HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Alain Vigneault Part IV

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-13-2016, 06:02 PM
  #76
Raspewtin
Fire Clowneault
 
Raspewtin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Country: France
Posts: 32,748
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by eyjee View Post
So when the argument arises: "Well, yeah, but look at those players, that's tough competition!". Girardi only performs better than the rest of the league against Victor Rask.
Why even respond to that poster's sewage at this point?

__________________
"It's going to be a zoo no matter what, Staalmania, Staals everywhre, omg Staal on Staal action, three brothers hockeying! Staal returning to Carolina omg what news! All the feels he is feel..." - Ail on Eric Staal's return to Carolina.
Raspewtin is offline  
Old
12-13-2016, 06:04 PM
  #77
silverfish
the basement
 
silverfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Alphabetrium
Country: United States
Posts: 29,226
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raspewtin View Post
Why even respond to that poster's sewage at this point?
Meh. I don't mind having a conversation. I definitely wanted to point at least those metrics which I think make a good point, or at the very least, a point worth thinking about. But obviously if this devolves, I'll back out.

silverfish is offline  
Old
12-13-2016, 06:09 PM
  #78
Raspewtin
Fire Clowneault
 
Raspewtin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Country: France
Posts: 32,748
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by haohmaru View Post
What makes you think I was talking solely about this season? Henrik has been an average NHL goalie this year. 99-49-16 over the last two years going into this season.
You should've specified that.

Point stands anyway.

Quote:
Who was Doughty paired with in '12 that you say is as bad as your definition of Girardi is?
Rob Scuderi's corpse, not Girardi bad but pretty bad.

Quote:
Of course it should. If your "AHL" guy on the first pair is playing against the other team's best players and your record is 20-9-1 then I submit you don't have an AHL player on 1RD. I don't care what metric you're using - ultimately it's about winning and preventing goals.
Well no **** it's about winning and preventing goals. it's that Girardi's playstyle generally doesn't contribute to goals gained, nor does it limit goals against. Girardi is a negative contributor here.

Girardi is the 2nd worst Ranger regular in ES goal differential since he's been a Ranger (Drury is 1st) so this isn't even true.

Quote:
What is the purpose of defense?
To positively control the game.

It's not to play defense. 2002 called they want their player ideologies back.

Quote:
So, how many goals he's on the ice for at even strength, the team's Win/Loss record, and keeping the other team's best forwards off the scoreboard are "rudimentary and worthless"? Got it.
Worthless stats considering a 31 game sample size and about 17 billion articles destroying the "usefulness" of plus minus, which shouldn't even have to be addressed at this point, yeah.

Quote:
I'm not making an argument that Girardi is a 1RD or even a 3/4 at this point. I'm saying that if he's as bad as YOU think he is, then this team wouldn't have the record that it does and has had over the course of his career.
It's still wrong.

Quote:
This NHL competition simply wouldn't allow it.
Prove it

Quote:
How many coaches have played him at 1RD? How many assistants put him there as well?
Who the **** cares?

Quote:
Is it possible that you're missing something in your analysis?
Duh.

Quote:
He warrants criticism for sure - but characterizing him as an AHL'er or ECHL'er or whatever actually diminishes (in my eyes anyway) the points that you're trying to make when you talk about him.
Well good thing it's not about you.

He's a 7th defenseman, are you happy?

Raspewtin is offline  
Old
12-13-2016, 07:01 PM
  #79
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 18,429
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eyjee View Post
Let's say you have a player who is constantly blitzed by the opposition by shots against, but isn't necessarily on the ice for a ton of goals against. Would you say that this player, who gives up many, many shots is doing his job? Or, would you say that maybe the goalie behind this player is the one doing most of the work?

For example, here are the shot attempt against per 60 metrics and SA% for Girardi against a few of his most popular competition over the past three years:

http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/show...014-17&sit=5v5

Victor Rask: 56.11 (49.3% SA%)
Tavares: 68.90 (41.1%)
Ovechkin: 65 (40.7%)
Giroux: 63.27 (35.8%)
Crosby: 72.25 (39.6%)

Victor Rask has been G's most common opponent in the past three years. He's been on the ice for 80:12 of 5v5 time against Rask.

The point here is, if Girardi spent a significant amount of TOI against these players, and kept allowing shots at that rate, then the goals against would happen. So, I don't think it's so out of the realm to believe that it's less that Girardi is not allowing GA versus Lundqvist/Raanta stopping shots as well as they both do.

For reference, here is the shot attempt per 60 rate of those same five players away from Girardi:

58.08 (more)
63.33 (less)
62.39 (less)
62.03 (less)
65.00 (less)

So when the argument arises: "Well, yeah, but look at those players, that's tough competition!". Girardi only performs better than the rest of the league against Victor Rask.
Girardi sucks. I hope they upgrade at RD immediately. You could've saved yourself a lot of typing because I was responding to the people who think Girardi would be better served as a truck driver and that it can't get any worse.

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline  
Old
12-13-2016, 08:36 PM
  #80
RGY
Kreid or Die
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Long Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 11,576
vCash: 500
Please fire this idiot.

Stepan taking the late faceoff with Girardi on the ice. How much more obvious can it be to everybody but the coach. Last year Stepan cost us multiple games because he is the ****ing worst at faceoffs. Terrible. And he was garbage all night and did not even deserve to be out there let alone take the faceoff.

Team will never win with him as coach which is status quo for his coaching career.

RGY is offline  
Old
12-13-2016, 08:39 PM
  #81
DaBadGuy7
Registered User
 
DaBadGuy7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Newark,NJ
Posts: 1,105
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to DaBadGuy7
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGY View Post
Please fire this idiot.

Stepan taking the late faceoff with Girardi on the ice. How much more obvious can it be to everybody but the coach. Last year Stepan cost us multiple games because he is the ****ing worst at faceoffs. Terrible. And he was garbage all night and did not even deserve to be out there let alone take the faceoff.

Team will never win with him as coach which is status quo for his coaching career.
I think that is the biggest reason why I'm not as emotionally invested in the team as much anymore, hard to get riled up when you know how the song will end with this team every April/May.

DaBadGuy7 is offline  
Old
12-13-2016, 09:21 PM
  #82
Inferno
Registered User
 
Inferno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Country: United States
Posts: 24,660
vCash: 857
i don't get why DG is on there to finish a game like that. oh well.

Inferno is offline  
Old
12-14-2016, 06:18 AM
  #83
redfzn
#94
 
redfzn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 2,736
vCash: 500
That last timeout was not a good call by AV after the Chicago icing. Darling was a bit hurt from JT running into him and we were flying. Chicago was gassed. Absolutely no reason to call that timeout.

redfzn is offline  
Old
12-14-2016, 07:33 AM
  #84
haohmaru
boomshakalaka
 
haohmaru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Fleming Island, Fl
Country: United States
Posts: 8,771
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eyjee View Post
Let's say you have a player who is constantly blitzed by the opposition by shots against, but isn't necessarily on the ice for a ton of goals against. Would you say that this player, who gives up many, many shots is doing his job? Or, would you say that maybe the goalie behind this player is the one doing most of the work?

For example, here are the shot attempt against per 60 metrics and SA% for Girardi against a few of his most popular competition over the past three years:

http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/show...014-17&sit=5v5

Victor Rask: 56.11 (49.3% SA%)
Tavares: 68.90 (41.1%)
Ovechkin: 65 (40.7%)
Giroux: 63.27 (35.8%)
Crosby: 72.25 (39.6%)

Victor Rask has been G's most common opponent in the past three years. He's been on the ice for 80:12 of 5v5 time against Rask.

The point here is, if Girardi spent a significant amount of TOI against these players, and kept allowing shots at that rate, then the goals against would happen. So, I don't think it's so out of the realm to believe that it's less that Girardi is not allowing GA versus Lundqvist/Raanta stopping shots as well as they both do.

For reference, here is the shot attempt per 60 rate of those same five players away from Girardi:

58.08 (more)
63.33 (less)
62.39 (less)
62.03 (less)
65.00 (less)

So when the argument arises: "Well, yeah, but look at those players, that's tough competition!". Girardi only performs better than the rest of the league against Victor Rask.
What is the argument that I'm making?

Does that % differential make Girardi a non NHL'er? Should Girardi be playing 5/6? How much would that boost his possession numbers? Is Girardi a net-negative on the ice?

I'm not saying Girardi is a 1st pairing guy anymore. I'm saying he's still a viable D and an NHL'er. Can you argue that with possession numbers? I don't think you can considering his coach keeps throwing him out there in every bad situation vs. the other team's top 6 and that's what his metrics are based on. Unfortunately, the Rangers other options (Klein/Holden) aren't any better vs. the best players on the other team.

haohmaru is offline  
Old
12-14-2016, 08:04 AM
  #85
silverfish
the basement
 
silverfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Alphabetrium
Country: United States
Posts: 29,226
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haohmaru View Post
What is the argument that I'm making?

Does that % differential make Girardi a non NHL'er? Should Girardi be playing 5/6? How much would that boost his possession numbers? Is Girardi a net-negative on the ice?

I'm not saying Girardi is a 1st pairing guy anymore. I'm saying he's still a viable D and an NHL'er. Can you argue that with possession numbers? I don't think you can considering his coach keeps throwing him out there in every bad situation vs. the other team's top 6 and that's what his metrics are based on. Unfortunately, the Rangers other options (Klein/Holden) aren't any better vs. the best players on the other team.
Here's a list of players over the last three years that Girardi has a >= 50% SA% against (minimum 25 mins against. sample size = 124 players)

http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/show...014-17&sit=5v5

Jeff Skinner - 55.7 SA%
Travis Zajac - 60%
Bobby Ryan - 51.9%
JvR - 50%
Toews - 53.8%
Zibanejad (lol) - 52.1%
Atkinson - 50%
Riley Nash - 50.9%
Kyle Palmieri - 56.2%
Bozak - 54.4%
David Jones - 63.2%
Zetterberg - 50.9%
Backes - 51.9%
Schwartz - 50.8%
Matt Calvert - 50%

Out of 124 players, Girardi's ice-time out-attempts the competition on only 15 occassions.

In this group of names, it is highly likely that we are not going to find every team's top opposition here and yet, 109 players out-attempt Girardi in this sample.

I'd ask, is the reality that Girardi is "in over his head" or is the reality that Girardi just isn't a very good d-man anymore? It's likely that the 'in over his head' part is contributing very much so to the 'isn't a very good d-man anymore' but I'd wager, all aspects consider, that third pairing Girardi wouldn't be that great either.

silverfish is offline  
Old
12-14-2016, 08:16 AM
  #86
haohmaru
boomshakalaka
 
haohmaru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Fleming Island, Fl
Country: United States
Posts: 8,771
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eyjee View Post
Here's a list of players over the last three years that Girardi has a >= 50% SA% against (minimum 25 mins against. sample size = 124 players)

http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/show...014-17&sit=5v5

Jeff Skinner - 55.7 SA%
Travis Zajac - 60%
Bobby Ryan - 51.9%
JvR - 50%
Toews - 53.8%
Zibanejad (lol) - 52.1%
Atkinson - 50%
Riley Nash - 50.9%
Kyle Palmieri - 56.2%
Bozak - 54.4%
David Jones - 63.2%
Zetterberg - 50.9%
Backes - 51.9%
Schwartz - 50.8%
Matt Calvert - 50%

Out of 124 players, Girardi's ice-time out-attempts the competition on only 15 occassions.

In this group of names, it is highly likely that we are not going to find every team's top opposition here and yet, 109 players out-attempt Girardi in this sample.

I'd ask, is the reality that Girardi is "in over his head" or is the reality that Girardi just isn't a very good d-man anymore? It's likely that the 'in over his head' part is contributing very much so to the 'isn't a very good d-man anymore' but I'd wager, all aspects consider, that third pairing Girardi wouldn't be that great either.
You're using one metric to determine a player's viability and it's shot attempts?

Player A: 12 shots against (four goals, five saves, one blocked shot, and two missed shots)
Player B: 12 shots against (one goal, five saves, four blocked shots, and two missed shots)

What's the corsi for each of these players?

haohmaru is offline  
Old
12-14-2016, 08:24 AM
  #87
silverfish
the basement
 
silverfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Alphabetrium
Country: United States
Posts: 29,226
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haohmaru View Post
You're using one metric to determine a player's viability and it's shot attempts?

Player A: 12 shots against (four goals, five saves, one blocked shot, and two missed shots)
Player B: 12 shots against (one goal, five saves, four blocked shots, and two missed shots)

What's the corsi for each of these players?
And when these shot attempts against go up to 1200, do you think Player A will have 400 goals against and player B will have 100 goals against? Or do you think, over the larger sample, that these would even out a bit?

silverfish is offline  
Old
12-14-2016, 08:32 AM
  #88
haohmaru
boomshakalaka
 
haohmaru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Fleming Island, Fl
Country: United States
Posts: 8,771
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eyjee View Post
And when these shot attempts against go up to 1200, do you think Player A will have 400 goals against and player B will have 100 goals against? Or do you think, over the larger sample, that these would even out a bit?
It's still flawed. You can make the same "over time" arguments about +/- which is also a single flawed tool in an overall tool box.

How much does corsi suffer by being a transition team? By playing with the lead? By allowing shots but limiting shot quality? By blocking shot attempts (one of my biggest problems with corsi)?

It doesn't account at all for 4v4 or 5v4 or 5v3 or 3v3.

For me, after 82 games, I'll take the team with the best goal differential over the team with the best corsi % every single time.

This Girardi crap has been beaten to death. I think the guy isn't a 1st pairing D but he's also not the guy that should be driving the Zamboni and I'll just leave the conversation there.

haohmaru is offline  
Old
12-14-2016, 08:42 AM
  #89
silverfish
the basement
 
silverfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Alphabetrium
Country: United States
Posts: 29,226
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haohmaru View Post
It's still flawed. You can make the same "over time" arguments about +/- which is also a single flawed tool in an overall tool box.

How much does corsi suffer by being a transition team? By playing with the lead? By allowing shots but limiting shot quality? By blocking shot attempts (one of my biggest problems with corsi)?

It doesn't account at all for 4v4 or 5v4 or 5v3 or 3v3.

For me, after 82 games, I'll take the team with the best goal differential over the team with the best corsi % every single time.

This Girardi crap has been beaten to death. I think the guy isn't a 1st pairing D but he's also not the guy that should be driving the Zamboni and I'll just leave the conversation there.
Maybe you should take a look at what's a better predictor for who wins the cup. Season ending adjusted SA% or season ending goal differential.

The reason shot attempts are used are because they have proven validity to judging future performance.

You can leave the conversation there, or ignore shot attempts all you want as a 'flawed' metric, but you're purposefully ignoring a factor in hockey that has proven use.

The funniest thing to me is when advanced stats people get crapped on for boiling down the game to one metric, or not watching the game, or not understanding hockey. It's so funny to me. The reason I started looking into advanced stats in the first place isn't because I'm some nerd, it's because I love hockey and I want to know everything there is to know about it. It's baffling to me that anyone who says they love hockey won't look into some of this stuff that's changing the game. Perhaps it's the 'change' part that has people iffy on it.

And BTW, I'm never using just shot attempts to evaluate a player. However it may seem that way because I can't write a thesis on a player each time I want to talk about said player.

Oh, and by the way, I'd be fascinated to see the research that +/- over time is a better predictor of future goal scoring than shot attempts.

silverfish is offline  
Old
12-14-2016, 08:59 AM
  #90
haohmaru
boomshakalaka
 
haohmaru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Fleming Island, Fl
Country: United States
Posts: 8,771
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eyjee View Post
Maybe you should take a look at what's a better predictor for who wins the cup. Season ending adjusted SA% or season ending goal differential.

The reason shot attempts are used are because they have proven validity to judging future performance.

You can leave the conversation there, or ignore shot attempts all you want as a 'flawed' metric, but you're purposefully ignoring a factor in hockey that has proven use.

The funniest thing to me is when advanced stats people get crapped on for boiling down the game to one metric, or not watching the game, or not understanding hockey. It's so funny to me. The reason I started looking into advanced stats in the first place isn't because I'm some nerd, it's because I love hockey and I want to know everything there is to know about it. It's baffling to me that anyone who says they love hockey won't look into some of this stuff that's changing the game. Perhaps it's the 'change' part that has people iffy on it.

And BTW, I'm never using just shot attempts to evaluate a player. However it may seem that way because I can't write a thesis on a player each time I want to talk about said player.

Oh, and by the way, I'd be fascinated to see the research that +/- over time is a better predictor of future goal scoring than shot attempts.
Am I 'crapping on you" because we're having a conversation? Am I "ignoring shot attempts" or saying it's a tool in the toolbox? Did I say, anywhere, that "+/- over time is a better predictor" or did I say, again, that it's a tool in the tool box? I'm not resisting change or ignoring anything - I'm saying that they are pieces to a puzzle and there isn't a single metric by which to judge an individual player.

The "funniest thing" to me is when people like YOU make **** up about what people like me said, and what was actually said in a conversation.

FWIW - Only 2 teams since 2001 have finished outside the top 10 in goal differential and won the Cup. You can't say the same for top 10's in Corsi. It's close, but goal differential is a better predictor.

haohmaru is offline  
Old
12-14-2016, 09:12 AM
  #91
silverfish
the basement
 
silverfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Alphabetrium
Country: United States
Posts: 29,226
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haohmaru View Post
Am I 'crapping on you" because we're having a conversation? Am I "ignoring shot attempts" or saying it's a tool in the toolbox? Did I say, anywhere, that "+/- over time is a better predictor" or did I say, again, that it's a tool in the tool box? I'm not resisting change or ignoring anything - I'm saying that they are pieces to a puzzle and there isn't a single metric by which to judge an individual player.

The "funniest thing" to me is when people like YOU make **** up about what people like me said, and what was actually said in a conversation.

FWIW - Only 2 teams since 2001 have finished outside the top 10 in goal differential and won the Cup. You can't say the same for top 10's in Corsi. It's close, but goal differential is a better predictor.
[this is getting OT for the AV thread, but if you'd like to continue, I'd be happy to do so in the Advanced Stats thread]

re the red: Don't just say it, prove it.

re the bolded: General observation. Not a personal shot.

re the green: Let's look at the years we have data on both on. I'm doing this for my own edification as well:

07-08: Cup winner: Detroit.
Goal Differential Rank: 1
Adjusted SA% rank: 1

08-09: Cup winner: Pittsburgh
Goal Differential Rank: 9
Adjusted SA% rank: 17 (ouch, Corsi, you suck)

09-10: Cup winner: Chicago
Goal Differential Rank: 2
Adjusted SA% rank: 1

10-11: Cup winner: Boston
Goal Differential Rank: 2
Adjusted SA% rank: 10

11-12: Cup winner: LA
Goal Differential Rank: 11
Adjusted SA% rank: 1

12-13: Cup winner: Chicago
Goal Differential Rank: 1
Adjusted SA% rank: 2

13-14: Cup winner: LA
Goal Differential rank: 7
Adjusted SA% rank: 1

14-15: Cup Winner: Chicago
Goal Differential rank: 4
Adjusted SA% rank: 5

15-16: Cup Winner: Pittsburgh
Goal Differential rank: 2
Adjusted SA% rank: 3

Now. There is a reason I painstakingly went through this exercise and deliberately typed it all out like that.

Do you think it's a coincidence that these numbers, overall, tend to fall in line with each other? That perhaps maybe shot attempts are a good indicator of goals?

Are goals more important than shot attempts? Obviously. Is one a predictor of the other? Yes. Is it then important to optimize the predicting variable to do better on the predicted variable? I'd say so.

silverfish is offline  
Old
12-14-2016, 09:14 AM
  #92
haohmaru
boomshakalaka
 
haohmaru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Fleming Island, Fl
Country: United States
Posts: 8,771
vCash: 500
And, before I go to work:

How many teams have finished in, let's say, the top 10 in goal differential and missed the playoffs since the lockout?

How many teams have finished in the top 10 in corsi and missed the playoffs?

I'd bet more top 10 corsi than top 10 GD.

From 2006-2014, 5.6% of teams finishing in the top TEN in GD didn't make the playoffs. I don't know the stats for corsi top 10.

haohmaru is offline  
Old
12-14-2016, 09:21 AM
  #93
haohmaru
boomshakalaka
 
haohmaru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Fleming Island, Fl
Country: United States
Posts: 8,771
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eyjee View Post
[this is getting OT for the AV thread, but if you'd like to continue, I'd be happy to do so in the Advanced Stats thread]

re the red: Don't just say it, prove it.
Prove what? That +/- is a tool?

Quote:
Originally Posted by eyjee View Post

re the green: Let's look at the years we have data on both on. I'm doing this for my own edification as well:

07-08: Cup winner: Detroit.
Goal Differential Rank: 1
Adjusted SA% rank: 1

08-09: Cup winner: Pittsburgh
Goal Differential Rank: 9
Adjusted SA% rank: 17 (ouch, Corsi, you suck)

09-10: Cup winner: Chicago
Goal Differential Rank: 2
Adjusted SA% rank: 1

10-11: Cup winner: Boston
Goal Differential Rank: 2
Adjusted SA% rank: 10

11-12: Cup winner: LA
Goal Differential Rank: 11
Adjusted SA% rank: 1

12-13: Cup winner: Chicago
Goal Differential Rank: 1
Adjusted SA% rank: 2

13-14: Cup winner: LA
Goal Differential rank: 7
Adjusted SA% rank: 1

14-15: Cup Winner: Chicago
Goal Differential rank: 4
Adjusted SA% rank: 5

15-16: Cup Winner: Pittsburgh
Goal Differential rank: 2
Adjusted SA% rank: 3

Now. There is a reason I painstakingly went through this exercise and deliberately typed it all out like that.

Do you think it's a coincidence that these numbers, overall, tend to fall in line with each other? That perhaps maybe shot attempts are a good indicator of goals?

Are goals more important than shot attempts? Obviously. Is one a predictor of the other? Yes. Is it then important to optimize the predicting variable to do better on the predicted variable? I'd say so.
Again, I'm not saying that corsi valueless or insignificant. It isn't and I haven't.

And, of course good teams have the puck and score. But, this is a long long LONG way from talking about Girardi being an NHL player or not.

Anyone, I'm out.

haohmaru is offline  
Old
12-14-2016, 11:37 AM
  #94
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 18,060
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raspewtin View Post
To positively control the game.

It's not to play defense. 2002 called they want their player ideologies back.
Really? The purpose of defense is not to play defense? Wow.

Maybe it is just me, but mayhaps the Girardi conversations belong in the Girardi thread??

True Blue is offline  
Old
12-14-2016, 11:54 AM
  #95
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 18,060
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eyjee View Post
re the green: Let's look at the years we have data on both on. I'm doing this for my own edification as well:

07-08: Cup winner: Detroit.
Goal Differential Rank: 1
Adjusted SA% rank: 1

08-09: Cup winner: Pittsburgh
Goal Differential Rank: 9
Adjusted SA% rank: 17 (ouch, Corsi, you suck)

09-10: Cup winner: Chicago
Goal Differential Rank: 2
Adjusted SA% rank: 1

10-11: Cup winner: Boston
Goal Differential Rank: 2
Adjusted SA% rank: 10

11-12: Cup winner: LA
Goal Differential Rank: 11
Adjusted SA% rank: 1

12-13: Cup winner: Chicago
Goal Differential Rank: 1
Adjusted SA% rank: 2

13-14: Cup winner: LA
Goal Differential rank: 7
Adjusted SA% rank: 1

14-15: Cup Winner: Chicago
Goal Differential rank: 4
Adjusted SA% rank: 5

15-16: Cup Winner: Pittsburgh
Goal Differential rank: 2
Adjusted SA% rank: 3
When looked at on a team level, Corsi can bear out. When utilizing it to judge a player (ANY player), it remains a flawed statistic. It is a tool, but it has inherent limitations.

True Blue is offline  
Old
12-14-2016, 12:14 PM
  #96
an Girar i
(D)an Girar(d)i
 
an Girar i's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,306
vCash: 500

an Girar i is offline  
Old
12-14-2016, 12:30 PM
  #97
TheTakedown
Puck is Life
 
TheTakedown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 10,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue View Post
Really? The purpose of defense is not to play defense? Wow.

Maybe it is just me, but mayhaps the Girardi conversations belong in the Girardi thread??
what he means is the actual action of "playing defense" is different than what it was 10-15 years ago.

Back in the day it was about stopping the puck altogether. Defense is now the first form of offense in hockey, so now not only is it your job to stop the puck, but you also need to get that puck and start the offensive contributions. It's very, very different.

Don't act like you don't know this either.

TheTakedown is offline  
Old
12-14-2016, 12:34 PM
  #98
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 18,060
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheTakedown View Post
what he means is the actual action of "playing defense" is different than what it was 10-15 years ago.

Back in the day it was about stopping the puck altogether. Defense is now the first form of offense in hockey, so now not only is it your job to stop the puck, but you also need to get that puck and start the offensive contributions. It's very, very different.

Don't act like you don't know this either.
I know what is your assertion. It has never been mine. There is a place and time for puck moving defensemen, there is also nothing wrong for a defenseman to be strictly a defensive defenseman. One need not be considered a "good" defenseman based on only how much they contribute to the offense. I think that the main part of any defenseman is, well you know......defense. That part has not changed.

And btw, when someone says that the point of playing defense is not to play defense, I tend to take them at their word that that is exactly what they mean. Playing defense is one thing. Playing offense is another. Some players are very good at both. Some are not. Does not mean that diminishes a defenseman's role. Just like there are very good puck movers who are abhorrent at actually playing defense.

True Blue is offline  
Old
12-14-2016, 12:40 PM
  #99
TheTakedown
Puck is Life
 
TheTakedown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 10,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue View Post
I know what is your assertion. It has never been mine. There is a place and time for puck moving defensemen, there is also nothing wrong for a defenseman to be strictly a defensive defenseman. One need not be considered a "good" defenseman based on only how much they contribute to the offense. I think that the main part of any defenseman is, well you know......defense. That part has not changed.

And btw, when someone says that the point of playing defense is not to play defense, I tend to take them at their word that that is exactly what they mean. Playing defense is one thing. Playing offense is another. Some players are very good at both. Some are not. Does not mean that diminishes a defenseman's role. Just like there are very good puck movers who are abhorrent at actually playing defense.
The real problem is when you're ALWAYS playing defense... I'm not saying games don't swing in the wrong direction, but take Girardi for example. You have a guy who is, statistically speaking, a negative contributor offensively.

Negative offensive contributions mean that said offensive play is replaced by defensive play (this is assuming any game is theoretically 50% offense and 50% defense. I'm just using arbitrary numbers here).

If Girardi is a negative offensive contributor, that automatically ensues defensive play.



I am not saying a defenseman can't be good if he can't contribute offensively (which isn't passable in today's game anyways, but again strictly theoretically speaking here), but if he's contributing negative offensively (which Girardi does solely because he simply hands the puck back to the other team, either in form of an icing, a bad pass to an offender, or a giveaway in the zone), you have to wonder at what point is that player playing "too much defense", and therefore that that player is not a good "defenseman"?

That's how I see it

TheTakedown is offline  
Old
12-14-2016, 01:01 PM
  #100
an Girar i
(D)an Girar(d)i
 
an Girar i's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,306
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue View Post
I know what is your assertion. It has never been mine. There is a place and time for puck moving defensemen, there is also nothing wrong for a defenseman to be strictly a defensive defenseman. One need not be considered a "good" defenseman based on only how much they contribute to the offense. I think that the main part of any defenseman is, well you know......defense. That part has not changed.

And btw, when someone says that the point of playing defense is not to play defense, I tend to take them at their word that that is exactly what they mean. Playing defense is one thing. Playing offense is another. Some players are very good at both. Some are not. Does not mean that diminishes a defenseman's role. Just like there are very good puck movers who are abhorrent at actually playing defense.
This is very vague. What do you mean by 'offense' and contributing to it? Putting up points on the scoresheet?

The bottom line is, a good defenseman (no matter the label you give them; i.e puck mover, two way, defensive etc) will usually allow his team to be 'on offense' more than 'on defense', even if he individually, is not contributing to the scoring of points. His defensive play (shutting down the blue line, winning puck battles, etc) allows his team to play in the offensive zone. Also, pinching in the offensive zone and keeping pucks at the blueline can also be thought of as 'defense' as you are not allowing the other team to escape with the puck and go to attack in your end. You are basically 'playing defense in the offensive zone'.

So what exactly do you mean by offense?

an Girar i is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:01 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2017 All Rights Reserved.