Confirmed with Link: Murray accepts qualifying offer

[EspenK]

Just read the athletic article. Looks like it was a team decision and Murray & his agent agreed.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

I want him to do well (better) so the perception of him changes and I can tell a "handful' of people here, "told ya so".

That’s curious because part of your thing is that you aren’t concerned with individual players but only with the team.

 

[thebus88]

That’s curious because part of your thing is that you aren’t concerned with individual players but only with the team.

There's a difference between wanting Murray to play with Jones and wanting to give Milano 2nd line minutes, just because. 1 of them HURTS the team, the other, DOESNT. There's also a GOOD CHANCE that it improves the team, which would be considered 'concerned with the team over individual players'. Got it? There's a reason I don't claim to want Dubinsky to fill Wennberg's ROLE. Because it would hurt the team if he did. I'm also NOT gonna claim, "I'm done with the franchise" if a favorite player moves on, like others do.

Also interesting use of "concerned". Interesting way to skip the fact that I AM HOPING A PLAYER ON THE CBJ PLAYS GOOD/BETTER, while most other CBJ "fans" here do the complete opposite.

What is your or the point? You sure "outsmarted" me and led me right into the trap, eh? Jesus.

Trolling, flaming, or mod?

 

[MoeBartoli]

Team also has Garikov coming next season , I believe

Hoping he does not want out before he ever gets in

 

[Theo Von]

Hoping he does not want out before he ever gets in

Mikey Reilly says

 

[CBJFan827]

I hope Murray has a good, relatively healthy season for us. He'll should have plenty of opportunity to showcase what he has to start the season with Jones (as you can't put Murray-Savard together. Ever.)

 

[LetsGOJackets!!]

I also am a huge Ryan Murray fan. When I watch him play I see a solid defender in every aspect.. played with Jones he would be a star. Look at his numbers specifically winning % when he plays. That is the only stat that matters to me

 

[major major]

I also am a huge Ryan Murray fan. When I watch him play I see a solid defender in every aspect.. played with Jones he would be a star. Look at his numbers specifically winning % when he plays. That is the only stat that matters to me

If you look at the with/without you stats game by game, he looks good.

If you look at the with/without you stats for when he is on the ice vs off the ice, he's maybe our 5th best defender.

Put those together and it looks like a player who adds valuable depth, but no star quality in any situation.

 

[thebus88]

If you look at the with/without you stats game by game, he looks good.

If you look at the with/without you stats for when he is on the ice vs off the ice, he's maybe our 5th best defender.

Please explain. Dead serious.

I cant go back to any of those websites, I'd be asking for an aneurysm or a stroke.

 

[LetsGOJackets!!]

My response to that is he must bring a calming effect for the minutes he eats... which allows everyone else to play better when he is in the lineup because the bottom line is they win more than they lose when Ryan Murray is playing. Isn't that the frigging point?

 

[db2011]

That’s curious because part of your thing is that you aren’t concerned with individual players but only with the team.

Oh get out of here with your leading question and disingenuous reactions. Bus has said on many occasions that he enjoys his "I told you so"s.

Man, come in here with a divergent opinion and one becomes a f***ing pin cushion.

 

[Viqsi]

Oh get out of here with your leading question and disingenuous reactions. Bus has said on many occasions that he enjoys his "I told you so"s.

Man, come in here with a divergent opinion and one becomes a ****ing pin cushion.

When one takes the "you are all idiots, but I am generous and will grant you some of my infinite wisdom" approach to presenting opinions, it has a tendency to draw reactions like that.

 

[db2011]

When one takes the "you are all idiots, but I am generous and will grant you some of my infinite wisdom" approach to presenting opinions, it has a tendency to draw reactions like that.

Well reactions like that should be avoided; don't take the bait.

I mean, whatever. To this reader, the guy has been consistent (and yes, consistently abrasive) with his position. He grants some usefulness to advanced stats, but maintains that they don't tell the whole story. His primary foil, majormajor, rarely if ever admits to the shortcomings of his approach, the analytic approach; instead, he insists that he has the owner's manual to hockey! There's no manual, obviously, because this is a competitive sport and has a history of different eras, with no one approach being able to credibly claim it has solved the game.

I normally bite my tongue but DSL's transparent little exercise was enough. I normally just read through during this time of year but I have to say the level of discourse this summer has suffered and it isn't because of bus's lack of diplomacy. To this outside observer, it's because so many otherwise level-headed posters are taking the bait and sniping and not being able to stop wanting the guy to think just like they do. Just listen to the guy and don't get all bent out of shape by his style.

 

[Viqsi]

I mean, whatever. To this reader, the guy has been consistent (and yes, consistently abrasive) with his position. He grants some usefulness to advanced stats, but maintains that they don't tell the whole story.

Um. No. He pretty consistently dismisses them wholesale if even the smallest possible inconsistency comes up, and frequently dismisses them as useless. He's making progress in that area, to be sure, but he still tends to just (at least outwardly) outright ignore statistical evidence that might contraindicate a conclusion of his. And my biggest complaint is that, by and large, he shares his conclusions rather than what he sees. When he has posted what he's seeing, it's eleventy billion times better and so much more helpful. (Granted, though, it's frequently a lot harder to convey what one sees with an eye test in a precise, objective fashion.)

His primary foil, majormajor, rarely if ever admits to the shortcomings of his approach, the analytic approach; instead, he insists that he has the owner's manual to hockey!

This is a tad hyperbolic. MM hasn't always acknowledged the weak points, true (that's part of why I keep bringing them up, myself), but that's partly because the debate is with someone who's historically used any minor weak point as an excuse to dismiss the entire field out of hand when it doesn't immediately back up what he sees.

It also doesn't help that thebus keeps bringing up things that "the model doesn't account for" that actually are accounted for. Back in the days when it was just Corsi, some of those counterpoints were valid. Nowadays? Not quite as much, although there's still a lot of room for improvement.

I normally bite my tongue but DSL's unfair little exercise was enough.

Honestly, if he hadn't said it I would have. thebus does have a definite tendency to go on per-player crusades, both for players he likes (Dubinsky, Murray) and - in the past, especially - players he can't stand (Wisniewski). So that does seem a little self-contradictory at best.

 

[db2011]

Um. No. He pretty consistently dismisses them wholesale if even the smallest possible inconsistency comes up, and frequently dismisses them as useless. He's making progress in that area, to be sure, but he still tends to just (at least outwardly) outright ignore statistical evidence that might contraindicate a conclusion of his. And my biggest complaint is that, by and large, he shares his conclusions rather than what he sees. When he has posted what he's seeing, it's eleventy billion times better and so much more helpful. (Granted, though, it's frequently a lot harder to convey what one sees with an eye test in a precise, objective fashion.)


This is a tad hyperbolic. MM hasn't always acknowledged the weak points, true (that's part of why I keep bringing them up, myself), but that's partly because the debate is with someone who's historically used any minor weak point as an excuse to dismiss the entire field out of hand when it doesn't immediately back up what he sees.

It also doesn't help that thebus keeps bringing up things that "the model doesn't account for" that actually are accounted for. Back in the days when it was just Corsi, some of those counterpoints were valid. Nowadays? Not quite as much, although there's still a lot of room for improvement.


Honestly, if he hadn't said it I would have. thebus does have a definite tendency to go on per-player crusades, both for players he likes (Dubinsky, Murray) and - in the past, especially - players he can't stand (Wisniewski). So that does seem a little self-contradictory at best.

Just as a summer lurker, I don't find your characterizations compelling. Yeah, he can be irksome. But I've never felt he was bogus, he just employs a style that is not very endearing. But it gets very old- to me- reading through these forums and feeling like some posters get twisted because a very vocal minority doesn't agree. If you'd have done what DSL did then I'd have called you out on it, too, because it was clear from the word go where that exchange was going, and that it wasn't going to be worth the read.

I don't want to get into a back-and-forth about it. I don't need much more than to read majormajor explain himself as the guy who has the owner's manual. LOL.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

It's my fault so call it disingenuous if you want, but this thread needs to get back onto Ryan Murray, please and thank you. Further discussion on side topics, including to take issue with my posting, should be done by PM.

 

[major major]

Well reactions like that should be avoided; don't take the bait.

I mean, whatever. To this reader, the guy has been consistent (and yes, consistently abrasive) with his position. He grants some usefulness to advanced stats, but maintains that they don't tell the whole story. His primary foil, majormajor, rarely if ever admits to the shortcomings of his approach, the analytic approach; instead, he insists that he has the owner's manual to hockey! There's no manual, obviously, because this is a competitive sport and has a history of different eras, with no one approach being able to credibly claim it has solved the game.

I normally bite my tongue but DSL's transparent little exercise was enough. I normally just read through during this time of year but I have to say the level of discourse this summer has suffered and it isn't because of bus's lack of diplomacy. To this outside observer, it's because so many otherwise level-headed posters are taking the bait and sniping and not being able to stop wanting the guy to think just like they do. Just listen to the guy and don't get all bent out of shape by his style.

I don't think this is a fair characterization, at all. I could go on about where I think the problems with analytics might be (e.g. right now I'm not so sure the shot location data is accurate enough). I also have plenty of opinions on players that I can't support with analytics (I think Matt Calvert is a great bottom six forward). I watch players by eye first and foremost. I have never said analytics tell the entire story or anything remotely like that, and I know I haven't said it because I don't believe it.

But no one is asking me for what I think the problems with analytics are, and no one is going on tirades against my personal eye test. The convo doesn't go there. This is a convo where if I use analytics in any way, possibly some minor parenthetical, Bus retorts that analytics can't do "x" - when "x" is one of the main things analytics actually solidly does. By chance he should have accidentally made a good critique of analytics, because there are many to make, but it hasn't happened yet. I've said to bus before, we don't have to agree, you don't have to think like me, just stick with the truth. I don't mind abrasiveness much, it's the objectively false assertions that I don't like.

If you want to tell me that I'm full of it, then I'm probably at fault, and I'm sorry. But let's be clear - I don't think that analytics tells the whole story.

 

[db2011]

I don't think this is a fair characterization, at all. I could go on about where I think the problems with analytics might be (e.g. right now I'm not so sure the shot location data is accurate enough). I also have plenty of opinions on players that I can't support with analytics (I think Matt Calvert is a great bottom six forward). I watch players by eye first and foremost. I have never said analytics tell the entire story or anything remotely like that, and I know I haven't said it because I don't believe it.

But no one is asking me for what I think the problems with analytics are, and no one is going on tirades against my personal eye test. The convo doesn't go there. This is a convo where if I use analytics in any way, possibly some minor parenthetical, Bus retorts that analytics can't do "x" - when "x" is one of the main things analytics actually solidly does. By chance he should have accidentally made a good critique of analytics, because there are many to make, but it hasn't happened yet. I've said to bus before, we don't have to agree, you don't have to think like me, just stick with the truth. I don't mind abrasiveness much, it's the objectively false assertions that I don't like.

If you want to tell me that I'm full of it, then I'm probably at fault, and I'm sorry. But let's be clear - I don't think that analytics tells the whole story.

Honestly, I find you both compelling at times, and both full of it sometimes. I don't discredit your general stance, and I know analytics have changed most sports. But I believe you are an academic in the field of statistics? Apologies if I'm wrong, but if I'm not then that's telling, and that is not intended to be a slight against you, only to illuminate your position at times. And the "problem" is that your approach will never be "wrong", it will just be back to the drawing board, better develop the model further, whereas "eye test" guys who clearly understand the game are always wrong because they don't "look under the hood".

Maybe I shouldn't have spoken up but I the tenor around here was rankling me. And what the hell, I look forward to bus's "I told you so"s, too, cause I like Ryan Murray.

 

[major major]

Honestly, I find you both compelling at times, and both full of it sometimes. I don't discredit your general stance, and I know analytics have changed most sports. But I believe you are an academic in the field of statistics? Apologies if I'm wrong, but if I'm not then that's telling, and that is not intended to be a slight against you, only to illuminate your position at times. And the "problem" is that your approach will never be "wrong", it will just be back to the drawing board, better develop the model further, whereas "eye test" guys who clearly understand the game are always wrong because they don't "look under the hood".

Maybe I shouldn't have spoken up but I the tenor around here was rankling me. And what the hell, I look forward to bus's "I told you so"s, too, cause I like Ryan Murray.

I like Murray, so I don't see any told you so's coming for that. But if he ends up better than Nutivaara long term, I would be quite surprised and you can talk all the shit you want.

You didn't seem to believe me that I'm an eye test guy myself. You've put me back in the statistics box. I think this started with one of bus' assertions, something like "Murray >> Nuti" which seemed implausible by my eye test. I looked up some numbers and poked around, didn't find much to challenge my view. If I just replied "Nuti >>> Murray" I guess I would have more respect in your book.

Not "looking under the hood" was a reference to analytical models that bus wasted a lot of time critiquing. He wrote a book on the car parts without ever looking at them. The discussion wasn't about analysis of any particular player, but about models that he wasn't familiar with.

I'm an economist, so I have stats training, but most of my own work is journalistic and super critical of economic models and economics as a discipline. So yeah, it feels pretty weird to be typecast as the stats guy who doesn't watch games.

 

[Monk]

You didn't seem to believe me that I'm an eye test guy myself. You've put me back in the statistics box..

Just to chime in where I wasn't asked to.. I've never interpreted you as a "stats only" guy. And I appreciate that you do use data to support your views/opinions/claims/assertions.

 

[EspenK]

Ryan Murray sucks. Ryan Murray is great. Please take a side and get this thread back on track.

 

[thebus88]

It also doesn't help that thebus keeps bringing up things that "the model doesn't account for" that actually are accounted for.

This is a convo where if I use analytics in any way, possibly some minor parenthetical, Bus retorts that analytics can't do "x" - when "x" is one of the main things analytics actually solidly does. By chance he should have accidentally made a good critique of analytics, because there are many to make, but it hasn't happened yet. I've said to bus before, we don't have to agree, you don't have to think like me, just stick with the truth. I don't mind abrasiveness much, it's the objectively false assertions that I don't like.

To continue with the themes: "stick with the truth" and "not liking objectively false assertions", I would like to know, what are the "things" that are supposedly accounted for, that I say aren't? And what is the "x", that is supposedly one of the main things analytics "actually solidly does"? Since most of the idea that I am wrong (about the "validity" of analytics) is based on this, I'd like to know. I have acknowledged in the past that some of these "analytics" ATTEMPT to account for some of the underlying factors. My issue (and why I say "attempt) is that these "analytics" ATTEMPT to account for these "things" by associating a number value to something that CANT be measured in that way. These "models" and just HOW MUCH or even simply HOW they are affected by (some) of these underlying factors, is, for a lack of better/complex words, completely made up. The problem here is people's correlation between "stats" and "facts". The "stats" shouldn't be considered "facts" when the "model" and the numbers "plugged" into it are NOT based on reality.

Quick reminder that the "analytics" talk started spiraling when the claim was made that the "numbers" showed/proved Bobrovsky was more valuable/important than Tavares, Panarin and MANY other VERY valuable/important players. My initial complaint (other than disagreeing wholeheartedly on what they supposedly "showed") was that (IMO) you cannot SUCCESSFULLY compare the "importance" of a 1st line center and starting goalie to their respective/SEPARATE teams by looking at "statistics". Whether they are "concrete" numbers, or essentially made up, by "plugging them" into some UNREALISTIC "model".

 

[thebus88]

Ryan Murray sucks. Ryan Murray is great. Please take a side and get this thread back on track.

How bout a "fun game" that everybody can get involved in and look back at during the season?

How many games does Ryan Murray miss due to injury in the 2018-19 season?

I say 7.

'CBJSTH' will be given the task of keeping track of everybody's predictions till September. Good luck to him and all competitors.

 

[thebus88]

You didn't seem to believe me that I'm an eye test guy myself. You've put me back in the statistics box. I think this started with one of bus' assertions, something like "Murray >> Nuti" which seemed implausible by my eye test. I looked up some numbers and poked around, didn't find much to challenge my view. If I just replied "Nuti >>> Murray" I guess I would have more respect in your book.

Not "looking under the hood" was a reference to analytical models that bus wasted a lot of time critiquing. He wrote a book on the car parts without ever looking at them. The discussion wasn't about analysis of any particular player, but about models that he wasn't familiar with.

Ok. I guarantee you cant find a single post of mine that says "Murray >> Nutivaara". One ">" is as far as I've ever gone. It was probably something like this: "Murray > Nutivaara >> Carlsson. A reminder that I was 1 of the 1st and ONLY people to stick up for the often mocked 'Tulip', in regards to both the Dubois (over Jesse) pick AND ALL the good things he had to say about Nutivaara. f***, I had to stick up for Nutivaara when people were claiming Carlsson > Nutivaara, NOT long ago at all. This can all be looked up, so lets keep any "pro-Nutivaara" talk separate from arguing me, ok, hun? And frankly, I think this started when YOU made the assertion that Bob > Tavares/Panarin/etc.

And NOW I'll go back to this. You were attempting to compare the SPORT of hockey to a (type of) car. You were also attempting to compare your precious stats (NOT facts) to that of a cars "manual" and/or engine. So essentially you are trying to say that since I don't 'know' or care about your stats (aka the manual/engine) that I don't know what I'm talking about in regards to the "car", aka THE SPORT OF HOCKEY. We'd be better off with 1960's baseball comparisons, as that's at least a somewhat relatable team sport or sport at all.

The "output" that these "models" give out, are based primarily on the input they were GIVEN when they were CREATED.

There's a "message" in the following clip...you big stupid jerk!!

 

[CBJFan827]

How bout a "fun game" that everybody can get involved in and look back at during the season?

How many games does Ryan Murray miss due to injury in the 2018-19 season?

I say 7.

'CBJSTH' will be given the task of keeping track of everybody's predictions till September. Good luck to him and all competitors.

I'm thinking 15, in two chunks. HOpefully after ZW is back and healthy.