confirmed: TBL Sign D Dan Girardi to 2-Year/$6M Contract; $3M AAV

[Mike]

Given the fact they project him as a top-four defender, that's not a confidence I share. At all.

 

But we'll see what happens. My guess is a fairly quick flame out, with the Lightning even considering a buyout of his second year next summer.

 

I don't think that'll happen unless he's injured.

[Phil]

Johnson and Palat both need long-term extensions still. Paquette, and Namestnikov both need new deals next season, too. It may just be a cap requirement.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

[Mike]

Johnson and Palat both need long-term extensions still. Paquette, and Namestnikov both need new deals next season, too. It may just be a cap requirement.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

 

They should buy out Callahan

[Albatrosss]

TBL will take anything NYR get rid of

[Future]

Every org in every sport tracks a myriad of analytics, yes. When it's said like this in defense of an analytics black hole, it's "alternative facts".

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

This is...wrong.

 

Coaches use their own metrics all the time. Basketball is a good example I think, because coaches track things like assists, rebounds, and baskets created far differently than any media or anyone else, because they place an emphasis on how those things happen in their own system. Same as football, where a WR could get a + on a play for simply pulling a safety down the field and allowing a different guy to get open - that would never be recorded in analytics and is almost always missed by fans. In that sense, they're a bit subjective. If Yzerman or whoever uses things like tipped passes or strong positioning as a suppressed shot, then G's numbers would look far different.

 

Baseball is the only sport where the analytics are the analytics. Everything else is nuanced by organization.

[Phil]

I don't doubt they keep their own stats. I also don't doubt that they're intentionally designed to ignore faults while praising predetermined categories of excellence.

 

"We tracked thirty hours of Girardi's play last season and found that Girardi had more blocked shots than any other a Rangers defenseman when on the ice"

 

In other words, he bleeds shot attempts?

 

"We also found that Girardi had the most glass clears and glass clear attempts in the league by a wide margin"

 

In other words, he throws the puck out of his own end like a grenade?

 

It's Trumpian logic.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

[Future]

I don't doubt they keep their own stats. I also don't doubt that they're intentionally designed to ignore faults while praising predetermined categories of excellence.

 

Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

No. This is not true. If anything, their designed to weed out bloated stats.

 

Player A has a 57% CF and a 38% OZS.

Player B has a 47% CF and a 28% OZS.

 

Fan who looks at Corsi says Player A is the better possession driver, and therefore, better player.

Organization says "player A does not make plays that leads to shots, but is on ice for them. Not a good shot generator. Player B does a lot with poor zone starts, makes specific (i.e. tipped passes, good breakout) plays that lead to shots. Is far superior to player A"

 

This is the gap that fans never, ever take into consideration.

[Phil]

Then, perhaps, they're unintentionally designed to ignore faults while praising predetermined categories of excellence.

 

But let me put it to you this way since you seem apt to play Devil's Advocate this morning — make the case for me how Dan Girardi, the hockey player, can bring value to your club. And please, be sure to include at least a line or two of statistical data to back it up. I don't want to hear "on a third pairing in a sheltered role he can provide veteran leadership". That's all buzzword talk that isn't at all demonstrable or mathematically supported.

[Future]

Then, perhaps, they're unintentionally designed to ignore faults while praising predetermined categories of excellence.

 

But let me put it to you this way since you seem apt to play Devil's Advocate this morning ? make the case for me how Dan Girardi, the hockey player, can bring value to your club. And please, be sure to include at least a line or two of statistical data to back it up. I don't want to hear "on a third pairing in a sheltered role he can provide veteran leadership". That's all buzzword talk that isn't at all demonstrable or mathematically supported.

"uninentionally designed to ignore faults."

 

One of those players is Torey Krug, one of them is Ryan MacDonagh. By your logic, Krug is the better player. If anything, that kind of breakdown exposes just how flawed raw analytics are and shows exactly how important it is for teams to apply their own.

 

G can bring value as a shot blocker and PKer. There's no stats for sticks/bodies in passing/shooting lanes. And hockey isn't a game played on calculators, so all those intangibles do matter. No, he's not worth $3m, but I'm not debating about him anyways.

[Future]

While praising predetermined categories of excellence.

Back half of this...

 

Categories of excellence is just another way to say that an organization prefers a certain type of player - their values. Every team is different in that regard. AV's category of excellence is speed, so he likes Michael Grabner. The Flyers don't care as much about that and their category of excellence is net-front goals, so they prefer Wayne Simmons. Neither of those things say ignore anything.

[Phil]

If I valued CF% over all other statistics and accounted for no other aspect of the game, recorded in ledger books or otherwise, yes. But you know that I don't, which makes your argument dishonest.

 

Stats are also not flawed, raw or refined. They are mathematical measurements recorded based on a varying set of variables. Their application, weight, and value respective to one another as they're interpreted by human beings can be flawed, however.

 

As to G, when you say something like "G can bring value as a shot blocker and PKer", what you (or the Lightning) might see as "value in shot blocking" I see as bleeding shot attempts. What you (or the Lightning) might see as "value in clearing the zone" I see as giving up possession of the puck by simply throwing it the length of the ice, which leads to increased time spent in the DZ and increases the likelihood of taking penalties as players grow tired of being forced to stay on the ice because Girardi can't make simple passing plays to move the puck up the ice effectively. The list goes on and on. If all you see out of this is "Corsi", see an optometrist.

[Phil]

Back half of this...

 

Categories of excellence is just another way to say that an organization prefers a certain type of player - their values. Every team is different in that regard. AV's category of excellence is speed, so he likes Michael Grabner. The Flyers don't care as much about that and their category of excellence is net-front goals, so they prefer Wayne Simmons. Neither of those things say ignore anything.

 

Yes, and some "types" are inherently more valuable than others. A team who values Carl Hagelin as their top-line left wing versus Alex Ovechkin is engaged in flawed reasoning. Demonstrably.

[Future]

If I valued CF% over all other statistics and accounted for no other aspect of the game, recorded in ledger books or otherwise, yes. But you know that I don't, which makes your argument dishonest.

 

Stats are also not flawed, raw or refined. They are mathematical measurements recorded based on a varying set of variables. Their application, weight, and value respective to one another as they're interpreted by human beings can be flawed, however.

 

As to G, when you say something like "G can bring value as a shot blocker and PKer", what you (or the Lightning) might see as "value in shot blocking" I see as bleeding shot attempts. What you (or the Lightning) might see as "value in clearing the zone" I see as giving up possession of the puck by simply throwing it the length of the ice, which leads to increased time spent in the DZ and increases the likelihood of taking penalties as players grow tired of being forced to stay on the ice because Girardi can't make simple passing plays to move the puck up the ice effectively. The list goes on and on. If all you see out of this is "Corsi", see an optometrist.

You do value CF more than anything else, by far. That doesn't mean you don't account for other things, but you generally discredit any intangibles.

 

Raw data says that Torey Krug is better than Ryan MacDonagh. So yes, they are flawed.

 

Ok, you see it that way, but that's not how every organization might see it. The Pens just won the cup bleeding shot attempts and getting consistently pinned in their own zone. They were 23rd in shots against and CLEARLY value blocking shots and just getting the puck out of the zone. No reason Tampa can't think the same thing.

[Phil]

You do value CF more than anything else, by far. That doesn't mean you don't account for other things, but you totally discredit any intangibles.

 

Read what I said, Mike. You're moving the goalposts by now saying "you do value CF more than anyone else". Which is it — do I only value CF, or do I simply value it more than anyone else here? I don't have a problem with the latter statement, for the record. I also find it funny that you think I don't value intangibles given my historic defense of enforcers/fighters, and my desire to keep hockey violent. Since when have fists and hits been valued by the analytics crowd?

 

Raw data says that Torey Krug is better than Ryan MacDonagh. So yes, they are flawed.

 

No, it doesn't. It simply measures and records his CF, his FF, his xGF, his goals, assists, etc. We—you and I, and others—make judgments based on those measurements and calculations to infer the value. We are flawed. Statistics are not. They simply are.

 

Ok, you see it that way, but that's not how every organization might see it. The Pens just won the cup bleeding shot attempts and getting consistently pinned in their own zone. They were 23rd in shots against and CLEARLY value blocking shots and just getting the puck out of the zone. No reason Tampa can't think the same thing.

 

Not by design, they didn't. Injuries forced their hand. The same way it forced the Predators to skate Colton Sissons as a first-line center. Were they a healthier squad in the Final, I assure you, the numbers wouldn't have looked nearly as dire.

[Future]

Read what I said, Mike. You're moving the goalposts by now saying "you do value CF more than anyone else". Which is it — do I only value CF, or do I simply value it more than anyone else here? I don't have a problem with the latter statement, for the record. I also find it funny that you think I don't value intangibles given my historic defense of enforcers/fighters, and my desire to keep hockey violent. Since when have fists and hits been valued by the analytics crowd?

 

No, it doesn't. It simply measures and records his CF, his FF, his xGF, his goals, assists, etc. We—you and I, and others—make judgments based on those measurements and calculations to infer the value. We are flawed. Statistics are not. They simply are.

 

Not by design, they didn't. Injuries forced their hand. The same way it forced the Predators to skate Colton Sissons as a first-line center. Were they a healthier squad in the Final, I assure you, the numbers wouldn't have looked nearly as dire.

I never said you only value it, I said you value it more than anything else. I did edit to say "generally" instead of totally, b/c that wasn't right.

 

Ok fine, then raw data doesn't matter. In the context of hockey, the only thing that matters is interpretation of them, and if that's the case, then they have no more value than they eyeball test. Analytics only matter when they are applied to players - that means as a ranking. When the data can be so slanted in favor of an inferior player, then the data is flawed because of how it has to be interpreted. Because of that, team analytic departments - or whatever you want to call them - have their own measurements based on the things that are important to them. Corsi/Fenwick can't be used in a vacuum and have to be applied subjectively, so they might not carry more weight than, say, tipped passes.

 

I sourced the regular season, not the post season.

[Phil]

Fine, then I'll begrudgingly agree. I think your optics are off because they read to me like "you only care about CF", which you know I don't, but I suppose at face value "you value it more than anything else" is true. A truer statement, however, would be "you value shot attempts more than anything else", because I do. To me, they're the fulcrum through which much can be determined/predicted in today's NHL. That is to say, they are not the only metric you need to determine value or predict future events, but that they are the best metric to use to determine value and predict future events. They're the basis for more complex analytics like xGF and GAR, and attempts, unlike goals, can paint a clearer context to the results of a game. If a team is out attempted 58-12, you know they were dominated, even if they won the game 1-0.

 

As to the Pens, they lost Letang—far and away their best defenseman—early in the season.

[Future]

Fine, then I'll begrudgingly agree. I think your optics are off because they read to me like "you only care about CF", which you know I don't, but I suppose at face value "you value it more than anything else" is true. A truer statement, however, would be "you value shot attempts more than anything else", because I do. To me, they're the fulcrum through which much can be determined/predicted in today's NHL.

 

As to the Pens, they lost Letang—far and away their best defenseman—early in the season.

Fair enough, but I don't agree that they predict anything and I certainly don't think they tell even a fraction of the story of how good a player is or isn't. And I don't think they're "better" than individual teams' analytics.

 

27th after he got hurt, 22nd before. So it's not like they were particularly good the first half of the year either lol. The Kings are the only team who have won the cup that had dominant shot supression.

[Phil]

Of course they can be predictive. Much in the same way PDO can effectively forecast an eventual crash to earth. If a team is mostly composed of negative shot attempt differential players, what does that tell you about their play? That they give up shots. What can you forecast from that? That directly because of this, they are at a mathematical disadvantage against volume shooting teams.

 

If the term "predict" is scaring you, swap it with something with less baggage. All I'm trying to say is that analytics can help determine future plausibilities.

 

Shot suppression is also a very specific analytics marker. I'd argue that shot attempts for, and goals as a result, are a far more useful aspect to own as a team than superior suppression numbers. If we look at the last, say, five-to-seven Cup winners, I wonder, where would they rank in attempts for?

[Mike]

I don't doubt they keep their own stats. I also don't doubt that they're intentionally designed to ignore faults while praising predetermined categories of excellence.

 

"We tracked thirty hours of Girardi's play last season and found that Girardi had more blocked shots than any other a Rangers defenseman when on the ice"

 

In other words, he bleeds shot attempts?

 

"We also found that Girardi had the most glass clears and glass clear attempts in the league by a wide margin"

 

In other words, he throws the puck out of his own end like a grenade?

 

It's Trumpian logic.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

 

So every time Girardi is on the ice, it's his fault that the Rangers don't have the puck and the other team shoots the puck?

 

Also, off the glass attempts aren't grenades. Grenades are bad passes. And what's wrong with going off the glass when pressured ? I guess he should throw it up the middle of the rink so his glass stats change.

[Phil]

Of course not. But every time Girardi is on the ice, the likelihood that his team doesn't have the puck and faces a greater volume of shots and shot attempts against increases.

 

Off the glass and out can be a useful tactic. In Girardi's case, it rarely is, because it was often his first instinct. Given how often the play results in simply turning the puck over to the opposition, and how much I believe that playing with the puck as often as possible lends to more wins, it's not difficult to see why playing someone who uses the tactic often detracts from a team's chances of winning more games than they lose.

[Mike]

Phil, serious question, when you watch games can you identify the breakdown before the puck goes in the back of the net without using replay? In other words, do you see what may seem like an innocent play (or lack there of) from a player before G or Staal get walked, or before Hank gives up a goal? It could happen 190' away from our own net. I'm just curious.

[Phil]

Absolutely. Happens all the time.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

[Mike]

Absolutely. Happens all the time.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

 

So how could you sit there and blame 1 guy? Because "more stats" in a game of constant flow, playing with 13-14 different guys every game tell you so ? Don't get me wrong, by no means am I suggesting G should be # 2 guy with that contract he had, but he's a lot better than A) what you give him credit for, and B) plenty of other guys around the league. I'd take G with a different contract as a 5-6 any day.

[Vodka Drunkenski]

Agreed, I would take him as a 3rd pair any day. His contract forced him into a role that outgrew him.

 

 

#MakeBSBHGreatAgain

[Dunny]

Hockey analytics are just so hard to take seriously.