Ryan Murray = 2nd pairing dman?

[LetsGOJackets!!]

Still stuck on your lame and hardly proved notion that Murray improves teammates offense. He doesn't.

He was 186/197 in shot generation relative to his teammates last year. He's a bottom pairing guy over his career in the same stat.

Stats don't measure everything a player does. No kidding. But when a player is deficient in almost every measurement, it should signal something. His raw stats in terms of points are weak. His advanced stats range from pitiful to barely average. But I guess it's all those intangibles that only those with truly sophisticated hockey analytical skills can "see".

He's not tough. He's not acknowledged as a leader. His stats put him anywhere between #4D (I'm being generous here) and #7D, but you keep insisting that he is a ("don't argue with the facts, dammit you're a hater") second pairing dman with upper pairing potential.

Keep dreaming.

All this and yet the Coach kept throwing him out on the ice to close out games and to protect the lead. FO that didn't draft him continues to value him. You keep brining up numbers that would suggest they are wrong for playing him.

Ohio State Football Coach John Cooper had an expression that always stuck with me. He said, "You folks all want to gamble, but you want to do it with my chips". How that is applicable is that anyone in the Blue Jackets Organization that is drawing a pay check for their decision making continues to play Ryan Murray, yet you with all your stats think he should not play. Reality check?

 

[Mayor Bee]

I've come to a slightly different realization. Advanced stats are a tool. How useful the tool is depends on how you use it. Linking to a collection of stats going "He sucks" or "He's awesome" means that you are drawing conclusions with little to no thought. Stats are only once piece of the puzzle in evaluating players. You can't judge hockey IQ, speed, etc simply by looking at advanced stats.

The traditional stats are more than enough to move you to the next phase, evaluation.

I agree, which exposes part of the limitations of advanced stats. I think that the loudest voices who espouse it in hockey are, unintentionally or not, looking at baseball and questioning why we can't see the same type of next-level stats and analysis that we do in that sport. Of course, in baseball you can judge things like speed and IQ in the stats; in hockey I don't think there's a way to do so and I don't think there will be.

 

[Cyclones Rock]

I remember many years ago, when I first discovered that there were underlying numbers beyond the "traditional" stats and I pretty much jumped headfirst into all of this. It took a while before I was able to fully grasp that all I was doing was simply using a larger vessel to draw from an almost incalculable ocean of information, and going slightly deeper was still barely touching the surface and didn't really clear up the picture.

Someday I hope you'll get to that level of realization, like I did 20+ years ago.

I'm more than there, champ.

I've played the game and watched the game for 5 decades. I don't use stats blindly. However, when a vast majority of stats lean heavily in one direction and they counter my visual observations about a player, then I reexamine my opinion of that player. I suggest that you do the same.

Even if you happen to be a fanboy of the GM who drafted a given player

I was very positive about Murray in his first season. Unfortunately, that appears to have been his peak season. I viewed Murray as a smooth skater who appeared to have been very poised and have a very good sense of the game-hockey IQ many call it now. For whatever reason(s), he has regressed noticeably since year one and the stats back this up. I think that I overestimated his poise because he was paired with Wiz who often times resembled a chicken with its head cut off. Looking poised when juxtaposed with Wiz could have been an optical illusion. Now Murray looks overly cautious and reactive when he plays-probably due to his lack of speed and mobility.

Murray was a player "who did everything well and nothing spectacularly" according to a former teammate of his who played with him in Everette. That skill set which lacks any special characteristic (skating, shot, playmaking, physical presence) has caught up with him at hockey's highest level. He's a third pairing guy (at best) who's living off of yesterday's press clippings. If he doesn't show marked improvement from last season, he's looking at Europe or the AHL by the 2020-21 season at the latest.

My eyes tell me this and the stats back it up.

I continue to spend way too much time bickering about a 3rd pairing defenseman. Maybe he'll prove me wrong and live up to his draft pedigree and the assessment of many on this board. We'll see soon enough.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

With apologies to CR for significant edits and the resultant possibility of things looking out of context...

For whatever reason(s), he has regressed noticeably since year one... Now Murray looks overly cautious and reactive when he plays

This is way edited down from what you posted but it generally speaks to my opinion of Murray.

Murray was a player "who did everything well and nothing spectacularly" according to a former teammate of his who played with him in Everette. That skill set which lacks any special characteristic (skating, shot, playmaking, physical presence) has caught up with him at hockey's highest level.

This assessment makes sense to me. I'm allowing that Murray may yet elevate all of parts of his game, but I'm through hearing about "he does the little things that most fans don't notice" as an excuse for being mediocre with the occasional splash play, as if I'm just some dopey fan who doesn't understand hockey or d-zone play.

I continue to spend way too much time bickering about a 3rd pairing defenseman. Maybe he'll prove me wrong and live up to his draft pedigree and the assessment of many on this board. We'll see soon enough.

Please keep it up for another week or so, all of you, and then you can drop it if you want once Prospect Ranking Thread season arrives. Thanks.

 

[Crede777]

I think the recent article by THW accurately sums up my views on Murray.

http://thehockeywriters.com/ryan-murrays-columbus-blue-jackets-crossroads/

 

[We Want Ten]

I'm sort of surprised people have such a strong opinion of Murray. To me he's just kind of there.

 

[blahblah]

n hockey I don't think there's a way to do so and I don't think there will be.

With the media I tend to think they go in trying to build a story based on opinion, so they look at the stats related to the story they are trying to write. From there they draw a conclusion and use the stats as evidence. Actually I don't see any issue with that in regards to opinion pieces. In addition it's easier to look at the stats than to get interviews with numerous scouts or front office personnel.

Where a problem arises is with those that use advanced stats as a weapon or a crutch.

As far as Murray, he has potential and he's a decent player. His development has been interrupted and he's been pushed down the depth chart. Pointing to advanced stats with no context is just intellectually dishonest.

 

[Viqsi]

Still stuck on your lame and hardly proved notion that Murray improves teammates offense. He doesn't.

He was 186/197 in shot generation relative to his teammates last year. He's a bottom pairing guy over his career in the same stat.

Stats don't measure everything a player does. No kidding. But when a player is deficient in almost every measurement, it should signal something. His raw stats in terms of points are weak. His advanced stats range from pitiful to barely average. But I guess it's all those intangibles that only those with truly sophisticated hockey analytical skills can "see".

That and anyone who can look at WOWY. You're looking at him in isolation.

You are pointing out lots of reasons why he shouldn't be able to do that with other players. Normally those would be valid. But he is doing that with other players. The WOWY stats show that. That his shot generation and suppression statistics in isolation do not provide an explanation for why that is there does not permit you to conclude that it doesn't actually exist. That's just an advanced-stats approach to arguing, say, that Foligno didn't actually score 26 goals because one can clearly see he had a -4.

At best, a reasonable argument would be that his WOWY performance is potentially unsustainable because it's not supported by those shot stats. Which is a little dubious, but at least partially defensible. But so far as I can tell that would be, according to you, giving him too much credit.

 

[Cyclones Rock]

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=134789107&postcount=1

NHL Network redrafts 2012 defensemen. A very, very high pick (HINT: 1st defenseman taken in draft at #2 overall) is noticeably absent from the two analysts' redrafts.

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/draft/nhl2012e.html

 

[Cyclones Rock]

That and anyone who can look at WOWY. You're looking at him in isolation.

You are pointing out lots of reasons why he shouldn't be able to do that with other players. Normally those would be valid. But he is doing that with other players. The WOWY stats show that. That his shot generation and suppression statistics in isolation do not provide an explanation for why that is there does not permit you to conclude that it doesn't actually exist. That's just an advanced-stats approach to arguing, say, that Foligno didn't actually score 26 goals because one can clearly see he had a -4.

At best, a reasonable argument would be that his WOWY performance is potentially unsustainable because it's not supported by those shot stats. Which is a little dubious, but at least partially defensible. But so far as I can tell that would be, according to you, giving him too much credit.

http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/showplayer.php?pid=1818&withagainst=true&season=2016-17&sit=5v5

Are you kidding? Or am I misreading the chart?

WOWY with other defensemen ( with/without)-And you've been using this to allegedly "prove" that Murray enhances the goal production of other players.

JJ (2.04/2.67)
Jones (0.73/2.39)
Savard (1.62/2.97)

All starkly worse with Murray.

Played 18 minutes with Werenski, so number is irrelevant. Improved Nutivaara (2.40/1.86). Yippee!

Forwards were more negative than positive.

So, what is your point with WOWY? To confirm my assessment of Murray? If so, then thank you

 

[Viqsi]

http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/showplayer.php?pid=1818&withagainst=true&season=2016-17&sit=5v5

Are you kidding? Or am I misreading the chart?

WOWY with other defensemen ( with/without)-And you've been using this to allegedly "prove" that Murray enhances the goal production of other players.

JJ (2.04/2.67)
Jones (0.73/2.39)
Savard (1.62/2.97)

All starkly worse with Murray.

Played 18 minutes with Werenski, so number is irrelevant. Improved Nutivaara (2.40/1.86). Yippee!

Forwards were more negative than positive.

So, what is your point with WOWY? To confirm my assessment of Murray? If so, then thank you

You're dodging by only looking at the acknowledged bad year in which he played on his off hand again. And trivializing and dismissing the positive impact on his most common partner that year. And ignoring the "Murray while apart" column, which shows that Murray was fine or even better without those three guys. And ignoring Werenski's 18 minute sample size which is overwhelmingly positive, but being perfectly fine with the highly negative results of 37 minutes with Savard and 82 with Jones (by comparison, he played over 400 minutes with Nuti).

It's almost as though you're going out of your way to find ways to make him look as bad as possible.

 

[Cyclones Rock]

You're dodging by only looking at the acknowledged bad year in which he played on his off hand again. And trivializing and dismissing the positive impact on his most common partner that year. And ignoring the "Murray while apart" column, which shows that Murray was fine or even better without those three guys. And ignoring Werenski's 18 minute sample size which is overwhelmingly positive, but being perfectly fine with the highly negative results of 37 minutes with Savard and 82 with Jones (by comparison, he played over 400 minutes with Nuti).

It's almost as though you're going out of your way to find ways to make him look as bad as possible.

OK.

Career:

JJ (1.84/2.40) 488min
Jones (2.08/2.03) 635 min
Savard (1.90/2.47) 378 min.

He helps none of these guys with offense. He has terrible Corsis For, abominable Corsis relative to teammates, and terrible traditional offensive stats over the course of his career and you still think that he helps drive offense. He doesn't. Take out his first season and he's a statistical nightmare by almost every measure.

Also, implying that ignoring an 18 minute sample (the equivalent of one game) is somehow devious, then just stop it. I know that you know more about stats than that.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

You peeps are doing great. Just a couple more days.

 

[Cyclones Rock]

You peeps are doing great. Just a couple more days.

 

[Viqsi]

OK.

Career:

JJ (1.84/2.40) 488min
Jones (2.08/2.03) 635 min
Savard (1.90/2.47) 378 min.

He helps none of these guys with offense. He has terrible Corsis For, abominable Corsis relative to teammates, and terrible traditional offensive stats over the course of his career and you still think that he helps drive offense. He doesn't. Take out his first season and he's a statistical nightmare by almost every measure.

Try taking out his most recent season, then.

Also, implying that ignoring an 18 minute sample (the equivalent of one game) is somehow devious, then just stop it. I know that you know more about stats than that.

It wasn't so much taking that out as leaving the other two in.

* * *​

You peeps are doing great. Just a couple more days.

Thanks for sharing.

 

[cslebn]

Just for fun

13/14 5v5 WOWY:
Wisniewski with Murray / Wis without / Murray Without
GF60 - 2.56 / 2.03 / 2.58
GA60 - 2.08 / 1.63 / 2.82
GF% - 57.21 / 57.73 / 47.8
CF% - 54 / 54.5 / 44.3

Note Murray spent roughly 75% of his time with Wis. Next highest is Savard with 145 mins played (out of 1000).

14/15 5v5 WOWY:
ehh lost season, the 78 mins he had with Savard, Savard was a boat anchor for him.

15/16 5v5 WOWY:
Jones with Murray / Jones without / Murray Without
GF60 - 2.28 / 1.59 / 2.55
GA60 - 2.60 / 2.04 / 2.41
GF% - 46.7 / 59.88 / 51.4
CF% - 49.4 / 55.4 / 46.3

The rest was a mixture of Goloubef, Tyutin and JJ with 140-165 mins each.
Note, Murray's GF60 was higher without each partner except for Goloubef. They had really good numbers.

Golo with Murray / Golo without / Murray Without
GF60 - 3.22 / 1.81 / 2.34
GA60 - 1.79 / 2.09 / 2.58
GF% - 64.3 / 46.4 / 47.5
CF% - 46.3 / 47.3 / 47.8

This almost makes me think it would be better to pair Murray with someone different that can complement his style of play better as Goloubef did and maximize the ability of a line. I'd like to see what a Carlsson/Murray pair looks like based on this.

 

[cslebn]

By the way, my post is intended to show nothing about Murray being second pair or first pair or whatever.

I think it does show that Murray's partners have more offensive output with him than without. But it also shows an increase in GA.

Does any of this mean the kid couldn't be a #2? No. Does it mean he's a #2 right now? Probably not. Like many non-top pair Dmen, it looks like he is dependent on his situation (read partner at least) to succeed.

 

[CBJx614]

Just for fun

13/14 5v5 WOWY:
Wisniewski with Murray / Wis without / Murray Without
GF60 - 2.56 / 2.03 / 2.58
GA60 - 2.08 / 1.63 / 2.82
GF% - 57.21 / 57.73 / 47.8
CF% - 54 / 54.5 / 44.3

Note Murray spent roughly 75% of his time with Wis. Next highest is Savard with 145 mins played (out of 1000).

14/15 5v5 WOWY:
ehh lost season, the 78 mins he had with Savard, Savard was a boat anchor for him.

15/16 5v5 WOWY:
Jones with Murray / Jones without / Murray Without
GF60 - 2.28 / 1.59 / 2.55
GA60 - 2.60 / 2.04 / 2.41
GF% - 46.7 / 59.88 / 51.4
CF% - 49.4 / 55.4 / 46.3

The rest was a mixture of Goloubef, Tyutin and JJ with 140-165 mins each.
Note, Murray's GF60 was higher without each partner except for Goloubef. They had really good numbers.

Golo with Murray / Golo without / Murray Without
GF60 - 3.22 / 1.81 / 2.34
GA60 - 1.79 / 2.09 / 2.58
GF% - 64.3 / 46.4 / 47.5
CF% - 46.3 / 47.3 / 47.8

This almost makes me think it would be better to pair Murray with someone different that can complement his style of play better as Goloubef did and maximize the ability of a line. I'd like to see what a Carlsson/Murray pair looks like based on this.

I've been thinking about it for awhile and it really ****s up the pairings... But...


Nutivaara - Jones
Werenski - Murray
Johnson - Savard

Werenski/Murray and Nutivaara/Jones is your offensive pairings and Johnson/Savard takes your defensive matchups.

 

[Viqsi]

Just for fun

13/14 5v5 WOWY:
Wisniewski with Murray / Wis without / Murray Without
GF60 - 2.56 / 2.03 / 2.58
GA60 - 2.08 / 1.63 / 2.82
GF% - 57.21 / 57.73 / 47.8
CF% - 54 / 54.5 / 44.3

Note Murray spent roughly 75% of his time with Wis. Next highest is Savard with 145 mins played (out of 1000).

14/15 5v5 WOWY:
ehh lost season, the 78 mins he had with Savard, Savard was a boat anchor for him.

15/16 5v5 WOWY:
Jones with Murray / Jones without / Murray Without
GF60 - 2.28 / 1.59 / 2.55
GA60 - 2.60 / 2.04 / 2.41
GF% - 46.7 / 59.88 / 51.4
CF% - 49.4 / 55.4 / 46.3

The rest was a mixture of Goloubef, Tyutin and JJ with 140-165 mins each.
Note, Murray's GF60 was higher without each partner except for Goloubef. They had really good numbers.

Golo with Murray / Golo without / Murray Without
GF60 - 3.22 / 1.81 / 2.34
GA60 - 1.79 / 2.09 / 2.58
GF% - 64.3 / 46.4 / 47.5
CF% - 46.3 / 47.3 / 47.8

This almost makes me think it would be better to pair Murray with someone different that can complement his style of play better as Goloubef did and maximize the ability of a line. I'd like to see what a Carlsson/Murray pair looks like based on this.

Those 15/16 numbers with Jones are a tad awkward because they include Jones's numbers in Nashville in the first half of that season.

For the record, the pattern I'd been observing was that usually the GA increase was more than offset by the GF increase.

* * *​

Does any of this mean the kid couldn't be a #2? No. Does it mean he's a #2 right now? Probably not. Like many non-top pair Dmen, it looks like he is dependent on his situation (read partner at least) to succeed.

I think of it more as "he can help certain partners, but not all", but otherwise concur.

 

[Mayor Bee]

I've been thinking about it for awhile and it really ****s up the pairings... But...


Nutivaara - Jones
Werenski - Murray
Johnson - Savard

Werenski/Murray and Nutivaara/Jones is your offensive pairings and Johnson/Savard takes your defensive matchups.

 

[CBJx614]

I edited but my phone messed up, the first pairing actually doesn't look too bad if you switch Carlsson and Nutivaara.

Murray allows Werenski to do his thing and Johnson and Savard get the tougher matchups.

 

[Crede777]

Jones allowed Werenski to do his thing. No reason to break them up until/unless it becomes a problem.

I'd rather try to force Carlsson on the right side and put Murray on the left.

 

[DarkandStormy]

I think we're at least a year, probably two years away from breaking up Jones/Werenski. Could Jones use a more stabilizing force like a Murray? Sure. Then he could have near-free reign in the offensive end. The key would be finding a similar stabilizing partner for Werenski - perhaps Savard or maybe it's someone else in the organization. Then you could roll those two pairs for 45-50 minutes of the 60 minutes of regulation.

I don't think it's an issue this season so long as the 2nd pair - presumably Johnson-Savard - perform well in their role. Of course, this could change should Jones-Werenski start sucking for an extended period of time (doubtful).

 

[Johansen2Foligno]

This has been a long off-season

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

This has been a long off-season

"Has been"

If only