality I should stop here because this is the point where I get yelled at and berated for saying that goals are the only thing that matter by people who don't understand the concept of a simplification and an example).
Last year 379 forwards played at least 41 games (using this as a cutoff as it is half the season). They averaged 16.0 goals per 82 games. (5228 goals in 26,745 games. 165 players >=16 goals). Now for a player who only played half the games to meet the "value" of 16 goals would mean they scored at 32 goals per 82 games. 22 players did that.
So using "goals" as the definition of value solely last year tells us that 22 players would have provided exactly average value even if they only played half of their teams games.
It's really just a question of how we can define and quantify value. At this point there is no one stat (at least that I know of) for the NHL that can do a decent all-encompassing job of this. But these two examples solely serve to show how a player could accumulate more value than another despite playing significantly fewer games. If you want to argue about how it affects team chemistry, lines, powerplays and such that's out of the scope of this and is also rather pointless as no matter what you say it will always be pure speculation and can never be proven one way or another.
Machinehead
HFNYR MVP
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
The time frame goes back to 2010, during which time Letang has played 315 games and Girardi has played 452.
Per your scenario of Letang being worth 3.3 wins in 65 and Girardi 2 in 82, over the 5 years Girardi is worth 9 to Letang is worth 15.99 and Girardi is worth 11.02.
But the problem I have there is that the smaller sample gap is too wide. There's simply no way Letang has a >50% greater impact than Girardi does.
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
That's the same thing.
No, people don't perceive it that way. The standard judgment that people use when they think of determining a players value is how his team performs with him and how the team performs without him. People see the word "valuable" and think importance.
Two things pop out. Letang has a much larger cap hit and scores lots of points. What I meant (but didn't say) was that they are different players and so hard to compare. Letting's offense is relatively easy to calculate its effect on wins but defense is not. So if hypothetically G is better at defending how do you quantify it in a manner that is apples to apples with points scored?
Also, it's easy to make a qualitative judgement in terms of trade value. Letting > Girardi But how does one quantify value to a team as opposed to simply value?
ReggieDunlop68
hey hanrahan!
DanielBrassard
It's all so tiresome
Well that's the discourse between the two sides. Is good defense not allowing as many shots? Is good defense not allowing goals? Is good defense just based on what people saw? Theres not a single answer to that question. Personally I believe that if you are on the ice and are consistently giving up fewer shots, while taking context into account, then I could care less how it looks, you are doing a good job.
As far as quantifying value to a team as opposed to value, I dont get how the two are separate.
- Status
