|
Post by bookboy007 on Mar 27, 2024 13:18:34 GMT
Points per 60 minutes on PP: Shat 7.7, Hampus 3.3 Yeah, because Shattenkirk is useless for 58 minutes, so he doesn't play more time at Even Strength than any other D on the team.
|
|
|
Post by dannycater on Mar 27, 2024 13:21:11 GMT
Gryz, 69 blocks, 49 hits, 56 games: 1.23 average blk per game, 0.88 hits per game. Peeke, 11 blocks, 15 hits, 6 games as a B: 1.83 blk, 2.5 hits...ummmm
|
|
|
Post by dannycater on Mar 27, 2024 13:22:46 GMT
Points per 60 minutes on PP: Shat 7.7, Hampus 3.3 Yeah, because Shattenkirk is useless for 58 minutes, so he doesn't play more time at Even Strength than any other D on the team. 22 points is far from useless...he did his job for the most part, and sure he's not a great defensive d, but I could still live him as a 3rd pairing and specialist, knowing in playoffs you could use a shorter leash on the 3rd pair (Bartkowski) and play 25,27,73 big minutes....if push came to shove probably rather have the taller Lohrei, but he's played himself out of the lineup too often due to his defensive shortcomings...he is no Kluzak.
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Mar 27, 2024 13:29:06 GMT
You know what? Whatever. This sums up as "I am going to believe what I believe about Grz. I am not going to look at numbers or evidence OTHER than just watching and having a preconceived judgment on this player that I then apply to each play. If the numbers contradict my feelings, the numbers are wrong. And it's not a question of hockey, it's a moral panic if someone questions me - like making excuses for Nazis! Oh, and I also hate other players on the team because I've decided that for no reason other than I think so, I think they're responsible for what I don't like." Have fun with that. Just to follow up on this - I think we can assume that once we reach the point that instead of pointing to evidence whether it's specific plays on the ice or stats or something other than hearsay and generic opinions, it becomes ad hominem comments, we're past actually being able to discuss the point. So let's go to the play you cite. Just before the goal is scored, the puck is to the right of Swayman, on McAvoy's side. Grz is on Rodrigues. He has him boxed out and his stick tied up. McAvoy is on no one. The puck goes to the left of Swayman, putting McAvoy in an untenable position having to chase Barkov - far from "having him" McAvoy has zero chance of getting to him, which is why Barkov is able to put the puck back on net. Grz...switches. If McAvoy reads the switch, he's a step away from being able to take Rodrigues and box out exactly as Grz did, and Grz has a better chance to get to Barkov. Far from this being a clear sign that Grz is bad and dumb, I see McAvoy chasing the play and a miscommunication between the D partners. Happens. That whole first 30 seconds, the Bruins weren't ready to play. All 5 guys deserve censure. But sure - send Grz to Mannheim for Denis Reul.
|
|
|
Post by dannycater on Mar 27, 2024 14:05:38 GMT
You know what? Whatever. This sums up as "I am going to believe what I believe about Grz. I am not going to look at numbers or evidence OTHER than just watching and having a preconceived judgment on this player that I then apply to each play. If the numbers contradict my feelings, the numbers are wrong. And it's not a question of hockey, it's a moral panic if someone questions me - like making excuses for Nazis! Oh, and I also hate other players on the team because I've decided that for no reason other than I think so, I think they're responsible for what I don't like." Have fun with that. Just to follow up on this - I think we can assume that once we reach the point that instead of pointing to evidence whether it's specific plays on the ice or stats or something other than hearsay and generic opinions, it becomes ad hominem comments, we're past actually being able to discuss the point. So let's go to the play you cite. Just before the goal is scored, the puck is to the right of Swayman, on McAvoy's side. Grz is on Rodrigues. He has him boxed out and his stick tied up. McAvoy is on no one. The puck goes to the left of Swayman, putting McAvoy in an untenable position having to chase Barkov - far from "having him" McAvoy has zero chance of getting to him, which is why Barkov is able to put the puck back on net. Grz...switches. If McAvoy reads the switch, he's a step away from being able to take Rodrigues and box out exactly as Grz did, and Grz has a better chance to get to Barkov. Far from this being a clear sign that Grz is bad and dumb, I see McAvoy chasing the play and a miscommunication between the D partners. Happens. That whole first 30 seconds, the Bruins weren't ready to play. All 5 guys deserve censure. But sure - send Grz to Mannheim for Denis Reul. I actually blamed Swayman for not being ready at the start either...so make it 6 guys.
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Mar 27, 2024 15:34:24 GMT
Yeah, because Shattenkirk is useless for 58 minutes, so he doesn't play more time at Even Strength than any other D on the team. 22 points is far from useless...he did his job for the most part, and sure he's not a great defensive d, but I could still live him as a 3rd pairing and specialist, knowing in playoffs you could use a shorter leash on the 3rd pair (Bartkowski) and play 25,27,73 big minutes....if push came to shove probably rather have the taller Lohrei, but he's played himself out of the lineup too often due to his defensive shortcomings...he is no Kluzak. No goals Bartkowski is your go to in a conversation about adding a D who can score?? There are only two defensemen on this team who are a minus. One is Shatzy and the other is Lohrei. The coach clearly doesn't trust Shattenkirk. He plays the least of any D they've used this year not named Ian Mitchell, and the least ES TOI per game. And partly because of that, his ES production is on par with Carlo who has one more goal, and 2 more points. So he's not producing disproportionately outside of 2PP. Combine that with him being a defensive liability not only to the eye test but by the numbers and I can see why the coach doesn't just choose to suffer his mistakes to get his production. I think a lot of this is just tied up in how this team needs to play to win. They have a top 10 offense, a top 10 defense, a top 10 PP and a top 10 PK despite playing below their potential since the ASG. I mean, a top 10 offense and PP with Marchand in one of the worst slumps of his career and PP sniper Pastrnak with 1 PPG in a quarter season? With McAvoy in a slump, Hampus in a slump.... I would be more worried if there was some reason to think that all of these players don't have enough of a history to suggest they can get back to being hot. But in general, I think this team has the ability to score enough goals. They have a better offense in terms of goals for and goals per game than Florida, Vegas, and Winnipeg and on par with Jersey, Detroit and the Rangers. Are they perfect? Hell, no. But I think you're into the world of tradeoffs to try and chase more goals, and when you're 9 goals back of Edmonton after 70 games, I don't know if you can improve the offense enough to change much in terms of the overall ranking - and you might be more likely to get there by figuring out how to get the big players out of their slumps. But so much of that depends on this team playing as a team both offensively and defensively, because they are way more than the sum of their parts when they do. That means improving the offense by letting guys freelance outside the structure or tolerate that they are poorer at playing the structure, often causes bigger problems than it solves. This has been my Orlov/Bertuzzi argument for nearly a year. Both guys had outsized numbers compared to their career production, but the team had less success with them than before they arrived. If they don't play the team game, which is their biggest strength, then they might score more, but they'll lose more in the process. The other point of observation is a guy like Nash or Jagr who were good vets in terms of trying to integrate into the system, but were disappointing in terms of their offensive contributions.
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Mar 27, 2024 15:44:18 GMT
Gryz, 69 blocks, 49 hits, 56 games: 1.23 average blk per game, 0.88 hits per game. Peeke, 11 blocks, 15 hits, 6 games as a B: 1.83 blk, 2.5 hits...ummmm Ummmm.... what? Peeke is a more physical defenseman than Grz. Is anyone disputing that? I'll have to see more of Peake before I have an opinion on him, but I've said since he was acquired and Wotehrspoon extended that I expect them to be the 5-6 next year and Grz and FoBo will be gone. Lohrei will be a regular, and that will be a skilled and mobile top 4 with the emphasis on physicality and "hard to play against" defenders in the 5-6 spots.
|
|
|
Post by dannycater on Mar 27, 2024 16:01:05 GMT
22 points is far from useless...he did his job for the most part, and sure he's not a great defensive d, but I could still live him as a 3rd pairing and specialist, knowing in playoffs you could use a shorter leash on the 3rd pair (Bartkowski) and play 25,27,73 big minutes....if push came to shove probably rather have the taller Lohrei, but he's played himself out of the lineup too often due to his defensive shortcomings...he is no Kluzak. No goals Bartkowski is your go to in a conversation about adding a D who can score?? There are only two defensemen on this team who are a minus. One is Shatzy and the other is Lohrei. The coach clearly doesn't trust Shattenkirk. He plays the least of any D they've used this year not named Ian Mitchell, and the least ES TOI per game. And partly because of that, his ES production is on par with Carlo who has one more goal, and 2 more points. So he's not producing disproportionately outside of 2PP. Combine that with him being a defensive liability not only to the eye test but by the numbers and I can see why the coach doesn't just choose to suffer his mistakes to get his production. I think a lot of this is just tied up in how this team needs to play to win. They have a top 10 offense, a top 10 defense, a top 10 PP and a top 10 PK despite playing below their potential since the ASG. I mean, a top 10 offense and PP with Marchand in one of the worst slumps of his career and PP sniper Pastrnak with 1 PPG in a quarter season? With McAvoy in a slump, Hampus in a slump.... I would be more worried if there was some reason to think that all of these players don't have enough of a history to suggest they can get back to being hot. But in general, I think this team has the ability to score enough goals. They have a better offense in terms of goals for and goals per game than Florida, Vegas, and Winnipeg and on par with Jersey, Detroit and the Rangers. Are they perfect? Hell, no. But I think you're into the world of tradeoffs to try and chase more goals, and when you're 9 goals back of Edmonton after 70 games, I don't know if you can improve the offense enough to change much in terms of the overall ranking - and you might be more likely to get there by figuring out how to get the big players out of their slumps. But so much of that depends on this team playing as a team both offensively and defensively, because they are way more than the sum of their parts when they do. That means improving the offense by letting guys freelance outside the structure or tolerate that they are poorer at playing the structure, often causes bigger problems than it solves. This has been my Orlov/Bertuzzi argument for nearly a year. Both guys had outsized numbers compared to their career production, but the team had less success with them than before they arrived. If they don't play the team game, which is their biggest strength, then they might score more, but they'll lose more in the process. The other point of observation is a guy like Nash or Jagr who were good vets in terms of trying to integrate into the system, but were disappointing in terms of their offensive contributions. I was using Bartkowksi as an example of you can have a weaker 3rd pairing d guy and shorten the bench later in games--in playoffs. Shat's role could be that, but in his case used on the PP and to create offense
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Mar 27, 2024 16:25:48 GMT
No goals Bartkowski is your go to in a conversation about adding a D who can score?? There are only two defensemen on this team who are a minus. One is Shatzy and the other is Lohrei. The coach clearly doesn't trust Shattenkirk. He plays the least of any D they've used this year not named Ian Mitchell, and the least ES TOI per game. And partly because of that, his ES production is on par with Carlo who has one more goal, and 2 more points. So he's not producing disproportionately outside of 2PP. Combine that with him being a defensive liability not only to the eye test but by the numbers and I can see why the coach doesn't just choose to suffer his mistakes to get his production. I think a lot of this is just tied up in how this team needs to play to win. They have a top 10 offense, a top 10 defense, a top 10 PP and a top 10 PK despite playing below their potential since the ASG. I mean, a top 10 offense and PP with Marchand in one of the worst slumps of his career and PP sniper Pastrnak with 1 PPG in a quarter season? With McAvoy in a slump, Hampus in a slump.... I would be more worried if there was some reason to think that all of these players don't have enough of a history to suggest they can get back to being hot. But in general, I think this team has the ability to score enough goals. They have a better offense in terms of goals for and goals per game than Florida, Vegas, and Winnipeg and on par with Jersey, Detroit and the Rangers. Are they perfect? Hell, no. But I think you're into the world of tradeoffs to try and chase more goals, and when you're 9 goals back of Edmonton after 70 games, I don't know if you can improve the offense enough to change much in terms of the overall ranking - and you might be more likely to get there by figuring out how to get the big players out of their slumps. But so much of that depends on this team playing as a team both offensively and defensively, because they are way more than the sum of their parts when they do. That means improving the offense by letting guys freelance outside the structure or tolerate that they are poorer at playing the structure, often causes bigger problems than it solves. This has been my Orlov/Bertuzzi argument for nearly a year. Both guys had outsized numbers compared to their career production, but the team had less success with them than before they arrived. If they don't play the team game, which is their biggest strength, then they might score more, but they'll lose more in the process. The other point of observation is a guy like Nash or Jagr who were good vets in terms of trying to integrate into the system, but were disappointing in terms of their offensive contributions. I was using Bartkowksi as an example of you can have a weaker 3rd pairing d guy and shorten the bench later in games--in playoffs. Shat's role could be that, but in his case used on the PP and to create offense I was just laughing that it was Bartkowski who was supposed to be a PMD and could skate but was terribly snake-bitten offensively. I'm not a fan of specialists. I've never hated anything as much as I hated Whitey Herzog's suggestion that you go all the way with bullpen management and pitch games in three-inning increments. Let's put more emphasis on managers and how they strategize the use of their bullpen and less on the players playing! Great. I hate the DH, I hate banning the shift, I hate all of the rule changes that take it as gospel that you need to bend over for the pink hats and millennials and their desire for ever more offense. How much offense is ideal? It must fall somewhere between soccer (ties are like kissing your sister) and basketball ("I just watch the last 2 minutes - that's the only part that matters!"). My favourite players will beat you all over the ice. If both Bergeron and Matthews took 10 breakaways on Thatcher Demko, you probably bet that Matthews outscores Bergy, but in a head to head, he will limit Matthew's chances and increase his own by such a degree that he'll be a net positive for the team. Yzerman. Trottier. Ratelle. Kopitar. Oates. Gilmour. Datsyuk. Toews. I love that kind of player much, much more than the Glenn Andersons or Mike Gartners. I like goal differential over total goals because it correlates to wins. If they felt they needed to carry a PP specialist, I'd almost rather see them go 11/7 and drop Lauko. Keep the Killer Bs because you want to have Beecher's speed and faceoff prowess, Brazeau for the same reason as Shatzy, and Boqvist because he's shown he can play up the lineup if there's an injury. Double shift Pastrnak or Marchand with them a couple of times a period, or play Shatzy as wing when you need to keep him in the game.
|
|
|
Post by dannycater on Mar 27, 2024 16:30:33 GMT
When you would see these high minute games out of Chara (and McAvoy) my thought was always don't play them on PP because rather have them for all the other shifts. Let a guy who doesn't have high minutes be on the PP at the point--if possible. I really don't think 73 is all that on the PP, which then leads back to letting a 12 or 6 see that PP action and not as much in most 5 on 5 shifts--certainly later in games
|
|
|
Post by dannycater on Mar 27, 2024 16:34:48 GMT
I was using Bartkowksi as an example of you can have a weaker 3rd pairing d guy and shorten the bench later in games--in playoffs. Shat's role could be that, but in his case used on the PP and to create offense I was just laughing that it was Bartkowski who was supposed to be a PMD and could skate but was terribly snake-bitten offensively. I'm not a fan of specialists. I've never hated anything as much as I hated Whitey Herzog's suggestion that you go all the way with bullpen management and pitch games in three-inning increments. Let's put more emphasis on managers and how they strategize the use of their bullpen and less on the players playing! Great. I hate the DH, I hate banning the shift, I hate all of the rule changes that take it as gospel that you need to bend over for the pink hats and millennials and their desire for ever more offense. How much offense is ideal? It must fall somewhere between soccer (ties are like kissing your sister) and basketball ("I just watch the last 2 minutes - that's the only part that matters!"). My favourite players will beat you all over the ice. If both Bergeron and Matthews took 10 breakaways on Thatcher Demko, you probably bet that Matthews outscores Bergy, but in a head to head, he will limit Matthew's chances and increase his own by such a degree that he'll be a net positive for the team. Yzerman. Trottier. Ratelle. Kopitar. Oates. Gilmour. Datsyuk. Toews. I love that kind of player much, much more than the Glenn Andersons or Mike Gartners. I like goal differential over total goals because it correlates to wins. If they felt they needed to carry a PP specialist, I'd almost rather see them go 11/7 and drop Lauko. Keep the Killer Bs because you want to have Beecher's speed and faceoff prowess, Brazeau for the same reason as Shatzy, and Boqvist because he's shown he can play up the lineup if there's an injury. Double shift Pastrnak or Marchand with them a couple of times a period, or play Shatzy as wing when you need to keep him in the game. I would use Shat at wing, I don't see anything wrong with that. Lauko isn't all that either--penalty waiting to happen way too often.
|
|
|
Post by sandogbrewin on Mar 27, 2024 18:07:31 GMT
"instead of pointing to evidence whether it's specific plays on the ice or stats or something other than hearsay and generic opinions"
Nope you can't shape it the way you want us to see Grzelcyks play.
|
|
|
Post by dannycater on Mar 27, 2024 18:34:20 GMT
Wotherspoon v. Gryz: Bruins are 17-3-7, 41 points, .759 win percentage WHEN HE IS IN THE LINEUP, HIS LAST 27 GAMES.
In 12 games he has been HEALTHY SCRATCHED: Bruins are 6-6-2 since Dec. 27.
This is actual statistical evidence of Monty's failings to realize Wotherspoon has been important cog to the team's defensive success.
I don't care that Gryz is 73's partner, or that Gryz is a plus 10 overall, I care that he never gets healthy scratched even after some of his worst outings. Maybe he earned that right as a veteran and maybe others should sit for Wotherspoon, who is essentially in his first real season in NHL, but the reality is no one is picking up on 29's PK (great, better than Forbort since Forbort first returned from his injury). Nobody on their analytical staff can see Wotherspoon's effectiveness?
I'm happy B's got Peeke for depth, but if it's to sit Wotherspoon, then it was a waste of money and efforts. If it's to have both be part of the 6, great. But again I feel like LowRider and Shat are being shut out due to a logjam that at least allow for the idea that 48 be out of lineup for some games and playoffs.
Carry on.
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Mar 28, 2024 14:54:16 GMT
"instead of pointing to evidence whether it's specific plays on the ice or stats or something other than hearsay and generic opinions" Nope you can't shape it the way you want us to see Grzelcyks play. I used to teach my students that there is no point in starting an essay that requires you to make a logical case using evidence and analysis with the words "I think that" because then the only fact is that yes, you think it. There is no longer any test of whether the thing you think is true. So you're 100% right. If that's what you think, that's what you think. Enjoy the pissy party, I guess?
|
|
|
Post by sandogbrewin on Mar 28, 2024 17:12:44 GMT
Or just watch Grzelcyk with McAvoy and when he's not with Charlie. And look at Matts linemate numbers when he isn't with Mac. Eyes have never been deceived when a once decent NHL dman has lost it.
You can continue along with your belief. It's not shared. But it's nice to see you've convinced yourself.
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Mar 28, 2024 18:21:09 GMT
Wotherspoon v. Gryz: Bruins are 17-3-7, 41 points, .759 win percentage WHEN HE IS IN THE LINEUP, HIS LAST 27 GAMES. In 12 games he has been HEALTHY SCRATCHED: Bruins are 6-6-2 since Dec. 27. This is actual statistical evidence of Monty's failings to realize Wotherspoon has been important cog to the team's defensive success. I don't care that Gryz is 73's partner, or that Gryz is a plus 10 overall, I care that he never gets healthy scratched even after some of his worst outings. Maybe he earned that right as a veteran and maybe others should sit for Wotherspoon, who is essentially in his first real season in NHL, but the reality is no one is picking up on 29's PK (great, better than Forbort since Forbort first returned from his injury). Nobody on their analytical staff can see Wotherspoon's effectiveness? I'm happy B's got Peeke for depth, but if it's to sit Wotherspoon, then it was a waste of money and efforts. If it's to have both be part of the 6, great. But again I feel like LowRider and Shat are being shut out due to a logjam that at least allow for the idea that 48 be out of lineup for some games and playoffs. Carry on. You could cite the same evidence to say that Montgomery has a pretty good sense of when to play certain players and when not to play them. It doesn't really suggest that the Bruins would have won more games had he not been sat out, but it does indicate it would be worth looking into it. To your point about vets and rookies, there could also be part of this where the coaches are catching fixable habits and sitting him out to work on them rather than let them set in. The guy's still a rook, after all. I think both he and Lohrei are in that period where they're earning the coach's trust. A lot of the time, that's about being consistent, which is something both guys still need to work on. And I think you're probably right about the that on the other side of the ledger for Grz. The Wotherspoon numbers aren't when he's in and Grz is out because, as you say, they don't sit Grz. And it is probably because he's a vet, and Montgomery knows what he's getting from him. Good or ill. So you're taking us a long way from Grz per se and into how to manage the D overall. Which, frankly, I appreciate. I see it like this: McAvoy is your Norris candidate. Locked up, locked in. Lindholm is a tier below McAvoy. He's capable of playing his way into the Norris conversation, and likely plays for Sweden in best on best tournaments. He's having a weaker year than last year, but even so, he's one of the most effective defenders on the team. Locked in. Carlo is their best pure defender. He combines a lot of Lindholm's mobility with a poor-man's Chara reach. Reminds me of a Marc-Edouard Vlasic in that you see the tools and wonder why you don't be more offense. Vlasic had about 25% better numbers as well as some outlier seasons when he played a more offensive role. Carlo won't ever do that. But he frees up McAvoy from heavier matchups, PK etc. and has been very effective for the last few years. Lock. Then it gets dicey. Wotherspoon isn't a scorer despite some moderate numbers in the AHL. They've had him play a simple game, and he's taken on the role of being a little edgy out there. Not big, by plays like Ference in terms of being a middle weight who is physical. But he's a rookie, and sometimes the growing pains have been visible when he's tried to go beyond a simple, defensive game. Can get the yips if he handles the puck for too long. Recently re-signed and my mind that means on the team next year. Peake is a reclamation project. A bigger, heavier defensive D who got shell-shocked in Columbus. Could be part of the future on the bottom pair if he can regain his confidence, and is at least competition for that roll with Wotherspoon. Lohrei is like Doughy Hamilton in that he is at his best when he can be a rover and the Bruins will never let him be that consistently. But if he learns when and where to take the reins and rove, and still play responsibly, he immediately upgrades this D. Also like Doughy in that he isn't ever going to be a mauler despite his size. I see him as the fourth member of the top 4 next year, with other younger players and maybe a cheap vet pushing him when he falters. All three of these guys are still far from reliable quantities for the Bruins. Sample sizes are small; relationships are new; system experience is important. But I think they're the bottom six next year. Then there's guys I don't think will be here next year but who it will be all about maxing value for the rest of the year. Grz, right now, is a declining asset, but he is still an asset the coach knows and values. Whatever people want to say about him playing with McAvoy and who is responsible for it, they do well as a pairing. They're +14 together; that's 62% of Grz's ES TOI. McAvoy is +6 individually, so he's -8 when he's not playing with Grz, and in fact, the only other player he's a plus player with is Hampus at +9 for 18.8% of his ESTOI. That doesn't mean Grz makes McAvoy better, it just means that the net result for the team is better than playing those two players separately. McAvoy has played some games with Wotherspoon (-1), Shattnerkirk (-2), and Lohrei (-4). Not the same result. I think Montgomery looks at that and says he needs to prioritize his $9M+ player's impact, and whatever deal was made at the crossroads means that's Grz. But I don't think there is any plan in place to extend him because he will likely parlay the fact that he has never - ever - been a minus player in his career (for a season) into a new deal at or above his current rate of pay. And the Bruins are moving on and reallocating those dollars. And I am very much convinced that the Wotherspoon and Peake TOI right now is about having either a very short leash for Grz in the playoffs or not playing him at all against physical teams like Tampa, Florida, the Rangers or Canes. Forbort is done in Boston and possibly done done. Shattenkirk has delivered what you expect him to deliver. When they need a key PPG late in a game, or a jolt to the offense, he's been able to provide some juice; but he's also been what you expect defensively which is a guy who doesn't have the same instincts to read plays coming at him than when the puck's on his stick. He's beyond being able to play 20 min; he's a specialist but good value for $1M and I think they'll have another guy like him next year. But I don't think it will be Shattzy because the role will be both about providing some offense but also a safety net of Peake, Wotherspoon or Lohrei prove to be less ready than they think. and then there are the other guys on the fringe who should get a shot. Regula is big, scoring close to .5 points/game, and +36 for Providence. Reilly Walsh has been just OK in Providence. Renouf's had a much better year in Providence but he's 29, and not that great. Mitchell has been providing good offensive numbers in the A, but I'm not sure he's answered the D game questions that got him sent down in the first place. I had hopes for Callahan to be a defensive D type, but he seems to have topped out. On the offensive blueliner side, Brunet's maybe the only other thought in the prospect pool. I like that top 4 for next year and I can live with what they have this year including not questioning the Grz-Mc situation as long as it's working, and as long as the playoffs are a chance to re-evaluate how you use the resources.
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Mar 28, 2024 18:42:35 GMT
Or just watch Grzelcyk with McAvoy and when he's not with Charlie. And look at Matts linemate numbers when he isn't with Mac. Eyes have never been deceived when a once decent NHL dman has lost it. You can continue along with your belief. It's not shared. But it's nice to see you've convinced yourself. It is shared. By the coaches. By the Bruins players. By management. By broadcasters and talking heads. You can continue to say "well, Twitter says" and put your stock in that, but I don't see why you would. McAvoy has been on for 15 goals against at ES when playing with Grz which is 46.1% of his ESTOI. In the remaining 53.9%, he's been on for 49 - more than 3x as many. Grz has played 62% of his ES TOI with McAvoy with the same 15 goals against. In his other 38%, they've given up 13 goals against. Slightly worse without McAvoy but not the significant jump you see on the McAvoy side when you split them up. When they play together, the Bruins have scored 29 goals at ES. When Grz is with others, they've scored just 12. When McAvoy is with others, the Bruins have scored 42. That woud mean that with Grz at 100% of McAvoy's ES TOI, the Bruins would expect 63 goals for; and with all 100% with players not named Grz, 77.8. Significantly more, but still not enough to offset the increased number of actual goals against the Bruins when they play McAvoy with all other players than Grz. My whole point in all of the Grz debate has been that yes, your eyes are being deceived if you think that the obvious failings of Grz are hurting the Bruins as badly as people want to portray. It's not that he's not a physical coward as OC put it, or that he can handle a heavy forecheck. It's that he has somehow managed to mitigate the negative impacts of those failings while at the same time providing some relatively consistent, supporting role defensive zone play that has helped get the best out of McAvoy. No surprise that when McAvoy got a goal for the first time this millennium, it was off a pass from Grz...no matter how routine the pass.
|
|
|
Post by islamorada on Mar 28, 2024 19:07:06 GMT
Or just watch Grzelcyk with McAvoy and when he's not with Charlie. And look at Matts linemate numbers when he isn't with Mac. Eyes have never been deceived when a once decent NHL dman has lost it. You can continue along with your belief. It's not shared. But it's nice to see you've convinced yourself. It is shared. By the coaches. By the Bruins players. By management. By broadcasters and talking heads. You can continue to say "well, Twitter says" and put your stock in that, but I don't see why you would. McAvoy has been on for 15 goals against at ES when playing with Grz which is 46.1% of his ESTOI. In the remaining 53.9%, he's been on for 49 - more than 3x as many. Grz has played 62% of his ES TOI with McAvoy with the same 15 goals against. In his other 38%, they've given up 13 goals against. Slightly worse without McAvoy but not the significant jump you see on the McAvoy side when you split them up. When they play together, the Bruins have scored 29 goals at ES. When Grz is with others, they've scored just 12. When McAvoy is with others, the Bruins have scored 42. That woud mean that with Grz at 100% of McAvoy's ES TOI, the Bruins would expect 63 goals for; and with all 100% with players not named Grz, 77.8. Significantly more, but still not enough to offset the increased number of actual goals against the Bruins when they play McAvoy with all other players than Grz. My whole point in all of the Grz debate has been that yes, your eyes are being deceived if you think that the obvious failings of Grz are hurting the Bruins as badly as people want to portray. It's not that he's not a physical coward as OC put it, or that he can handle a heavy forecheck. It's that he has somehow managed to mitigate the negative impacts of those failings while at the same time providing some relatively consistent, supporting role defensive zone play that has helped get the best out of McAvoy. No surprise that when McAvoy got a goal for the first time this millennium, it was off a pass from Grz...no matter how routine the pass. Just a quick note, your sampling is regular season. Many on here have doubts on his play in the playoffs. Thank goodness you have defended Gryz, he has been a better player since you have taken up the cause. . Most research is done to prove a hypothesis. Sometimes the statistical information is narrowed to a point of not viewing the information in a different way. I will not mention the names of the authors that prove my point above, the hint though is "The Better Angels of Our Nature". I like what you said of the students in your classes. A larger concept must be proven with evidence or the concept is simply, "I feel" rather then "I think". Are you really sure Gryz won't sign for a lesser amount as someone has suggested on this forum. I can see Lohrei in Providence next year. I like his offensive game but man he wilts under a hard forecheck. Gryz has the same issues but just may be a good functioning safeguard to a flat learning curve in Lohrei's game. Just a thought.
|
|
|
Post by sandogbrewin on Mar 28, 2024 19:21:33 GMT
"It's that he has somehow managed to mitigate the negative impacts of those failings while at the same time providing some relatively consistent, supporting role defensive zone play that has helped get the best out of McAvoy.'
That is a ridiculous statement. And the talking heads ? Like who ? The ones you often mock and downplay.
Yes everyone Grzelcyk helps McAvoy actually. You read that here. Holy shit LoL
|
|
|
Post by dannycater on Mar 28, 2024 19:35:57 GMT
I've been taking a closer look every game at 48...Trying to find things that are positives...I'm not kidding, I want to desperately think, root, and say "Gryz is helping the team win." And every time I watch the other 5 guys on D, I see positives, like Peeke playing super well with Lindholm as his partner after looking super bad with Lohrei as his partner (more 6 to me hurting him, team getting hemmed in). I see Wotherspoon make a lot of good plays, and sure he coughs a puck or two--which I expect-but you see him be physical and mostly making smart outlets and passes in general. But then I watched 48, I thought well he's still good at that once the puck is on his stick along the boards, he seems to quickly move it up or get it into transition, but I'm still looking for him on offense once it's past the blue line (almost nothing to report because he is incredibly absent when 73 is doing all the work--you would think that would open things up to allow 48 to be creative). Also he doesn't give stretch passes or seem to try to make that big offensive play in the neutral zone or past his blueline. Then I watch when the puck is high danger areas in front, and I see what sandog and others see, a guy who is not able to defend quickly enough or have the physicality to move a forward out of high scoring chance zones. Then I watched that fucking icing when he simply has to make a good pass to 13, sends it hard and long (almost a panic pass) and then it's icing which kills the B's right there as they wanted to pull Ullmark. Finally, I feel like he just is afraid to make a mistake, plays it safe (you can say that's a good thing I guess), but I think you have to take chances sometimes and he refuses or stopped doing it long ago. I just feel like he doesn't help, maybe that's the bottom line. I don't see him helping Bs, and I don't think he deserves top billing with 73 or even ice time over the guys who have been scratched for him. Carlo, Lindholm have earned their stripes as veterans (73 is of course I agree Mr. Norris for them), but I still think 48 hasn't deserved the same scrutiny or that all day pass in the clubroom. He needs to be held accountable. That's bottom line. When are the coaches ever going to make him accountable?
|
|
|
Post by dannycater on Mar 28, 2024 19:47:27 GMT
My pairings: 52,27 (good chemistry), 25 and 73 (I think you can go heavy minutes here), 29 and 6 (roll the dice), insert 48 and 12 if 6 just is too much a liability.
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Mar 28, 2024 21:05:47 GMT
"It's that he has somehow managed to mitigate the negative impacts of those failings while at the same time providing some relatively consistent, supporting role defensive zone play that has helped get the best out of McAvoy.' That is a ridiculous statement. And the talking heads ? Like who ? The ones you often mock and downplay. Yes everyone Grzelcyk helps McAvoy actually. You read that here. Holy shit LoL Actually, the point with the talking heads is that I never hear them talk about Grz as a problem. Pre-game on SN or TSN against Canadian teams, they'll spend maybe 15 or even 20% of their time talking about the Bruins and how to beat them, and you'll hear about Marchand being in a goalscoring slump, or Ullmark having a blip in his record or their vulnerability because they have a number of inexperienced blue-liners if both Lohrei and Wotherspoon or Peake are in the lineup. They might talk about the Bruins not being as big and bad as they used to be, but mostly they talk about that from the perspective of it being less of a heavy night for the D on the other team. I never hear them say "for some reason, maybe a serious brain injury, Jim Montgomery continues to play systemic liability Matt Grzelcyk, so the Laffs/Lames/Spoilers/Nucksacks should be able to exploit him with a hard forecheck." Your comments here add nothing to the debate. You have no answer for what I showed in terms of how many more goals are scored against the Bruins when McAvoy plays with any other D vs. when he plays with Grz. None. Zero. You're floundering around making snarky comments because other than "that's what I think" you have no explanation for why not one but three coaches have liked Grz enough to play him and praise him, why his teammates don't seem at all bothered by him having the role he has. Other than suggesting that you sitting on your couch see more and know more about the game than the coaches and players.
|
|
|
Post by MrHulot on Mar 28, 2024 21:23:15 GMT
I usually like a lot of book's thoughts. But his defending of Mr. Graesslich left me with only one possible choice of image...I try not to pay so much attention to stats anymore (I used to a lot). What I see when I watch Bruins games and #48 enters my view is usually an obviously timid dman who's afraid of contact and incapable of holding his position, as in the first Florida goal tonight, when for no apparent reason he tried to attack the Panther with the puck while his buddy McAvoy had already moved towards that guy and was a few steps ahead of Graesslich, who of course left his man, Evan Rodriguez, who ended up putting the puck over the goal line, unmarked in the crease. Oh please. Any NHL dman can pass the puck like that. If there really is one who cannot, then that guy should not be in the NHL.
Shut up, Jack. And I'm really wondering why that line (he utters it at least every other game) always comes out completely undisturbed by Mr. Edwards' otherwise obvious speech impediment.
And there you have it - the reason you should never dive too deep into the huge bottle that is alcoholism. It will impair your judgement for ages.
Shut up, CMc. This is the one moment when I'm convinced you're really as stupid as you sometimes look.
You know what? Whatever. This sums up as "I am going to believe what I believe about Grz. I am not going to look at numbers or evidence OTHER than just watching and having a preconceived judgment on this player that I then apply to each play. If the numbers contradict my feelings, the numbers are wrong. And it's not a question of hockey, it's a moral panic if someone questions me - like making excuses for Nazis! Oh, and I also hate other players on the team because I've decided that for no reason other than I think so, I think they're responsible for what I don't like." Have fun with that. "A preconceived judgment on this player". That's bullshit in its purest form.
If you'd bother to read my post... I listed one example why I think Grzelcyk is incompetent. You want more? I'm sure I can find more in the next game, but in the meantime you could search and read posts by SanDog, DoubleOC, Isla, Danny, just to name a few. Provided you even bother before you go on another one of your, sorry to say this, but in this case I think it fits, condescending rants.
But why do I even bother?
The one with the preconceived judgment - who is it? The one who claims "the coaching staff definitely should know what they're doing, hence putting #48 in the lineup is correct", or the one who says "we've seen coaches make mistakes, for whatever reasons, or play favorites, etc., therefore I don't think they should not be criticized or doubted"?No, I am not going to believe what I believe about Grz, if he proves me wrong (which so far he hasn't). I am not interested in the "see, I told you so" position. I want the Bruins to win the cup. And I'm absolutely convinced they won't win with Grzelcyk on d.
But yes, I am not going to look at numbers, because they can be skewed for whatever reason. I believe my eyes, and they tell me that Graesslich is just that, graesslich. Now you have fun with that.
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Mar 28, 2024 21:37:56 GMT
I've been taking a closer look every game at 48...Trying to find things that are positives...I'm not kidding, I want to desperately think, root, and say "Gryz is helping the team win." And every time I watch the other 5 guys on D, I see positives, like Peeke playing super well with Lindholm as his partner after looking super bad with Lohrei as his partner (more 6 to me hurting him, team getting hemmed in). I see Wotherspoon make a lot of good plays, and sure he coughs a puck or two--which I expect-but you see him be physical and mostly making smart outlets and passes in general. But then I watched 48, I thought well he's still good at that once the puck is on his stick along the boards, he seems to quickly move it up or get it into transition, but I'm still looking for him on offense once it's past the blue line (almost nothing to report because he is incredibly absent when 73 is doing all the work--you would think that would open things up to allow 48 to be creative). Also he doesn't give stretch passes or seem to try to make that big offensive play in the neutral zone or past his blueline. Then I watch when the puck is high danger areas in front, and I see what sandog and others see, a guy who is not able to defend quickly enough or have the physicality to move a forward out of high scoring chance zones. Then I watched that fucking icing when he simply has to make a good pass to 13, sends it hard and long (almost a panic pass) and then it's icing which kills the B's right there as they wanted to pull Ullmark. Finally, I feel like he just is afraid to make a mistake, plays it safe (you can say that's a good thing I guess), but I think you have to take chances sometimes and he refuses or stopped doing it long ago. I just feel like he doesn't help, maybe that's the bottom line. I don't see him helping Bs, and I don't think he deserves top billing with 73 or even ice time over the guys who have been scratched for him. Carlo, Lindholm have earned their stripes as veterans (73 is of course I agree Mr. Norris for them), but I still think 48 hasn't deserved the same scrutiny or that all day pass in the clubroom. He needs to be held accountable. That's bottom line. When are the coaches ever going to make him accountable? Well, this is the crux of it. Accountable for what? I think it's like any job - you don't hold your carpenter accountable for building a doghouse instead of a mansion if you told him to build a doghouse. I wonder if a large part of the discrepancy between what fans dislike about what Grz doesn't do and the coaches' reliance on him is that ... they don't expect him to do those things. At this point in his career, I don't know why anyone expects Matt Grzelcyk to contribute meaningfully at the offensive end. He had a reasonable 26 points last year, but his game has never been "PMD" and as I've said several times, I've never found any record of the BRUINS saying that we would replace Torey Krug's offense. I found a lot of fan site articles and secondary media outlets saying that he would be a guy who is first in line to get the opportunity, and even then, when he was interviewed, his response was "I don't play that game - I see my role as getting the puck to our offensive guys." If the coaching staff think he's going to be an attacking defenseman, they haven't paid much attention. I would say a lot of what you describe is a player who plays a very low risk game and really always has. Is that a good thing? Well, if one of the two D on the ice is going to take an offensive risk, I would rather it be McAvoy than anyone else. I think Grz fits into a long-standing pattern of crutch guys. When Erik Karlsson won his first Norris, his defense partner was Filip Kuba. Kuba was late in his career, and Ottawa didn't re-sign him. Karlsson's play flopped. Kuba was a nothing burger of a player, really, having had a couple of good offensive seasons but nothing that made him reliable. His second Norris, Karlsson had Marc Methot. Methot was big, but not overly physical, and not known for being much of an offensive contributor, but Karlsson thrived with him. And Methot eventually parlayed that into a big deal with Dallas - where, like Kuba - he flamed out of the league quickly. If I think about it for a while, I can come up with a lot of examples of guys who have been good at just being where they needed to be, giving their D partner the puck where and when he needs it, being there to back him up when he pinches, to disrupt rushes when it's a two on two and a forward is the other guy back. Al MacInnis would play with guys like Neil Sheehy or Jamie McCoun. Sometimes the chemistry between a superstar and a turdburger player is such that he's the best available option to let the superstar do his thing. Sandog thinks this means I'm saying McAvoy is nothing without Grz, but it's not that at all. It's like Tiger Woods and Steve Williams. Tiger Woods didn't win all those majors because of Steve Williams, but the fact is, he wasn't as good after Williams left. Sure, lots of reasons like injury and addictions contribute to that, but they were there when Williams was there, too. There are obviously situations where Grz is over-matched, but I understand part of his game to be avoiding being in those situations as much as possible. Make him mark up on a man, he's going to get overpowered. But let him force a pass and get his stick in the lane, and the puck almost always seems to go astray off his stick. Let him read off of a back-checking forward, and he'll be first to a loose puck in the D zone. Little things that don't seem like much but they keep the attacking team to the outside, keep the shots long and low danger. I think that's part of what he does well. I think he's a smart player who is well aware of his limitations and has developed ways to do what is asked of him, which is fundamentally different than what is asked of Wotherspoon or McAvoy or Carlo. Play safe. Don't lose it for us. Let the guys who are paid to score go win it for us. I would have no issue with Montgomery benching Grz if he is telling him that he needs him to push the offense more and Grz continues to play safe, cautious, timid hockey. But if he's telling him to play it safe and get the rock to Chucky, well...that's what he's doing. How do you justify benching him if that's the situation?
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Mar 28, 2024 21:53:49 GMT
You know what? Whatever. This sums up as "I am going to believe what I believe about Grz. I am not going to look at numbers or evidence OTHER than just watching and having a preconceived judgment on this player that I then apply to each play. If the numbers contradict my feelings, the numbers are wrong. And it's not a question of hockey, it's a moral panic if someone questions me - like making excuses for Nazis! Oh, and I also hate other players on the team because I've decided that for no reason other than I think so, I think they're responsible for what I don't like." Have fun with that. "A preconceived judgment on this player". That's bullshit in its purest form.
If you'd bother to read my post... I listed one example why I think Grzelcyk is incompetent. You want more? I'm sure I can find more in the next game, but in the meantime you could search and read posts by SanDog, DoubleOC, Isla, Danny, just to name a few. Provided you even bother before you go on another one of your, sorry to say this, but in this case I think it fits, condescending rants.
But why do I even bother?
The one with the preconceived judgment - who is it? The one who claims "the coaching staff definitely should know what they're doing, hence putting #48 in the lineup is correct", or the one who says "we've seen coaches make mistakes, for whatever reasons, or play favorites, etc., therefore I don't think they should not be criticized or doubted"?No, I am not going to believe what I believe about Grz, if he proves me wrong (which so far he hasn't). I am not interested in the "see, I told you so" position. I want the Bruins to win the cup. And I'm absolutely convinced they won't win with Grzelcyk on d.
But yes, I am not going to look at numbers, because they can be skewed for whatever reason. I believe my eyes, and they tell me that Graesslich is just that, graesslich. Now you have fun with that.I'm condescending? Oh, sorry, I forgot that I've been posting pictures of contemptable historical figures rather than acknowledge any points you've been making and photoshopping things to grossly exaggerate what you've said rather than have a discussion. My bad. I don't care if you want to have some fun with it. But don't ask me if I've read posts I've responded to, especially when I break down the one example you gave by watching the game film and explaining what I see when I watch that play in one of those responses. I've put literally dozens of data points out there not to argue that Grz is a good defenseman but to argue that Grz is the least of the Bruins problems. And whatever language you want to use to suggest he's somehow the worst defenseman ever to play the game, you've used silence to try to address those data points. Just a blanket, NOPE data can be manipulated. OK. Sure. One data point, or three. But when you can triangulate? When you can look at a question from multiple positions and come back with data that points to the same conclusions? Nah, you'd rather stick with "this is what I see". And like I said, I did you the courtesy of going back and watching the play you cited multiple times. I've done that with several plays where people have decided to lay the blame on Grz, but if you watch the play develop, and look at how the Bruins address the situation as a team, each time I've done it, it is at least a tenable argument that Grz did what he was supposed to do and someone else made the mistake. In the two most recent examples, Grz tried to trap the PP entry just inside the blueline when the Bruins had numbers back, and if DeBrusk stays with his man, there's no danger let alone a goal, but he comes off his man and tries to double the guy Grz had. But on the GDT, everyone was talking about Grz's mistake. It wasn't. Then the first goal against Florida. Grz is in position. McAvoy loses his man - Barkov - after the shot is deflected, and instead of switching, chases him to Grz's side when he has no chance of getting there in time to make a play. If you read danny's response to that one, you'll see he also agrees NOW that it was a six man breakdown by a team that wasn't ready to play, and that includes a miscommunication between McAvoy - again, the one who is chasing out of position - and his D partner. But on the GDT, it was all about Grz being garbage. I'm happy to talk about the hockey, but when I do, all I get from you is escalating use of techniques to avoid the conversation. Because yes, on this one, I think you would rather be right than see the Bruins win. Because you're also too smart to use the "if they don't with the Stanley Cup, I'm right about Grz" trick. If they don't win the Cup, 30 other teams will have managed the feat without the terrible taint of Grz.
|
|