Douglas Murray: What a hit!

[rockjngo]

guys guys Douglas Murray just ran over Chris Kreider 6'3" 230lbs and Lane MacDermid 6'3" 210lbs. These are not small players. Murray is slow but I don't see him out of position. He needs to play with a fast defenseman. Ok Diaz-Murray could work.

Imagine Parros, Murray taking out Lucic.

 

[jaffy27]

If Tinordi was NHL ready... Ouch!!

Gorges - Subban
Markov - Emelin
Murray - Tinordi

Ca va faire mal!!

 

[Hemlor]

Read his entire sentence. he wasn't arguing one way or the other, more that we need more time to properly evaluate Murray

thank you, at least someone took time to read the post before arguing against it. You are correct, I am not arguing for or against stats, but if stats are to be used, use them properly, and make sure to keep the objective in mind.

 

[Monctonscout]

Murray is no speed wizard but he has good hockey sense and mobile teammates, after 8-10 games once he gets to full speed, I think he'll be a definite asset.

 

[Tyson]

Murray is no speed wizard but he has good hockey sense and mobile teammates, after 8-10 games once he gets to full speed, I think he'll be a definite asset.

He has game left. Been a reliable D for several years.

 

[Hoople]

Read his entire sentence. he wasn't arguing one way or the other, more that we need more time to properly evaluate Murray

I did read his post.

Please be just as objective and critical toward those posters who will be blasting Murray the first time a goal is scored when he is on the ice. After all, small sample size.

 

[overlords]

I did read his post.

Please be just as objective and critical toward those posters who will be blasting Murray the first time a goal is scored when he is on the ice. After all, small sample size.

I glanced over mathman's post, and he seemed to indicate pretty clearly that it was a small sample size. And like I said in one of my posts, it's entirely possible that he's still recovering from his injury, whatever it was. I don't think they were ever super clear on it.

But looking at other posts, it wouldn't matter. Some are saying that he's played fine in his first two games. There's no 'sample size' to contend with if we disagree on how well he played yesterday. I saw a team get hemmed in it's zone and unable to start a breakout with Murray on the ice, and I'd be more than willing to sit down with someone who disagreed and go over the game with them to see if they'd still be so adamant after watching it through again. If last night was 'good enough' for many of you because he laid one or two big hits, then he'll be fine no matter what he does.

And to clear up when I quoted you, it did seem like you identified Hemlor as being against your position vis a vis Murray, even re-reading it now.

 

[Dominator13]

Murray looked ok against weaker teams, but I can't wait to see what kind of impact he will have against Toronto, Boston or Ottawa. That's where he'll shine IMO.

Guy has some rust to shake off, big deal. He brings exactly what our D was missing. You can clearly see the difference when he's the one pushing the forwards away from Price.

 

[Hoople]

And to clear up when I quoted you, it did seem like you identified Hemlor as being against your position vis a vis Murray, even re-reading it now.

After reading Hemlor's post again, I agree with you.

My apologies to Hemlor for taking his post out of context.

 

[Moen is Gone]

Beautiful hits, ugly shoop':

 

[bsl]

Well, the fancystats for Murray say this: when he's on the ice 5-on-5, the Habs bleed shots against, they bleed chances against, and they do little to nothing good offensively.

He hits hard, but the available data suggests that he's not good at actual defense. Now two games is an extremely small sample, but it's been a while since I've seen a statline that looked quite this dismal. In his defense, the Habs' current fourth line is also abysmal so he might not be getting any help there then.

Still, he whole "bleeds scoring chances" isn't exactly the most desirable characteristic for a defensive defenseman. And needless to say his offensive contribution is practically nil. Perhaps this is one of the reason he only played 26:21 over his two games, which is a single slightly busy game for Subban or Markov.

So far, the data makes him look like he's exactly as advertised: a Komisarek type, impressive hitter, but ineffective defender. And the numbers certainly don't challenge my initial assessment that he's not a NHL player.

It's very important not to confuse hitting with defense. Hitting is not bad, it can often be a very useful tool for defense (see: Emelin, Alexei), but conversely a guy who hits a lot is not necessarily an effective defender.

This is exactly where fancystats are useful: to help us look past the eye-popping hits that stick to the mind, and look at whether a guy's actually being effective where it matters. And to me, a defensive defenseman's role is to prevent goals against, which is best done by preventing scoring chances.

Hopefully Emelin gets healthy soon and the Habs can ice a defenseman who is a hard hitter and effective.

All good, but when one of the opponents best offensive players, or even a good defensive player, puts his head down for one second and spends the rest of the game in pain after hitting the fridge, there is no stat for that.

There is also no stat for opponents being a little bit slower and more hesitant when crossing the blue line, just in case. And that can mean the difference between a good scoring chance and a broken play.

 

[MathMan]

All good, but when one of the opponents best offensive players, or even a good defensive player, puts his head down for one second and spends the rest of the game in pain after hitting the fridge, there is no stat for that.

Considering how little Therrien used Murray against Benn-Seguin-Cole against the Stars, he might not have a lot of opportunity to do that. For all the praise, it seems Therrien has been trying to keep his least-used defenseman away from top offensive threats.

I'm pretty sure offensive players are aware of whether Murray is on the ice, but whether it's because they need to keep their head up, because they see an opportunity against a vulnerable defenseman, or both, is another matter entirely.

There is also no stat for opponents being a little bit slower and more hesitant when crossing the blue line, just in case. And that can mean the difference between a good scoring chance and a broken play.

If players are hesitant when Murray is on the ice in such a way that it prevents scoring chances, it will eventually lead to fewer scoring chances while he's on the ice, wouldn't you agree? That's the objective, after all. So yes, this will actually show up in the numbers...

 

[DAChampion]

Considering how little Therrien used Murray against Benn-Seguin-Cole against the Stars, he might not have a lot of opportunity to do that. For all the praise, it seems Therrien has been trying to keep his least-used defenseman away from top offensive threats...

Murray is not on the team nor paid 1.5 million to play first pairing.

 

[rafal majka]

All good, but when one of the opponents best offensive players, or even a good defensive player, puts his head down for one second and spends the rest of the game in pain after hitting the fridge, there is no stat for that.

There is also no stat for opponents being a little bit slower and more hesitant when crossing the blue line, just in case. And that can mean the difference between a good scoring chance and a broken play.

You're correct in that Murray is a fridge on skates - and his play looks like it. His "big" hits have been interference penalties, he can't skate to the puck, he's not standing up anyone at the blueline and he can't make a decent outlet pass. His only redeeming feature is that he can push around players after the play has has been blown dead. He's a pylon.

 

[rafal majka]

Murray is not on the team nor paid 1.5 million to play first pairing.

Good 'cause he's only good enough for the fourth pairing.

 

[Mario le Magnifique]

Whatever advanced stats will disadvantage a guy like Murray for multiple reasons :

1- He has been on the ice for more defensive zone starts than anything else. If the Habs lose the faceoff, chances are that they're getting shot against an therefore is skews the data.

2- He has been on the ice with the Habs 3rd or 4rth line, I don't recall seeing him play when the EGG and Plek lines are on the ice, well, perhaps with Plek's line on defensive zone starts.

3- His partner has been Bouillon the whole time. Bouillon has the coach's confidence, but makes a lot of turnovers and has slowed down.

4- The oponents are trying to match up the Habs third pairing with their scoring lines, wich means that if the oponent can install a sustained offense chances are that the Habs are caught with their 4rth line and 3rd pairing on the ice VS much better players. Hence the skewed data.

5- His interference penalties can be attributed to timing for the first one and on his second one he got clearly beat by Jamie Benn, he had to interfere to prevent a breakaway, so that's a good penalty for that circumstance. Bouillon needed to cover him better in that case, Murray isn't exactly a speedster.

Murray did a fine job in the last two games. He did exactly what he's been brought for. Habs fans want big gritty players and then they whine when they don't skate as fast as smaller soft players. Who'd thunk dat ?

Name one defenseman signed around 1M that weights 240 lbs but that can skate as fast as the wind. One. Please. Okay. Thanks. Bye.

 

[Hemlor]

After reading Hemlor's post again, I agree with you.

My apologies to Hemlor for taking his post out of context.

it's cool

 

[Talks to Goalposts]

Whatever advanced stats will disadvantage a guy like Murray for multiple reasons :

1- He has been on the ice for more defensive zone starts than anything else. If the Habs lose the faceoff, chances are that they're getting shot against an therefore is skews the data.

2- He has been on the ice with the Habs 3rd or 4rth line, I don't recall seeing him play when the EGG and Plek lines are on the ice, well, perhaps with Plek's line on defensive zone starts.

3- His partner has been Bouillon the whole time. Bouillon has the coach's confidence, but makes a lot of turnovers and has slowed down.

4- The oponents are trying to match up the Habs third pairing with their scoring lines, wich means that if the oponent can install a sustained offense chances are that the Habs are caught with their 4rth line and 3rd pairing on the ice VS much better players. Hence the skewed data.

5- His interference penalties can be attributed to timing for the first one and on his second one he got clearly beat by Jamie Benn, he had to interfere to prevent a breakaway, so that's a good penalty for that circumstance. Bouillon needed to cover him better in that case, Murray isn't exactly a speedster.

Murray did a fine job in the last two games. He did exactly what he's been brought for. Habs fans want big gritty players and then they whine when they don't skate as fast as smaller soft players. Who'd thunk dat ?

Name one defenseman signed around 1M that weights 240 lbs but that can skate as fast as the wind. One. Please. Okay. Thanks. Bye.

If your going to make objections, at least have the curtosy to check if they are factually accurate before putting them out there.

1- Murray has been on for 12 offensive zone draws, 8 defensive zone draws so far. The zone start effect is well understood.

2- He plays more with the 4th line than other pairings, but he still spends half his time with other lines. Those lines don't produce any meaningful offensive zone time or chances with Murray behind them either.

4- Opponents are trying to match them with offensive players, habs are trying to keep them away. Against Dallas Murray spent only about a minute against the Stars' top line and a disproportionate amount of time against the Stars's 4th line. He spent the majority of his time against the Ranger's bottom six and away from Richards and Stepan. The competition is skewed in Murray's favour so far, not to his dis-advantage.

These are credible theories to have to explain the data. But an unsupported theory is just an opinion, worse one that can be disproven by someone that actually fact-checks them.

 

[Analyzer*]

Beautiful hits, ugly shoop':

I barely understand any French, but I love it.

 

[PunkinDrublic*]

guys guys Douglas Murray just ran over Chris Kreider 6'3" 230lbs and Lane MacDermid 6'3" 210lbs. These are not small players. Murray is slow but I don't see him out of position. He needs to play with a fast defenseman. Ok Diaz-Murray could work.

Imagine Parros, Murray taking out Lucic.

What is the obsession with Lucic ? I would love to have this player with the Habs..

 

[Mario le Magnifique]

If your going to make objections, at least have the curtosy to check if they are factually accurate before putting them out there.

1- Murray has been on for 12 offensive zone draws, 8 defensive zone draws so far. The zone start effect is well understood.

2- He plays more with the 4th line than other pairings, but he still spends half his time with other lines. Those lines don't produce any meaningful offensive zone time or chances with Murray behind them either.

4- Opponents are trying to match them with offensive players, habs are trying to keep them away. Against Dallas Murray spent only about a minute against the Stars' top line and a disproportionate amount of time against the Stars's 4th line. He spent the majority of his time against the Ranger's bottom six and away from Richards and Stepan. The competition is skewed in Murray's favour so far, not to his dis-advantage.

These are credible theories to have to explain the data. But an unsupported theory is just an opinion, worse one that can be disproven by someone that actually fact-checks them.

Ill give you that, I didnt look at the stats, but im just sayin, guys like Murray at this point in their career, being a third pairing experienced D, are competing with youngsters like Beaulieu and Tinordi for example with the Habs. They just need to be a little bit better and more valuable, and bring that experience and confidence.

And to be honest I dont look at advanced stats, I watch games and see how a certain player can bring something unique to a squad. I dont think many players are sweating toughness like Murray does, hes a friggin grizzly bear on skates. Hes not that bad of a hockey player but hell get burned sometimes, just like any other third pairing D.

Habs without Murray look like a bad AHL team physically, with their injuries.

 

[Talks to Goalposts]

Ill give you that, I didnt look at the stats, but im just sayin, guys like Murray at this point in their career, being a third pairing experienced D, are competing with youngsters like Beaulieu and Tinordi for example with the Habs. They just need to be a little bit better and more valuable, and bring that experience and confidence.

And to be honest I dont look at advanced stats, I watch games and see how a certain player can bring something unique to a squad. I dont think many players are sweating toughness like Murray does, hes a friggin grizzly bear on skates. Hes not that bad of a hockey player but hell get burned sometimes, just like any other third pairing D.

Habs without Murray look like a bad AHL team physically, with their injuries.

That Murray is good at hitting people is not in question. What is in question is whether his ability to hit people is worth an observable diminishment in the team's ability to move the puck up the ice and actually try and win the game rather than just lose slowly.

The wall analogy that has been brought up is apt. A wall is percieved to be a strong defensive structure. But its passive and no active threat to its opponent, and easily circumvented by an enemy with the to scale it at your its leasure. Which is why active defenses are prefereable and the defense of being on the offensive yourself even better.

 

[DAChampion]

That Murray is good at hitting people is not in question. What is in question is whether his ability to hit people is worth an observable diminishment in the team's ability to move the puck up the ice and actually try and win the game rather than just lose slowly.

The wall analogy that has been brought up is apt. A wall is percieved to be a strong defensive structure. But its passive and no active threat to its opponent, and easily circumvented by an enemy with the to scale it at your its leasure. Which is why active defenses are prefereable and the defense of being on the offensive yourself even better.

Yet ancient cities still built walls if they were vibrant, and the ideal was to have both passive and active defences. This can be achieved by pairing Murray with a more mobile, more offensive dman ... Diaz?

Some general notes on the Murray issue, and the fact he doesn't have splendid microstats in his first two games.

1) He is brought in on a 1-year contract, paid 1.5 million, to play 10-15 minutes a game on the third pairing. He is not expected to have splendid microstats. For this pay and role, mediocre microstats are actually better than they appear since you should not be comparing Murray to the league average: 2nd pairing D playing 20 minutes a game, which you automatically do by bringing up microstats and implicitly comparing him to mean performance. The 30th percentile would actually be quite good given his contract and minutes played, as that puts him in the upper half of genuine third pairing dmen (14th to 42nd percentiles, assuming 7 dmen per team). This is leaving aside the fact that Murray is necessarily shortchanged by microstats since they are not optimised to capture his contribution.

ETA: As a sixth dman, Murray's neutral performance range is 14th to 28th percentile, and at 21st percentile he would be exactly median.

1B) It's important to have players like Murray and Drewiske on the roster because then you don't have to deplete your farm system and draft pick allocation acquiring dmen from other teams once the injuries inevitably occur, as we often did in the Gainey-Gauthier era. This is a contribution not captured by Fenwick, and you're not going to get some Subban-type for a 1-year contract paying 1.5 million with no guarantee of playing time. You have to try and get some benefit, like Murray's toughness or Marc-Andre Bergeron's shot.

2) The most direct effect of a guy like Murray might be to disorient opposition players due to devastating hits. That won't be measured by most microstats I'm aware of, as the effect will mostly be felt when Murray is off the ice, and the sample size will always be small.

3) We need more size on the team. We were eliminated by the Flyers in 2008 and 2010, and Ottawa in 2013, because we lacked size and toughness and our players became meek. We have also been humiliated in countless regular season games. Murray, Prust, and Parros have been brought in to help with this issue. They don't completely solve the toughness issue, not by any means, but it's a significant step forward that should help the other players play better even when none of Murray, Prust, and Parros are on the ice.

 

[MathMan]

1) He is brought in on a 1-year contract, paid 1.5 million, to play 10-15 minutes a game on the third pairing. He is not expected to have splendid microstats. For this pay and role, mediocre microstats are actually better than they appear since you should not be comparing Murray to the league average:

1- Murray's microstats, over that small sample of two games, have been considerably worse than merely "mediocre". I've rarely seen such negative statlines.

2- It's not necessarily the case that Murray's micros should be fine if they were 'mediocre'. No one's expecting him to be PK Subban, but Subban doesn't just push the play the right way; he does so against top opposition. Murray is only asked to play against the bottom of opposing lineups. If he were a good bottom-pairing guy, he would be able to outplay opposing fourth-liners and third-pairing defensemen. Right now he's getting murdered by them.

In other words: no one's asking him to hold out against Tyler Seguin. He's not getting pasted by Tyler Seguin because he doesn't play against Tyler Seguin. He's asked to deal with Shawn Horcoff. And he gets pasted.

1B) It's important to have players like Murray and Drewiske on the roster because then you don't have to deplete your farm system and draft pick allocation acquiring dmen from other teams once the injuries inevitably occur

I'm fine with having depth players, but even depth players at the NHL level should be better than Murray. There were defensemen available for cheaper than Murray who are also much better (I keep going back to Tom Gilbert as the ur-example of that). They would have been better options as depth D-men.

3) We need more size on the team. We were eliminated by the Flyers in 2008 and 2010, and Ottawa in 2013, because we lacked size and toughness and our players became meek.

I'm tired of this nonsense. The lazy "too small" narrative for those series losses is simply not based on the facts. 2008 Flyers in particular is a pet peeve of mine; I have a series of articles on it in the A Winning Habit archives.

Even if size were a genuine issue, it's plainly silly to attempt to solve this problem with big players who are otherwise liabilities. Just like you can't improve a team with slow foot speed by adding an Olympic speed skater with no puck skills.

 

[Talks to Goalposts]

Yet ancient cities still built walls if they were vibrant, and the ideal was to have both passive and active defences. This can be achieved by pairing Murray with a more mobile, more offensive dman ... Diaz?

Some general notes on the Murray issue, and the fact he doesn't have splendid microstats in his first two games.

1) He is brought in on a 1-year contract, paid 1.5 million, to play 10-15 minutes a game on the third pairing. He is not expected to have splendid microstats. For this pay and role, mediocre microstats are actually better than they appear since you should not be comparing Murray to the league average: 2nd pairing D playing 20 minutes a game, which you automatically do by bringing up microstats and implicitly comparing him to mean performance. The 30th percentile would actually be quite good given his contract and minutes played, as that puts him in the upper half of genuine third pairing dmen (14th to 42nd percentiles, assuming 7 dmen per team). This is leaving aside the fact that Murray is necessarily shortchanged by microstats since they are not optimised to capture his contribution.

ETA: As a sixth dman, Murray's neutral performance range is 14th to 28th percentile, and at 21st percentile he would be exactly median.

1B) It's important to have players like Murray and Drewiske on the roster because then you don't have to deplete your farm system and draft pick allocation acquiring dmen from other teams once the injuries inevitably occur, as we often did in the Gainey-Gauthier era. This is a contribution not captured by Fenwick, and you're not going to get some Subban-type for a 1-year contract paying 1.5 million with no guarantee of playing time. You have to try and get some benefit, like Murray's toughness or Marc-Andre Bergeron's shot.

2) The most direct effect of a guy like Murray might be to disorient opposition players due to devastating hits. That won't be measured by most microstats I'm aware of, as the effect will mostly be felt when Murray is off the ice, and the sample size will always be small.

3) We need more size on the team. We were eliminated by the Flyers in 2008 and 2010, and Ottawa in 2013, because we lacked size and toughness and our players became meek. We have also been humiliated in countless regular season games. Murray, Prust, and Parros have been brought in to help with this issue. They don't completely solve the toughness issue, not by any means, but it's a significant step forward that should help the other players play better even when none of Murray, Prust, and Parros are on the ice.

I'll note that while the walls are still standing, the civilizations they guarded are long dead.

1) They point of comparison Murray is doing poorly against on these metircs isn't top level defensemen, its guys like Tinordi and Beaulieau (Rookies/AHL callups).

2) If you believe that is really true you could try and show your work and compare games Murray is in the lineup to when he isn't. But keep in mind that even if the effect you claim is real and not just something you assume is true due to conventional wisdom, for it to be a positive it needs to overcome the opportunity cost of Murray's minutes. Just having a plausible theory isn't a good counter-argument, without supporting evidence all your doing is supplying is conjecture and opinion. You haven't actually done anything to show your position is grounded in reality.

We could do this another way also. If your belief that Murray is having a positive effect is rational it should be falsifiable by contrictory evidence. What manner of evidence would you consider sufficent to get you to believe otherwise?