Confirmed with Link: Murray accepts qualifying offer

[thebus88]

You can look into the details of how those models are developed if you like; I occasionally do so, but a few of them admittedly go over my head in some of the details. The core problem, though, is that at its core this assertion ("these things can't be measured with numbers") is largely rejecting the entire field of statistics as nonviable

You misread it. We were talking about analytical models, and I said I read the manual and look under the hood, and Bus does not (he proudly admits to not looking at them).

You guys keep claiming that I essentially "don't know what I'm talking about". You also keep claiming that I am saying the "models" DONT account for something YOU say they DO account for. This is a HUGE part of your assertion that I don't know what I'm talking about.

What are the variables that the "models" DO account for that I say they do not?

And I guess to follow it up (if you do answer) do you believe the variables are accounted for in a realistic manner?

I'll wait.

 

[thebus88]

DSL has lost the room... This inane discussion of owners manuals and looking under the hood and analogies needs its own thread.

Just start talking about buying out Dubinsky and how Larsen and Torts are holding back the PP, like EVERY OTHER THREAD, and we'll call it even.

 

[db2011]

I've already been clear on this - I'm not of the opinion that analytics should be immune from critique. It has lots of problems. I think a good chunk of the possession stuff will fall out of favor if we get better data on puck and player location. You keep thinking I'm saying something that I am not. I've never claimed that there was "one manual". Next time you're of the mind to disagree with me, read again word for word and ask yourself if I'm actually saying what you're imagining.

Glory be the day when you get out of your own way and listen to what people are saying. Your owner's manual analogy is arrogant, especially because it was written as an aside about bus, and meant for "the rest of us". If you want to pay lip service to never calling analytics immune to critique then give allowance to the other side who say there is some usefulness to analytics but they aren't useful for analyzing the game in other ways.

Don't tell me to read your posts like there's a wisdom there that I'm unable to grasp. It's insufferable.

 

[Monk]

give allowance to the other side who say there is some usefulness to analytics but they aren't useful for analyzing the game in other ways.

That's literally what he's been saying all along...

 

[Monk]

The problem is, I have EXPLAINED in many ways, and given many examples as to why I have an (as you put it) "unwillingness" to look beyond the "surface level". Also, the thing is, I HAVE looked a bit at just WHAT IS beyond that surface level. Not only do I literally have a very hard time even understanding what I am looking at, but the majority of the time a person is attempting to use them in an argument, I also disagree with what they are saying, either the "stats" or the person.

The MAIN argument/question is THIS: HOW MUCH should you take these "stats" in account when evaluating hockey players?

I have many issues with using these "stats" as your major or PRIMARY "evaluation tool". To put it simply, the amount of VARIABLES that these models "leave out" is SO significant, that they should be looked at/taken in with extreme discretion. I'm talking tangible variables and intangible variables. Were talking team by team, line by line. "Chemistry", or the lack there of between players/lines/teams. Coaching techniques and decisions. Off ice issues. Sickness. Playable injuries we know nothing about. REAL VARIABLES that can not be given a "decimal value" and plugged into the model. Not to mention all the little bounces, mistakes, or great offensive or defensive plays that happen ON THE ICE, THAT THESE MODELS DO NOT (literally can not) TAKE INTO ACCOUNT. Things that affect the game MORE (imo, I guess) than the "tangible" variables these models DO take into account.

The problem with these variables that are involved with the models (and given number values) is that they are given ARTIFICIAL VALUES. They are not realistic in terms of "impact". Therefore the "stats" are not REALISTIC.

What's even more UNREALISTIC (when looking beyond the surface) is using these unrealistic numbers to then MAKE UP completely new "advanced analysis" comparing players ON DIFFERENT TEAMS AND THAT PLAY VASTLY (goalie to skater) DIFFERENT POSITIONS.

They may show WHAT has happened, but most of the "Analytics Crew" attempt to pass of that they show WHY things have happened. With SO MUCH info missing and much of the other info (again, I guess imo) misinterpreted, they should be looked at as "stats" not "FACTS".

Nothing about them is ADVANCED, other than the math you have to do to come up with the "stats" aka "reality".

Yeah I just skimmed this. Saw the same stuff that's basically just putting words in someone else's mouth so you can say again that you disagree with those words that weren't said. I'm out on this one, good luck to y'all.

 

[db2011]

Yeah I just skimmed this. Saw the same stuff that's basically just putting words in someone else's mouth so you can say again that you disagree with those words that weren't said. I'm out on this one, good luck to y'all.

Later

 

[thebus88]

Best thread of the summer?

Is Murray the best defenseman behind jones on the CBJ?

What numbers are people thinking on a contract extension?

 

[Crede777]

What numbers are people thinking on a contract extension?

I try to get him at $5.5 or $6 million for 6 years. I take the risk that he doesn't go Rick DiPietro with injuries.

He will try for $7 or $8 million arguing that's what a top pairing guy is worth and he is that.

You meet somewhere in the middle.

 

[major major]

I try to get him at $5.5 or $6 million for 6 years. I take the risk that he doesn't go Rick DiPietro with injuries.

He will try for $7 or $8 million arguing that's what a top pairing guy is worth and he is that.

You meet somewhere in the middle.

Murray is playing like a legit solid #2D. But it's only been two months. I do think he's fully capable of continuing this level - that's not my issue - but he doesn't have the bargaining ability to command $6m yet, and he won't in the summer either. Summer 2020 I think he could command that if he's got two years of top pair play on his resume. I think if he wants a 6 year deal this summer he'll have to settle for $4-5m per. That or take a bridge and bet on yourself that you can do it again - which is awfully risky.

 

[Crede777]

Murray is playing like a legit solid #2D. But it's only been two months. I do think he's fully capable of continuing this level - that's not my issue - but he doesn't have the bargaining ability to command $6m yet, and he won't in the summer either. Summer 2020 I think he could command that if he's got two years of top pair play on his resume. I think if he wants a 6 year deal this summer he'll have to settle for $4-5m per. That or take a bridge and bet on yourself that you can do it again - which is awfully risky.

I disagree. If he continues to play like this through the rest of the season and playoffs - which is a big assumption - he will have earned top pairing money by playing that way in his contract year which carries extra weight if he remains healthy.

Regardless, if the CBJ take the approach you suggest it will go to arbitration. No way Murray signs for anything less than 6x6.

 

[major major]

I disagree. If he continues to play like this through the rest of the season and playoffs - which is a big assumption - he will have earned top pairing money by playing that way in his contract year.

I also doubt CBJ want to bridge him any more than he wants a bridge. Both sides would prefer longer term.

They want to keep Murray longer term, but I don't think CBJ would prefer to sign longer term in 2019 at $6m per. It's needless. Just sign him for his last RFA year, and then go long term in January 2020. The downside risk that the player commands an even greater salary after another year is not too scary with Murray, unless you think he will get even better from here. #2D don't command $7m per, so if you want to lock him up at $6m long term, there's no hurry.

 

[Crede777]

They want to keep Murray longer term, but I don't think CBJ would prefer to sign longer term in 2019 at $6m per. It's needless. Just sign him for his last RFA year, and then go long term in January 2020. The downside risk that the player commands an even greater salary after another year is not too scary with Murray, unless you think he will get even better from here. #2D don't command $7m per, so if you want to lock him up at $6m long term, there's no hurry.

The Jackets need to buy up as many UFA years as they can while he is an RFA.

 

[JohnnyJacket13]

6 years, 5M AAV on his next contract. Just over 6% of the cap (which is close to what Savard signed to when he was 25), slightly less than Jones (who's admittedly on a sweetheart deal), and probably less than what Werenski will sign for on a longterm deal. Plus, Murr seems to love Columbus and probably wants to stay.

 

[Old Guy]

This is so funny. Just over a year ago, Murray was written off in that town. He was gone to Colorado as the centerpiece for Matt Duchene. He even showed up at camp stating he was surprised to be showing up at camp. He thought he was gone.

He might love Columbus, but Columbus hasn't always loved him.

 

[EspenK]

If he continues his play of late over the course of the season he will add to the Jackets cap woes. Especially if Bread decides to stick around for 10.5mm per. I originally had him guesstimated at 4.5 but that might be low. He's got arbitration rights so that minimizes Jackets RFA leverage. I'd guess 6 years at 5-5.5 million. I figured Zach would be locked up for 8 years at 6.5-7 but if he continues to be a defensive "problem" then maybe he gets bridged for a lesser amount.

 

[Hello Johnny]

Even with him playing great and being healthy, there's just no way he signs for more than 5.5. No f***ing way. He's a 4.75 defenseman. And I've been a huge fan of his before we even drafted him. He's just not worth top pairing money yet. If he plays like this for 2 more seasons then yeah maybe he starts the conversation for 6+

 

[CBJWerenski8]

This is so funny. Just over a year ago, Murray was written off in that town. He was gone to Colorado as the centerpiece for Matt Duchene. He even showed up at camp stating he was surprised to be showing up at camp. He thought he was gone.

He might love Columbus, but Columbus hasn't always loved him.

Which is why any thoughts of a sweetheart deal is overly optimistic. Murray is going to want the bank, or as much as he can get, and term.

 

[major major]

I forgot this over the weekend, but the Seattle expansion draft is probably in June 2020. If the Jackets opt to protect 7F & 3D, then we either lose Murray or Nutivaara. Seattle will almost certainly take either guy if he's exposed. Nuti is signed long term at $2.5m per, and Murray will be making much more than that. It seems to me Murray would be exposed. And if that becomes clearer as we get a little closer to the expansion draft, it makes it less likely for the Jackets to be overly eager to sign him long term this summer - the savings on his long term cap hit we'd get by signing him early would accrue to Seattle. Now if Murray really wants to sign long term this summer, and is willing to do something around, say $4.5m per, then it opens the door that Nuti would be exposed. Nuti will be getting a big raise in 2022, and it could flip to Murray being the cost-controlled option.

A lot of ifs! Expansion could be delayed to 2021, and it's reasonable that the Jackets might opt to protect 4F & 4D, in which case we'll be talking about how to protect Josh Anderson (sound familiar?).

 

[thebus88]

Have you guys looked at his numbers after 1/3 of the season?

Just curious.

Other than the top line, he's right there essentially even in POINTS with all other players on the team, offense or defense.

And, he's also a team leading +15. And since I love to harp on usage, here we go. He was the main guy tasked with filling the void when Jones was out, and he and Jones have looked better together than anybody on the team, since Seth has been back. Murray's easiest ice time has been playing heavy minutes with Jones. I fully expect for Torts to go back to it soon.

There's no way he takes less than 5 million on this next contract unless its for 2 years for some reason. Try to get him signed for 5.3-5.7 for 6-7 years. While yes, Werenski has quite a bit better wrist shot and with our lack of "trigger men" you want him on the power play, I think its CLEAR, that Murray is a better overall defenseman. He can handle 5 on 5 and PK minutes that Werenski literally cant handle.

And lets not forget how young Murray still is. While he may have "lost" some developmental time, lets not act like he cant and hasn't progressed as a NHL hockey player in the last couple years.

The lack of disrespectful as f***, "glass man" Murray comments is awesome, I will say.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

The lack of disrespectful as ****, "glass man" Murray comments is awesome, I will say.

And since this is balanced with a lack of astigmatic "Dubinsky is our best center" comments, I'd say it's even awesomer.

And since I never made any posts of either kind, I can claim victory over all of you crummies.

 

[Viqsi]

While yes, Werenski has quite a bit better wrist shot and with our lack of "trigger men" you want him on the power play, I think its CLEAR, that Murray is a better overall defenseman. He can handle 5 on 5 and PK minutes that Werenski literally cant handle.

Murray is four years older than Werenski. I should certainly hope he'd be a better overall guy at this stage; he's had more time to get better.

Still premature to give up on Werenski. Just be glad Murray is being a badass without tearing down other players.

 

[pled]

Murray is four years older than Werenski. I should certainly hope he'd be a better overall guy at this stage; he's had more time to get better.

Still premature to give up on Werenski. Just be glad Murray is being a badass without tearing down other players.

they are also very different kind of player anyway not a good comparison

 

[mikeyp24]

Im just happy people are finally seeing how strong Murray is. Maybe in 3yrs the rest of the fans in the league with start to come around on him. He has always been our 2nd best defender which is why he and jones closed out games. Look at Seths first year here to see how that pairing worked then with team NA. Once they put him on his offside with rookie nuti his play went to shit. I will not argue he is a top pair defender without help but give him a stable defender and he is up there.

 

[CBJWerenski8]

. Just be glad Murray is being a badass without tearing down other players.

Bus:

 

[thebus88]

Murray is four years older than Werenski. I should certainly hope he'd be a better overall guy at this stage; he's had more time to get better.

Still premature to give up on Werenski. Just be glad Murray is being a badass without tearing down other players.

Oh, its about age now?

Why is it considered "tearing down" Werenski, by saying Murray is better?

Murray has been BASHED for nearly his entire career in Columbus, by MANY people on here. Much of it based all upon injuries, some quite serious. But, I am the terrible person because I've said that Werenski needs to focus more on defense?

Ok.