Player Discussion John Tortorella vs Alain Vigneault

[Amazing Kreiderman]

How do you know that?

If we can all agree that Girardi looks like, let's say, a bottom-pairing d-man paired with McDonagh, why wouldn't we want to try something else?

And it's not like it's new for Girardi to look bad. It's been the better part of 2 seasons now, if not longer. We know it isn't working. Why isn't something else being tried? You can say all you want that Clendening will look like an ECHL caliber d-man against elite opposition, but you really have nothing substantial that makes that claim true. Even if we try Clendening next to McDonagh for a few games (I'm not saying we do this, but if we do), and he looks like a bottom-pairing d-man way over his head on the top pair, then we've equaled the utility that Girardi is giving us nightly for $5m cheaper.

And the real issue here is, that the coach thinks it's working. That's bad.

Clendening on the 3rd pairing doesn't even look good enough to keep his spot.

 

[silverfish]

Clendening on the 3rd pairing doesn't even look good enough to keep his spot.

What is he doing that's bad?

Is he getting outshot? Are the Rangers getting scored on when he's on the ice? Are the Rangers pinned in their own end when he's on the ice? In metrics that we can measure, how has he been doing relative to his teammates? Even if it's not against "elite competition" has his play shown us, through measures that we can quantify, that he may deserve a shot to play tougher competition?

My eyes say that Clendening has been good enough to be in the lineup every night.

Why are your eyes better than mine? Should what you see bear heavier weighting than what I see? Should what I see bear heavier weighting than what you see? (No.)

Would it surprise you if I told you that Clendening's competition has an xGF of 49.12 and Girardi's competition has an xGF of 49.93? A difference of 0.81? What about if I told you that Clendenings quality of teammates have an xGF of 49.55 and Girardi's quality of teammates have an xGF of 53.90? There is a reason that their quality of competition is so close and their quality of teammates has that distance. Quality of teammates matters more than quality of competition. You play a lot more with the same, **** teammates than you do against the same elite competition, or the same **** competition.

If all it boils down to is that from what you see, 4 is worse than 5, than that is 100% your prerogative. But understand that just because you see it that way, doesn't mean everyone sees it that way. And I understand that just because I see it this way, that not everyone has to see it this way, either.

Just please don't accuse me of not watching the games

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

Just please don't accuse me of not watching the games

There are 2 arguments I hate and immediately make me close the tab while reading:

- You must not be watching the games
- You never played hockey, what do you know?

In my opinion, Clendening is a borderline NHL D-man at best. 6th/7th guy on a contending team.

 

[Machinehead]

If Clendening is paired with McDonagh and plays against elite opposition, he will look like an ECHL caliber D-man

1) You mean like Girardi?

2) Girardi has not faced elite competition this year

3) You're not taking into account that Girardi's Quality of Teammates is paradise and more than outweighs anything hard about his role.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

1) You mean like Girardi?

2) Girardi has not faced elite competition this year

3) You're not taking into account that Girardi's Quality of Teammates is paradise and more than outweighs anything hard about his role.

Girardi is part of the problem, but Clendening is not the answer. Clendening is not better than Girardi, not this season

 

[Raspewtin]

There are 2 arguments I hate and immediately make me close the tab while reading:

- You must not be watching the games
- You never played hockey, what do you know?

In my opinion, Clendening is a borderline NHL D-man at best. 6th/7th guy on a contending team.

i think no one would bother here if you had a reason of substance as to why Clendening, indefinitely, isn't good and won't succeed.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

i think no one would bother here if you had a reason of substance as to why Clendening, indefinitely, isn't good and won't succeed.

In my opinion, Clendening is basically a PMD-version of McIlrath. I like Clendening, but I just don't see why some people love the kid so much, thinking he can solve our problems. This team is 3 good D-men away from having a good corps.

 

[silverfish]

In my opinion, Clendening is basically a PMD-version of McIlrath. I like Clendening, but I just don't see why some people love the kid so much, thinking he can solve our problems. This team is 3 good D-men away from having a good corps.

The argument isn't that Clendening is a savior. The argument is that it's hard to see why he isn't being given a shot over a few other d-men who are not performing well, but seem to be immune from accountability. And even further than immune from accountability, but are actually perceived to be playing well by the coach.

Clendening isn't the answer.
Clendening isn't a savoir.
Clendening should be given a shot to play consistently.
Girardi should sit.

Josh Manson is the answer

 

[Raspewtin]

The argument isn't that Clendening is a savior. The argument is that it's hard to see why he isn't being given a shot over a few other d-men who are not performing well, but seem to be immune from accountability. And even further than immune from accountability, but are actually perceived to be playing well by the coach.

Clendening isn't the answer.
Clendening isn't a savoir.
Clendening should be given a shot to play consistently.
Girardi should sit.

Josh Manson is the answer

Anybody reading the argument this way are the people that think we're all stupid. Plain and simple.

 

[JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK]

Girardi is part of the problem, but Clendening is not the answer. Clendening is not better than Girardi, not this season

id rather have bernmeister on defense than girardi

like idc who it is

if theyre in the nhl theres a 99.9% chance theyll be better than girardi rn

 

[bernmeister]

I liked Torts more. AV is the superior coach.

AV superior
don't like either

 

[silverfish]

Anybody reading the argument this way are the people that think we're all stupid. Plain and simple.

Well, maybe that's a little unfair.

I think that there is a tendency for everyone on HFNYR to be a bit hyperbolic all the time. Everyone does it. I do it. Everyone does it. Sometimes it gets taken more seriously than other times. And I do believe that there is a tendency on HF to.... at least from the perception of the "non-stats people" to take what the "stats people" say with a... worst case scenario of sorts in mind.

So when you, or me, or Machinehead say something like: Dan Girardi is terrible and anyone in the world would be a better option than him. While almost true it's not the most true. And then it sort of gets warped and it's a "black eye" of sorts on the "stat heads".

There is a gap. And it needs to be bridged. I just don't know how to do it.

Does any of this make sense? Let me see if I can make a chart to explain it.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Well, maybe that's a little unfair.

I think that there is a tendency for everyone on HFNYR to be a bit hyperbolic all the time. Everyone does it. I do it. Everyone does it. Sometimes it gets taken more seriously than other times. And I do believe that there is a tendency on HF to.... at least from the perception of the "non-stats people" to take what the "stats people" say with a... worst case scenario of sorts in mind.

So when you, or me, or Machinehead say something like: Dan Girardi is terrible and anyone in the world would be a better option than him. While almost true it's not the most true. And then it sort of gets warped and it's a "black eye" of sorts on the "stat heads".

There is a gap. And it needs to be bridged. I just don't know how to do it.

Does any of this make sense? Let me see if I can make a chart to explain it.

There's a simple way to bridge the gap. The stats people need to learn how to talk hockey without stats and not be arrogant towards those who don't know how to use the advanced stats. The non-stats people need to do due diligence to learn more about the stats and make the effort to be able to incorporate them into their knowledge of the game.

It's ****ing simple. I've said as much multiple times.

 

[silverfish]

There's a simple way to bridge the gap. The stats people need to learn how to talk hockey without stats and not be arrogant towards those who don't know how to use the advanced stats. The non-stats people need to do due diligence to learn more about the stats and make the effort to be able to incorporate them into their knowledge of the game.

It's ****ing simple. I've said as much multiple times.

Yeah, I'm working on it.

Feel free to call me out at any time I can do something better. Gotta remind myself to keep a level head when someone accuses me of not watching the games though. Or they are condescending about something. Which is hard to do. But yeah, I'm trying.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Yeah, I'm working on it.

Feel free to call me out at any time I can do something better. Gotta remind myself to keep a level head when someone accuses me of not watching the games though. Or they are condescending about something. Which is hard to do. But yeah, I'm trying.

Nah, you're very good and take the time to go fully in-depth explain things.

Part of the problem is that it seems like sites go up and down every year so it's hard to track stuff for the non-stats people who aren't as in tune with it as others. I've had this issue myself when I was really putting in the effort to grasp the concepts. I think that "you don't even know X stat" has become the new "you don't even play hockey", ironically enough.

It's a very volatile thing to me.

 

[Raspewtin]

There's a simple way to bridge the gap. The stats people need to learn how to talk hockey without stats

Yeah we never do this. I don't even watch hockey anymore.

and not be arrogant towards those who don't know how to use the advanced stats.

It's pretty hard to be nice and supportive when discussing stats when the muh eye test fanclub can't extend the same courtesy and resort to being a bunch of ****ing children.

The non-stats people need to do due diligence to learn more about the stats and make the effort to be able to incorporate them into their knowledge of the game.

Which they've shown they're simply not interested in doing and would rather go CORSI LUZL HERUHRURURHRU I KNOW EVERYTHING

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Yeah we never do this. I don't even watch hockey anymore.

It's pretty hard to be nice and supportive when discussing stats when the muh eye test fanclub can't extend the same courtesy and resort to being a bunch of ****ing children.

Which they've shown they're simply not interested in doing and would rather go CORSI LUZL HERUHRURURHRU I KNOW EVERYTHING

This is a textbook example of how not to act, just as an FYI.

At east we have that one on the books/spreadsheets.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

It would also help if people would just accept that not everyone HAS to agree with them

 

[Hunter Gathers]

It would also help if people would just accept that not everyone HAS to agree with them

No, an argument must always be won or lost.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

No, an argument must always be won or lost.

I disagree with that

 

[Hunter Gathers]

I disagree with that

Then you've already lost.

 

[silverfish]

Nah, you're very good and take the time to go fully in-depth explain things.

Part of the problem is that it seems like sites go up and down every year so it's hard to track stuff for the non-stats people who aren't as in tune with it as others. I've had this issue myself when I was really putting in the effort to grasp the concepts. I think that "you don't even know X stat" has become the new "you don't even play hockey", ironically enough.

It's a very volatile thing to me.

Well, a lot of the sites go up and down because these people are getting hired and have to pull their work down. Which is a good sign for the argument that these guys are on the right track with something. But there are always staples.

Corsica
stats.hockeyanalysis
Datarink (new)
Hockeyviz

I have a long-term goal of launching an NWHL site, which will be a staple

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Well, a lot of the sites go up and down because these people are getting hired and have to pull their work down. Which is a good sign for the argument that these guys are on the right track with something. But there are always staples.

Corsica
stats.hockeyanalysis
Datarink (new)
Hockeyviz

I have a long-term goal of launching an NWHL site, which will be a staple

I miss WAR on Ice the most.

 

[silverfish]

I miss WAR on Ice the most.

I've found Corsica to be a more than suitable replacement, to be honest. There are a lot of features on there that are somewhat hidden among all the tabs, but I've never been faced with a situation that has been like: "I need to see this, why can't I find it anywhere?" I can always find what I'm looking for.

To put this back on topic:

Maybe AV should find himself a website he likes

 

[Raspewtin]

This is a textbook example of how not to act, just as an FYI.

At east we have that one on the books/spreadsheets.

Sorry I just hate the hypocrisy and how we're always on the defensive. I understand that many posters aren't like this, but too many are and that's the root of the frustration. Especially when the onus is put on us to be the bigger people in the name of "our movement" as if a different analysis is a movement

That wasn't accusing you either but the "lul corssi" movement have a lot of self-reflection to do if they actually want this gap bridged.