medgett
Registered User
Sorry Orca, just not getting it. Can't understand why context doesn't matter. I could leave the discussion of other Dmen out, but I won't, because it matters. It offers perspective of Garrison's current environment. You not liking it is irrelevant. I'm talking about Jason Garrison as a cog of the Vancouver Canucks. That includes him, and others, and how fits, relative to others.
But perhaps it's who it's coming from that bothers you, so here's another way of putting it that might get through:
It doesn't make it acceptable, it makes it understandable. Right now, the play of the entire defense is unacceptable based on prior standards, but until all the other pieces right their games, we can't fully infer how "off" Garrison is in his game. There's Garrison "the player" and then there's Garrison "the player among players". Both his ability and his ability within the context of the group matters. Overall, it gives us the complete picture. Notice that I have not refrained on giving an analysis of Garrison's play itself, it's just that I include the context, which you have failed to do.
So somehow saying that the top4 has struggled/looked like crap is akin to calling for a buyout on a newly signed player 13 games in? Not that I want to get into this line of reasoning because it's irrelevant, but the hyperbole is still clearly with you. It remains with you. It's was a poor statement at a poor time. But hey, I'm not going to even get into it further than that so whatever.
I put those numbers up to show you that looks can be deceiving. Which actually plays into the team still winning, despite the hand-wringing about the players. Be it Garrison or others. You tried to make your buyout argument based on the "look" of Garrison. Remember? That he is appearing to struggle. I agreed that he looked awkward out there, but my analysis extends beyond that to include context and objective statistics. It's why I'm not calling for a buyout. Plus, you know, the fact that it's only been 14 games without a proper training camp... That too.Basically, I'm saying that your analysis lacked context and objectivity. The numbers bear that out. Now your only course of action is to prove that the "look" of a player (to which I have also provided my account) is more relevant than his effectiveness and is context. Good luck.
14 games in, limited camp, new team, everyone struggling, underlying stats, history of the team working with players (Ballard) etc... is a direct indictment on your comments. They were, and remain, unjustified.
It's not about making you eat your words, it's about having patience and not uttering an extreme statement until you see things play out first...
1) Context does certainly have some impact on the play of an individual. It isn't everything though and just as many have explained, there are many reasons/explanations for some of Garrison's perceived weaknesses that should resolve themselves at some point. Some of the weaknesses that I, orcatown and others have pointed to are not related to the play of others. For example, not following up the play is definitely something Garrison himself is responsible for and as I posted yesterday, I feel its something he's improved significantly on in the last 2 games, (IMO he stayed up with the play more often than not against the preds tonight). Also, he has very little poise and patience with the puck in his own zone specifically. This is something that can be judged as an individual strength or weakness. It may be a result of unfamiliarity with the system, but for now, its an issue. Context is important to consider, but it isn't everything. If Orcatown was criticizing aspects of the game that depended on the play of his teammates, (+/-, PK GA, 5 on 5 GA, offensive output, etc.) then I'd agree with you. He isn't and thus your counterargument regarding context is somewhat irrelevant.
2) I don't really want to get into the entire cap situation in this thread given that there is another one currently available to discuss that specifically, but there are reasons to consider buy outs. If you would like to have a read through that thread, it may make what I'm about to say a little clearer. The canucks will basically be forced to utilize the compliance buy outs this offseason to get to the 64.3m cap. Assuming they want to bring back Tanev, Raymond, Schroeder and Higgins, (others would be resigned as well, but not bringing them back doesn't result in significant savings aka Volpatti, Wiese, Lapierre), they will need to shed somewhere in the neighborhood of 7-9m. Even if you trade Luongo for pure futures, buying out Booth or Ballard still is likely to not get you there as you need to replace them on the roster. For this reason alone, the organization needs to be considering and building contingencies around who to use the buyouts on and potentially finding another way to get under the cap for next season. So to reiterate what has been said a thousand times here, it is premature to say that Garrison or, in fact anyone on the roster, should be bought out. It is not premature to start building a list of names of guys that could be considerations.
3) Analyzing someone's play based on how they look isn't everything and its subjective to a large degree. Still, you're quick to point out hypocrisy so I'd like you to consider your statement regarding Bieksa "floating hopers towards the net" when you talk about the stats bearing things out. As far as most are concerned, goals and assists are still pretty important stats and if you're asking others to show how stats bear out their arguments, you should probably try not to disregard them when they are counter to other arguments you're putting forth. That said, I do think its important to combine subjective analysis with statistics and in Garrison's case I find them those two to be somewhat at odds. I have already stated my opinion regarding his play without the puck in the d zone and I'm not suprised to see that reflected. I am suprised that his possession stats are as good as they are considering that when I watch the games I see him continually get caught in puck battles where a quick play could've avoided it, he gives the puck away up the boards fairly consistently, and I don't really notice him connecting on many passes, (If someone could further explain the posession stat, I would be apppreciative). As I've said, much of this has improved in this back to back, but I still find him to be slow with the puck in his own end. Lastly here, your bolded statement seems to imply that his "effectiveness" is directly and perfectly reflected in advanced statistics which I think we can all agree is not true.
