Projecting Murray 3+ Years Forward

[PensBandwagonerNo272*]

Which is easier said than done... in the regular season. In the playoffs, all he has to do is not lose game for us... which MAF has done plenty.

Exactly. He doesn't even need to be as good as MAF in the regular season. This isn't a bubble team that needs to be saved by supreme consistent goaltending anymore.

 

[Shady Machine]

Good stuff. So this tells me that MM will be a solid starting goalie with potential to be elite. That sounds like a guy we might want to insure we can keep in the upcoming expansion draft.

Stats question: How did you get all of the data to write scripts, queries off of? I do finance and some basic data analytics, but I'm not familiar with how to take data online and write off of it without downloading it into a more digestible format.

 

[nbonaddio]

So, basically, Murray seems to be a total (positive) outlier. Two years of AHL dominance + Cup run.

To me, that is kind of reassuring. At worse, he should be a middle of the road goalie, which Fleury already is - however Murray should a coolness and composure MAF never did.

I'm not sure I agree with your conclusion, and I think if you took away your Pens-colored glasses, you'd come up with a different one. But I get it.

The bigger question here to me is, if Murray really is only a .917/2.36 goalie for the next three years, are Pens fans going to be okay with that?

Consider that it's likely going to be worse than what MAF would put up, but at a much cheaper cost. Consider that as of now, he's clearly the goalie of the future..but so were Lehner and Bernier.

Just food for thought.

 

[nbonaddio]

Good stuff. So this tells me that MM will be a solid starting goalie with potential to be elite. That sounds like a guy we might want to insure we can keep in the upcoming expansion draft.

Stats question: How did you get all of the data to write scripts, queries off of? I do finance and some basic data analytics, but I'm not familiar with how to take data online and write off of it without downloading it into a more digestible format.

Well, yes and no. Is .917/2.36 "solid"? And again, Bernier likely will never be a consistent starter while the jury is out on Lehner and Andersen.

I think the take away is that it's not a slam dunk, but he's proven to be an outlier so far - focusing on the latter doesn't mean that you should forget the former though. We're all excited about Murray's potential but it's important to keep in mind that Ottawa was excited about Lehner, LA was excited about Bernier, and so on. We just don't know.

For the data, I wrote a cURL script in Python to pull from the AHL's stats pages, which follow a predictable URL and page structure. It basically just did a DOM lookup (ie: get me the 1st table on the page, the 6th column in the table, etc.), parsed it, and wrote it to a SQL table for me to futz around with.

 

[Scandale du Jour]

I'm not sure I agree with your conclusion, and I think if you took away your Pens-colored glasses, you'd come up with a different one. But I get it.

The bigger question here to me is, if Murray really is only a .917/2.36 goalie for the next three years, are Pens fans going to be okay with that?

Consider that it's likely going to be worse than what MAF would put up, but at a much cheaper cost. Consider that as of now, he's clearly the goalie of the future..but so were Lehner and Bernier.

Just food for thought.

Oh, my "conclusion" is mostly wishful thinking based on your data. From your data, Murray seems to be the only one who has A) AHL domination (over two years, so rather large sample size) and B) Early Stanley Cup-winning performance.

Sure, he could regress or fail to progress, but these two factors make me optimistic. But, yeah, that's the conclusion I draw as a Pens fan hoping that Murray becomes a star.

There will be growing pains and he is far from a finished product. However, judged by what we have seen of him so far, at every level, he seems to have the mental aptitude to continue improving.

 

[nbonaddio]

Oh, my "conclusion" is mostly wishful thinking based on your data. From your data, Murray seems to be the only one who has A) AHL domination (over two years, so rather large sample size) and B) Early Stanley Cup-winning performance.

Sure, he could regress or fail to progress, but these two factors make me optimistic. But, yeah, that's the conclusion I draw as a Pens fan hoping that Murray becomes a star.

There will be growing pains and he is far from a finished product. However, judged by what we have seen of him so far, at every level, he seems to have the mental aptitude to continue improving.

That's totally fair, but I think that underscores the difference between fans and the front office. Fans are perfectly happy to make conclusions based on wishful thinking, whereas the front office is probably on the other side of that spectrum - they tend to assume the worst and act conservatively.

I still think this will ultimately work out like Mrazek and Howard.

 

[Shady Machine]

Well, yes and no. Is .917/2.36 "solid"? And again, Bernier likely will never be a consistent starter while the jury is out on Lehner and Andersen.

I think the take away is that it's not a slam dunk, but he's proven to be an outlier so far - focusing on the latter doesn't mean that you should forget the former though. We're all excited about Murray's potential but it's important to keep in mind that Ottawa was excited about Lehner, LA was excited about Bernier, and so on. We just don't know.

For the data, I wrote a cURL script in Python to pull from the AHL's stats pages, which follow a predictable URL and page structure. It basically just did a DOM lookup (ie: get me the 1st table on the page, the 6th column in the table, etc.), parsed it, and wrote it to a SQL table for me to futz around with.

Thanks for the response on the data.

As for the results based on AHL data, yes you are right, but his NHL performance, including really solid play, especially considering his age and experience, on the way to a Cup win should carry some weight here. It's certainly not a slam dunk, but his has shown me enough in his professional career to be comfortable moving Fleury this off season and signing a decent 1B type of goalie.

Without an expansion draft, the smart play was probably to keep Fleury for the year, but that obviously changes the calculus and for me, it changed the urgency to make a move with Fleury now.

 

[nbonaddio]

Thanks for the response on the data.

As for the results based on AHL data, yes you are right, but his NHL performance, including really solid play, especially considering his age and experience, on the way to a Cup win should carry some weight here. It's certainly not a slam dunk, but his has shown me enough in his professional career to be comfortable moving Fleury this off season and signing a decent 1B type of goalie.

Without an expansion draft, the smart play was probably to keep Fleury for the year, but that obviously changes the calculus and for me, it changed the urgency to make a move with Fleury now.

I'm not inherently disagreeing with that logic, I would instead say that the people in charge clearly want to see a much larger sample size. What we might see as certainty that Murray can keep up the form that he showed, they can point to lots of counterexamples (Niemi, etc.) where it didn't.

What sort of frustrates me about this thread is that it's going to make me look like a MAF apologist, which I am only in the sense of cutting through the hyperbole on here. I really just wish people would realize that the expectations they're placing on Murray are not really justified by any comparable situation.

You can't say "He's played so well, there are no comparables" without also acknowledging that the comparables that do exist certainly don't point to the slam dunk we're all expecting. Given that wrong moves about this stuff literally cost people their jobs, I'm sort of shocked that people are so surprised that the front office has chosen to act so conservatively.

As a Pens fan, I want Murray to be the next Lundqvist. As a data scientist, right now it's more likely he's the next Jonathan Bernier, and I don't think we're being irrational in hedging our bets.

 

[nbonaddio]

Really interesting. Who were the other guys of the 22?

Jakob Markstrom 24 1.88 0.934 31
Anton Forsberg 23 2.01 0.927 188
Phoenix Copley 22 2.17 0.925
Jake Allen 23 2.03 0.928 34
Petr Mrazek 22 2.06 0.927 141
Robin Lehner 21 2.12 0.938 46
Fredrik Andersen 23 2.19 0.929 87
Niklas Svedberg 24 2.17 0.925
Cedric Desjardins 27 2.11 0.932
Ben Bishop 25 2.27 0.93 85
Ben Scrivens 25 2.04 0.926
Mark Dekanich 25 2.02 0.931 146
Curtis Sanford 32 1.93 0.93
Richard Bachman 23 2.2 0.927 120
Jonathan Bernier 21 2.03 0.936 11
Cory Schenider 23 2.04 0.928 26
Nathan Lawson 26 2.16 0.927
Michael Leighton 27 2.1 0.931 165
Jaroslav Halak 23 2.1 0.929 271
Karl Goehring 30 2.2 0.926
Jason Labarbera 27 2.21 0.933 66
Jaroslav Halak 22 2 0.932 271

Don't feel like formatting it.

 

[Shaftception]

I'm not sure I agree with your conclusion, and I think if you took away your Pens-colored glasses, you'd come up with a different one. But I get it.

The bigger question here to me is, if Murray really is only a .917/2.36 goalie for the next three years, are Pens fans going to be okay with that?

Consider that it's likely going to be worse than what MAF would put up, but at a much cheaper cost. Consider that as of now, he's clearly the goalie of the future..but so were Lehner and Bernier.

Just food for thought.

This is where I take issue with this premise.

Fleury's improved statistics as I outlined in the other thread match up better with Johnston's tenure as coach than they do with any other factor, even Bales, who after being promoted to goalie coach prior to Bylsma's last year here nevertheless saw Fleury remain around his career average stats regardless, which were worse than your hypothetical future stats for Murray. Only during Johnston's tenure did Fleury's stats spike to a significantly noticeable degree, especially during the time frame when the team was obviously over committed to a defensive mindset (the Rangers series, early last season), supported by the blatant decline in offensive production as a result.

That there's not a large enough sample size of either goalie's sustained performance under Sullivan yet to make a decent comparison to that of Johnston's tenure means as it currently stands there's no definitive evidence against Johnston's coaching decisions having a non-insignificant influence on Fleury's improved stats that are being used as the basis for downplaying Murray's performance and potential worth going forward under Sullivan. Thus there doesn't exist an argument absent of objectively flawed premises that suggests Fleury's performance going forward under this new coach will be significantly better than Murray's or even these hypothetical projected stats for him, outside of the historical probability of his age indicating an inevitable regression to whatever degree.

It's entirely possible Murray regresses going forward, maybe even along the lines you've outlined, that doesn't however guarantee Fleury will maintain the performance level he's been at the past couple seasons either, and thus drawing conclusions from one set of data while using assumptions about another is not a strong foundation for an argument regarding this dilemma.

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

He's either the next Ken Dryden or the next Jim Carey. No in between.

 

[Shady Machine]

I'm not inherently disagreeing with that logic, I would instead say that the people in charge clearly want to see a much larger sample size. What we might see as certainty that Murray can keep up the form that he showed, they can point to lots of counterexamples (Niemi, etc.) where it didn't.

What sort of frustrates me about this thread is that it's going to make me look like a MAF apologist, which I am only in the sense of cutting through the hyperbole on here. I really just wish people would realize that the expectations they're placing on Murray are not really justified by any comparable situation.

You can't say "He's played so well, there are no comparables" without also acknowledging that the comparables that do exist certainly don't point to the slam dunk we're all expecting. Given that wrong moves about this stuff literally cost people their jobs, I'm sort of shocked that people are so surprised that the front office has chosen to act so conservatively.

As a Pens fan, I want Murray to be the next Lundqvist. As a data scientist, right now it's more likely he's the next Jonathan Bernier, and I don't think we're being irrational in hedging our bets.

Totally fair response. I agree that many of us are probably a little too sure of Murray's future than maybe we should be.

I'm just not sure what waiting another 10 months to move Fleury does for you. Let's say Murray is average in 40 starts this year and MAF is the playoff starter. What do they do with expansion? Does his play change their decision on which goalie to keep?

Furthermore, most of the people defending keeping MAF so far have said "we have a lot of time to move him during the season". Do you think it's wise to move MAF mid season if they want to compete for a Cup or give Murray the adequate time to assess his play prior to making a move?

In my estimation, the Pen's have to make a decision, before they'd like, on who their starter is because of expansion. They need to lay out best and worst case scenarios and decide if it changes what to do with expansion. In my view, neither case means exposing Matt Murray.

So how do you best accomplish that outcome and give your team the best chance at success next year? I believe you move MAF now and try to trade or sign the best back up you can find.

 

[nbonaddio]

This is where I take issue with this premise.

Fleury's improved statistics as I outlined in the other thread match up better with Johnston's tenure as coach than they do with any other factor, even Bales, who after being promoted to goalie coach prior to Bylsma's last year here nevertheless saw Fleury remain around his career average stats regardless, which is worse than your hypothetical future stats for Murray. Only during Johnston's tenure did Fleury's stats spike to a significantly noticeable degree, especially during the time frame when the team was obviously over committed to a defensive mindset (the Rangers series, early last season), supported by the blatant decline in offensive production as a result.

That there's not a large enough sample size of either goalie's sustained performance under Sullivan yet to make a decent comparison to that of Johnston's tenure means as it currently stands there's no definitive evidence against Johnston's coaching decisions having a non-insignificant influence on Fleury's improved stats that are being used as the basis for downplaying Murray's performance and potential worth going forward under Sullivan. Thus there doesn't exist an argument absent of objectively flawed premises that suggests Fleury's performance going forward under this new coach will be significantly better than Murray's or even these hypothetical projected stats for him, outside of the historical probability of his age indicating an inevitable regression to whatever degree.

It's entirely possible Murray regresses going forward, maybe even along the lines you've outlined, that doesn't however guarantee Fleury will maintain the performance level he's been at the past couple seasons either, and thus drawing conclusions from one set of data while using assumptions about another is not a strong foundation for an argument regarding this dilemma.

Well, it's worth noting that the .917/2.36 projected for Murray isn't constant; in almost all cases, his comparables start worse than that and get better once they age and mature. Therefore it's not really fair to say "Well, MAF under Sullivan was only .916, so.."

Either way, you're generally right that we don't have enough of a sample size on either to really conclude anything in either direction. So why does it seem like people are so apoplectic that the organization is being conservative with the asset that they're comparably more knowledgeable about?

This really boils down to an organizational behavior question. Why do you think huge companies like Yahoo! never innovate anymore? It's because innovation requires someone, somewhere, to put their neck on the line and say "We're going out on a limb on this". If it works, awesome. If it doesn't, they're fired.

In the minds of the front office, entrusting Murray to full-time duty is going out on a limb. If Murray plays to the first-year average of his comparables (let's call it .915/2.40), there will be a lot of people who will point out that statistics like that are not good enough for a Stanley Cup-caliber team. Schneider replacing Luongo worked out, although not in Vancouver. Lehner and Anderson didn't in Ottawa, Bernier and Quick didn't in Los Angeles.

 

[Shady Machine]

Well, it's worth noting that the .917/2.36 projected for Murray isn't constant; in almost all cases, his comparables start worse than that and get better once they age and mature. Therefore it's not really fair to say "Well, MAF under Sullivan was only .916, so.."

Either way, you're generally right that we don't have enough of a sample size on either to really conclude anything in either direction. So why does it seem like people are so apoplectic that the organization is being conservative with the asset that they're comparably more knowledgeable about?

This really boils down to an organizational behavior question. Why do you think huge companies like Yahoo! never innovate anymore? It's because innovation requires someone, somewhere, to put their neck on the line and say "We're going out on a limb on this". If it works, awesome. If it doesn't, they're fired.

In the minds of the front office, entrusting Murray to full-time duty is going out on a limb. If Murray plays to the first-year average of his comparables (let's call it .915/2.40), there will be a lot of people who will point out that statistics like that are not good enough for a Stanley Cup-caliber team. Schneider replacing Luongo worked out, although not in Vancouver. Lehner and Anderson didn't in Ottawa, Bernier and Quick didn't in Los Angeles.

The Yahoo example sucks because they don't have to choose between an innovation they already spent time and money on that had a lot of promise and the old way of doing business.

 

[WayneSid9987]

That's totally fair, but I think that underscores the difference between fans and the front office. Fans are perfectly happy to make conclusions based on wishful thinking, whereas the front office is probably on the other side of that spectrum - they tend to assume the worst and act conservatively.

I still think this will ultimately work out like Mrazek and Howard.

Maybe for a yr tops.
The brass aren't gonna pay 10M(or more) for goaltending.

 

[Ragamuffin Gunner]

Jakob Markstrom 24 1.88 0.934 31
Anton Forsberg 23 2.01 0.927 188
Phoenix Copley 22 2.17 0.925
Jake Allen 23 2.03 0.928 34
Petr Mrazek 22 2.06 0.927 141
Robin Lehner 21 2.12 0.938 46
Fredrik Andersen 23 2.19 0.929 87
Niklas Svedberg 24 2.17 0.925
Cedric Desjardins 27 2.11 0.932
Ben Bishop 25 2.27 0.93 85
Ben Scrivens 25 2.04 0.926
Mark Dekanich 25 2.02 0.931 146
Curtis Sanford 32 1.93 0.93
Richard Bachman 23 2.2 0.927 120
Jonathan Bernier 21 2.03 0.936 11
Cory Schenider 23 2.04 0.928 26
Nathan Lawson 26 2.16 0.927
Michael Leighton 27 2.1 0.931 165
Jaroslav Halak 23 2.1 0.929 271
Karl Goehring 30 2.2 0.926
Jason Labarbera 27 2.21 0.933 66
Jaroslav Halak 22 2 0.932 271

Don't feel like formatting it.

thanks. thats a pretty big range of talent!

 

[nbonaddio]

Maybe for a yr tops.
The brass aren't gonna pay 10M(or more) for goaltending.

Yep, and just as I expect Howard to be eventually gone, so will MAF.

I also expect us to occasionally have second thoughts, as the Red Wings did multiple times this year.

 

[Shady Machine]

Yep, and just as I expect Howard to be eventually gone, so will MAF.

I also expect us to occasionally have second thoughts, as the Red Wings did multiple times this year.

Expansion draft forces our hand this year. I'm not sure why you seem to be dodging that reality.

 

[Shaftception]

Well, it's worth noting that the .917/2.36 projected for Murray isn't constant; in almost all cases, his comparables start worse than that and get better once they age and mature. Therefore it's not really fair to say "Well, MAF under Sullivan was only .916, so.."

Either way, you're generally right that we don't have enough of a sample size on either to really conclude anything in either direction. So why does it seem like people are so apoplectic that the organization is being conservative with the asset that they're comparably more knowledgeable about?

This really boils down to an organizational behavior question. Why do you think huge companies like Yahoo! never innovate anymore? It's because innovation requires someone, somewhere, to put their neck on the line and say "We're going out on a limb on this". If it works, awesome. If it doesn't, they're fired.

In the minds of the front office, entrusting Murray to full-time duty is going out on a limb. If Murray plays to the first-year average of his comparables (let's call it .915/2.40), there will be a lot of people who will point out that statistics like that are not good enough for a Stanley Cup-caliber team. Schneider replacing Luongo worked out, although not in Vancouver. Lehner and Anderson didn't in Ottawa, Bernier and Quick didn't in Los Angeles.

I'm sure management feels more comfortable going forward retaining Fleury for the year until they've seen more of Murray in the NHL, tho I don't find that at all relevant as no one here has any actual influence on what is going to occur either way, thus the only discussion worth having is if the alternative potential options are worth exploring in a hypothetical sense. Either way we're all still wasting our time in reality.

My opinion on the matter is that just as Murray's potential is validly in question and is worth being cautious over, so is Fleury's, who is not guarantee'd to sustain the numbers that cannot be objectively separated from the influence of the coach at the time going forward under a new one. Thus the question and thus worthwhile discussion is not whether or not Murray or Fleury maintain their performance levels, but which potential outcome has the better chance of improving the team's prospects in the near future.

Some from what I've read feel having Fleury and Murray shoring up the position in case of a set back for Murray gives the team the best chance to win next season regardless of any potential downsides of not acting on Fleury's future now compared to waiting til later, which is valid and may prove correct if a regression or injury diminishes Murray's performance.

Others feel it's possible Fleury will not prove to be any more reliable than Murray going forward due to various reasons (my personal opinion being I'm not convinced yet his improvement is independent from Johnston's system and is thus likely to continue unabated), and thus his cap hit can potentially be better spent improving the team in other areas. Either for this upcoming season, or in the case of avoiding taking back significant salary in less advantageous trades than that which might've been available at the draft had they chosen to move him then like for instance with Niemi in a potential Dallas trade. Being forced into a last minute buyout to avoid exposing Murray in the expansion draft if any one of the numerous complications that could prevent moving Fleury before the draft occur, thus diminishing their flexibility going forward past this upcoming year with unnecessary dead money counting against the cap is also a valid concern.

So it's clearly more complicated than people simply having illogical confidence in Murray being capable of succeeding with Fleury's traditional workload without him influencing their opinion on what they believe the team should do with Fleury. I simply disagree condensing the discussion around hypothetical performance levels Murray could be destined to put up, even if they're likely, and whether or not they are acceptable is a valid premise to form an argument around. It's too narrow a focus, and doesn't allow for the various other factors people are considering that might be influencing them in either direction depending on what they value more.

 

[nbonaddio]

Expansion draft forces our hand this year. I'm not sure why you seem to be dodging that reality.

..what part of expecting MAF to be gone dodges that reality?

 

[Shady Machine]

..what part of expecting MAF to be gone dodges that reality?

Maybe I read too much into your Howard/Mrazek comparison. Howard is still there and Mrazek has played games in 4 seasons with the Wings, the last two as a backup/split starter. The Pens don't have the time to go that route. It's one season as late call up backup/emergency starter and AT MOST, one season as split starters.

 

[Shady Machine]

I'm sure management feels more comfortable going forward retaining Fleury for the year until they've seen more of Murray in the NHL, tho I don't find that at all relevant as no one here has any actual influence on what is going to occur either way, thus the only discussion worth having is if the alternative potential options are worth exploring in a hypothetical sense. Either way we're all still wasting our time in reality.

My opinion on the matter is that just as Murray's potential is validly in question and is worth being cautious over, so is Fleury's, who is not guarantee'd to sustain the numbers that cannot be objectively separated from the influence of the coach at the time going forward under a new one. Thus the question and thus worthwhile discussion is not whether or not Murray or Fleury maintain their performance levels, but which potential outcome has the better chance of improving the team's prospects in the near future.

Some from what I've read feel having Fleury and Murray shoring up the position in case of a set back for Murray gives the team the best chance to win next season regardless of any potential downsides of not acting on Fleury's future now compared to waiting til later, which is valid and may prove correct if a regression or injury diminishes Murray's performance.

Others feel it's possible Fleury will not prove to be any more reliable than Murray going forward due to various reasons (my personal opinion being I'm not convinced yet his improvement is independent from Johnston's system and is thus likely to continue unabated), and thus his cap hit can potentially be better spent improving the team in other areas. Either for this upcoming season, or in the case of avoiding taking back significant salary in less advantageous trades than that which might've been available at the draft had they chosen to move him then like for instance with Niemi in a potential Dallas trade. Being forced into a last minute buyout to avoid exposing Murray in the expansion draft if any one of the numerous complications that could prevent moving Fleury before the draft occur, thus diminishing their flexibility going forward past this upcoming year with unnecessary dead money counting against the cap is also a valid concern.

So it's clearly more complicated than people simply having illogical confidence in Murray being capable of succeeding with Fleury's traditional workload without him influencing their opinion on what they believe the team should do with Fleury. I simply disagree condensing the discussion around hypothetical performance levels Murray could be destined to put up, even if they're likely, and whether or not they are acceptable is a valid premise to form an argument around. It's too narrow a focus, and doesn't allow for the various other factors people are considering that might be influencing them in either direction depending on what they value more.

Yes this. Very well stated.

 

[nbonaddio]

I'm sure management feels more comfortable going forward retaining Fleury for the year until they've seen more of Murray in the NHL, tho I don't find that at all relevant as no one here has any actual influence on what is going to occur either way, thus the only discussion worth having is if the alternative potential options are worth exploring in a hypothetical sense. Either way we're all still wasting our time in reality.

My opinion on the matter is that just as Murray's potential is validly in question and is worth being cautious over, so is Fleury's, who is not guarantee'd to sustain the numbers that cannot be objectively separated from the influence of the coach at the time going forward under a new one. Thus the question and thus worthwhile discussion is not whether or not Murray or Fleury maintain their performance levels, but which potential outcome has the better chance of improving the team's prospects in the near future.

Some from what I've read feel having Fleury and Murray shoring up the position in case of a set back for Murray gives the team the best chance to win next season regardless of any potential downsides of not acting on Fleury's future now compared to waiting til later, which is valid and may prove correct if a regression or injury diminishes Murray's performance.

Others feel it's possible Fleury will not prove to be any more reliable than Murray going forward due to various reasons (my personal opinion being I'm not convinced yet his improvement is independent from Johnston's system and is thus likely to continue unabated), and thus his cap hit can potentially be better spent improving the team in other areas. Either for this upcoming season, or in the case of avoiding taking back significant salary in less advantageous trades than that which might've been available at the draft had they chosen to move him then like for instance with Niemi in a potential Dallas trade. Being forced into a last minute buyout to avoid exposing Murray in the expansion draft if any one of the numerous complications that could prevent moving Fleury before the draft occur, thus diminishing their flexibility going forward past this upcoming year with unnecessary dead money counting against the cap is also a valid concern.

So it's clearly more complicated than people simply having illogical confidence in Murray being capable of succeeding with Fleury's traditional workload without him influencing their opinion on what they believe the team should do with Fleury. I simply disagree condensing the discussion around hypothetical performance levels Murray could be destined to put up, even if they're likely, and whether or not they are acceptable is a valid premise to form an argument around. It's too narrow a focus, and doesn't allow for the various other factors people are considering that might be influencing them in either direction depending on what they value more.

No arguments here. It's a super complex issue with many moving parts, which is what is driving such a spirited discussion.

The point of my original post was really just to do a bit of a reality check, but not necessarily provide conclusions that dumping MAF wasn't the ultimately correct decision.

 

[Shady Machine]

No arguments here. It's a super complex issue with many moving parts, which is what is driving such a spirited discussion.

The point of my original post was really just to do a bit of a reality check, but not necessarily provide conclusions that dumping MAF wasn't the ultimately correct decision.

Yup and you did a solid job of that. I appreciate the perspective.

 

[Shaftception]

Agreed. It's likely those in positions to make this decision are familiar with the various scenarios we've already seen discussed here so I don't doubt whatever judgement they make will be sufficiently informed. Obviously the only hope available to anyone here is that the risk you're comfortable with for them regarding this situation is one they also agree with, but we'll just have to wait and see how it plays out.

It sure would be nice if Murray bucks the trend and doesn't regress to any significant degree though, would make the future a whole lot easier that's for sure.