|
Post by bookboy007 on Feb 20, 2024 1:56:52 GMT
"All he does is win, win, win...." LoL all he does. Ohh that's rich. Sheltered little boy. If I'm ever quoting DJ Khaled, you can bet it's ironic.
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Feb 20, 2024 2:06:41 GMT
All he does is win, win, win.... It's really funny how much hate he gets. If you only looked at his numbers, you'd wonder why. Second on the team in scoring from the blueline since 2018-19. Second in blueline +/-, one up on Carlo, and he's never been a minus player in any season of his career. All this despite playing about 90 seconds a game less than a bunch of other guys and rarely seeing PPTOI in the last few years. Reminds me of Giggles, and how much hate he got for being a giveaway machine...that they kept playing and kept playing until he crawled out of the hole he dug handing over the series to Montreal in 2014. This is not about wanting to see him re-signed and it's definitely not that I don't see his weaknesses, but over the last few weeks I've tried to evaluate if he's really any worse than some of their other options to play that TOI, and...I think other guys get a pass for shitty play because people lose their minds over the #48. And sure, some of this is he has a horseshoe somewhere in his anatomy, because while you can certainly see him making soft or bonehead plays...HIS mistakes seem to count against him far less than when he gets burned by the mistakes of others where he's the guy trying to cover for someone else's screw up ... and he can't because he's Toby. He's been less effective this year than ever before - well, than in previous regular seasons, anyway. He's not as able to skate the puck out of the zone as in the past, and he's making far fewer plays in the offensive zone. He also doesn't seem to want to shoot. This is the lowest shot output of his career, but his second his s%. I think just like big players, smaller players on D sometime age quickly and that's what we're seeing this year. And that's partly why in previous years, no one really loved Toby, but only GOAT was full on Michael Scott with is hate for Toby. He's crossed the line to target. The real questions are if he adds or subtracts from Macs play (rendering Mac, the B's best D, less effective), if his overall play is worth his $4.25m salary, and if another more talented or cheaper option would not be more beneficial for both Mac and the Bruins overall. In the end its all about winning and not that Grizz is a good soldier for the org. Example, how long was Bourque saddled with DS and would Bourque's game have risen if he was playing with a better talent for all those years. If you can do better then you should....if you want to win. Him being a scratch in the playoffs where it counts is a better indicator then how many times they beat sub 500 clubs in the regular season. Doesn't happen in a vacuum, though. The real question is so they get more in aggregate playing a borderline NHLer who has a long history of good chemistry with McAvoy than if McAvoy was with another top tier D and you got the Shittencrack and Toby experience for 15 min a night. I don't give a shit if McAvoy's stats would be marginally better. That starts to sound like the woe is Krejci narrative or the poor JT superstar not having anyone to pway wiff. Is it the max you can get out of the team? Agree about his salary, but that's yesterday's decision. They sogned him with Krug going, Chara aging and Miller likely never to play again. They paid a price thinking he'd keep improving. He didn't. But he would never have been worth the buyout penalty just to be rid of him. He's not egregiously overpaid like a Zaitsev or a Finger. His AAV is probably $1.2m. I don't care how they split up the cash. The playoff thing absolutely. That's why I always point out i am not making a case to keep him. He is a sixth D like so many of those pmd types who are major liabilities but somehow keep coming back. Time to move on. But he is far from the reason this team has alumoed from time to time.
|
|
|
Post by jmwalters on Feb 20, 2024 2:13:12 GMT
The real questions are if he adds or subtracts from Macs play (rendering Mac, the B's best D, less effective), if his overall play is worth his $4.25m salary, and if another more talented or cheaper option would not be more beneficial for both Mac and the Bruins overall. In the end its all about winning and not that Grizz is a good soldier for the org. Example, how long was Bourque saddled with DS and would Bourque's game have risen if he was playing with a better talent for all those years. If you can do better then you should....if you want to win. Him being a scratch in the playoffs where it counts is a better indicator then how many times they beat sub 500 clubs in the regular season. Doesn't happen in a vacuum, though. The real question is so they get more in aggregate playing a borderline NHLer who has a long history of good chemistry with McAvoy than if McAvoy was with another top tier D and you got the Shittencrack and Toby experience for 15 min a night. I don't give a shit if McAvoy's stats would be marginally better. That starts to sound like the woe is Krejci narrative or the poor JT superstar not having anyone to pway wiff. Is it the max you can get out of the team? Agree about his salary, but that's yesterday's decision. They sogned him with Krug going, Chara aging and Miller likely never to play again. They paid a price thinking he'd keep improving. He didn't. But he would never have been worth the buyout penalty just to be rid of him. He's not egregiously overpaid like a Zaitsev or a Finger. His AAV is probably $1.2m. I don't care how they split up the cash. The playoff thing absolutely. That's why I always point out i am not making a case to keep him. He is a sixth D like so many of those pmd types who are major liabilities but somehow keep coming back. Time to move on. But he is far from the reason this team has alumoed from time to time. Invoking Jeff Finger is like Godwin’s Law. Debate over 😃
|
|
|
Post by pastamon on Feb 20, 2024 2:48:59 GMT
Against a hot dallas team who put up 55 shots including a 9 round shootout Swayman getting it done, tough road trip coming, 4 games in 6 days
|
|
|
Post by brewwins on Feb 20, 2024 5:06:18 GMT
Too many shots given up. Allowing 50 shots against at home or away is a disgrace. The possession generation can eat a back of dicks with their fascination with counting shots. At the end of the game, 4-3 Bruins with no bonus for the Stars for their 50 shot effort. True but I'd rather the Bruins not allow 50 shots the rest of the season.
|
|
|
Post by islamorada on Feb 20, 2024 11:45:09 GMT
I like your argument when you don't use stats, cause I know you know of hockey but when you go to stats in hockey then you are a victim of a conclusion that the stats make the player. He is at best a 3rd line LD. He plays on the 1st line LD. He will be doing more of that cause me thinks Hampus has a knee injury. You write well, you are one of the best at analysis, but get off of the stats like +/-. Argh! At some point in time, you have to check what you're seeing against something tangible. That's why I use the stats; because I guarantee there's a reason the franchise that has won more games and put up more points this millenium than any other continues to roll a player universally hated as - to paraphrase M. Hulot - barely an ECHL defenseman and sometimes quite probably the reason for climate change. There's a reason when Lindholm goes down and Monty puts Toby with McAvoy, they come back and win a game they probably shouldn't have won. Right? Having to play Toby more didn't hurt them. He played more minutes than he's played in months, and they won. How would you like to explain that without stats without sounding like confirmation bias? Oh, it's because everyone else stepped up while he continued to suck. Nah. I don't think the stats make the player but I do think that at some point in time, if the stats tell a completely different story than what you're trying to sell, it's fair to ask why we should believe your story and not the data. And we can agree to disagree on him being "1st line" LD. My case on that one has never been reliant on stats. It has always been that being paired with the team's best defenseman doesn't make you "1st line" LD. If your coach never uses you on special teams, or only when he has to for some reason, and he subs you out of that spot situationally when he needs to press the offense or hold a lead and he wants to shorten the bench, then you're not "1st line". You're playing with the best D on the team because the coach thinks that's his best bet to get the most value out of your mediocre talents. See Matt Bartkowski playing beside Chara, rookie Carlo playing beside Chara, rookie Boychuk playing beside Chara.... It's a strategy; it's not a misguided decision based on thinking Toby is your second best D. I would think this is obvious, but when people push back and say no, he's a 3rd D being played as 1st line, that's where I try to bring in the numbers rather than say "no, he's not" "yes, he is!" "no, he's not...". Stats like +/- are not real enough to substantiate your argument of Gyrz to be a Bs defenseman heralded as maligned ie. Toby. He his on the game lineup as the 1st defenseman. He moves down the pairings when the Bs are at the end of the game. So he then becomes a 3rd pairing. The plus/minus argument is then skewed and made moot. He is an NHL defenseman, at best a third pairing whose claim to play along McAvoy is his familiarity. +/- though is not accurate. I say this only because I think you don't I know this: A player can be placing his skate on the ice when a goal is scored and gain a plus. He may have been the 4th player on the 5 player team on ice to make the pass that completes the score. The paradox when using the stat as evidence is it does not have "definitive" connection to the theory or argument that he is "Toby" and maligned. The inconvenient truth of the matter is plus/minus has no real meaning at all when Gyrz is paired with McAvoy. I can not disagree or agree with your remarks or theory if you use =/- as a stat. My point is your opinion matters most, it is not sacrosanct but your word generally has more weight with this poster.
|
|
|
Post by sandogbrewin on Feb 20, 2024 11:52:56 GMT
Against a hot dallas team who put up 55 shots including a 9 round shootout Swayman getting it done, tough road trip coming, 4 games in 6 days Good thing we have "Win Win Win" to anchor down the top pairing!
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Feb 20, 2024 16:58:49 GMT
The possession generation can eat a back of dicks with their fascination with counting shots. At the end of the game, 4-3 Bruins with no bonus for the Stars for their 50 shot effort. True but I'd rather the Bruins not allow 50 shots the rest of the season. It's not a recipe for success, but I'll take 50 warm up calibre shots from low danger areas vs. 15 because the opponent is good at holding the puck in the offensive zone and looking for a chance to take a shot from a high-danger area. It's also true that you rarely see a team get 50 shots if the opposing goalie can't make the saves. In the 10-7 Wild-Canucks game yesterday, there were only 51 shots total.
|
|
|
Post by chappy28 on Feb 20, 2024 17:16:02 GMT
At some point in time, you have to check what you're seeing against something tangible. That's why I use the stats; because I guarantee there's a reason the franchise that has won more games and put up more points this millenium than any other continues to roll a player universally hated as - to paraphrase M. Hulot - barely an ECHL defenseman and sometimes quite probably the reason for climate change. There's a reason when Lindholm goes down and Monty puts Toby with McAvoy, they come back and win a game they probably shouldn't have won. Right? Having to play Toby more didn't hurt them. He played more minutes than he's played in months, and they won. How would you like to explain that without stats without sounding like confirmation bias? Oh, it's because everyone else stepped up while he continued to suck. Nah. I don't think the stats make the player but I do think that at some point in time, if the stats tell a completely different story than what you're trying to sell, it's fair to ask why we should believe your story and not the data. And we can agree to disagree on him being "1st line" LD. My case on that one has never been reliant on stats. It has always been that being paired with the team's best defenseman doesn't make you "1st line" LD. If your coach never uses you on special teams, or only when he has to for some reason, and he subs you out of that spot situationally when he needs to press the offense or hold a lead and he wants to shorten the bench, then you're not "1st line". You're playing with the best D on the team because the coach thinks that's his best bet to get the most value out of your mediocre talents. See Matt Bartkowski playing beside Chara, rookie Carlo playing beside Chara, rookie Boychuk playing beside Chara.... It's a strategy; it's not a misguided decision based on thinking Toby is your second best D. I would think this is obvious, but when people push back and say no, he's a 3rd D being played as 1st line, that's where I try to bring in the numbers rather than say "no, he's not" "yes, he is!" "no, he's not...". Stats like +/- are not real enough to substantiate your argument of Gyrz to be a Bs defenseman heralded as maligned ie. Toby. He his on the game lineup as the 1st defenseman. He moves down the pairings when the Bs are at the end of the game. So he then becomes a 3rd pairing. The plus/minus argument is then skewed and made moot. He is an NHL defenseman, at best a third pairing whose claim to play along McAvoy is his familiarity. +/- though is not accurate. I say this only because I think you don't I know this: A player can be placing his skate on the ice when a goal is scored and gain a plus. He may have been the 4th player on the 5 player team on ice to make the pass that completes the score. The paradox when using the stat as evidence is it does not have "definitive" connection to the theory or argument that he is "Toby" and maligned. The inconvenient truth of the matter is plus/minus has no real meaning at all when Gyrz is paired with McAvoy. I can not disagree or agree with your remarks or theory if you use =/- as a stat. My point is your opinion matters most, it is not sacrosanct but your word generally has more weight with this poster. When he's on his game, Gryz is good at what he is good at --- namely, puck retrieval, a good first pass, and when necessary skating the puck out of the zone and dumping it in. At the same time, there are things he's never been good at --- taking the puck away from a larger forward in a corner/board battle, any kind of shooting of the puck, and making passes that directly lead to scoring opportunities. The main issue is that he's been off his game pretty much this whole season. At his best, Gryz is a middle pairing guy (4th), that can complement a bigger defenseman with his ability to get the puck moving from defense to offense. I can live with that guy and manage his exposure. At his worst though he's a major liability because he crumbles under physical pressure, can't clear the front of the net, and will lose the majority of his battles with larger forwards, and won't create enough offense to outweigh his defensive challenges.
|
|
|
Post by chappy28 on Feb 20, 2024 17:19:10 GMT
So? About Brazeau, boys? I'm talking his overall play. I didn't think he looked out of place. One thing was that guy had some jump all game, was always in motion and was not shy about throwing checks. Not too bad a first showing. Smart, careful, good hands, very big. Solid debut overall, much more impact than most 4th liners they have trotted out. Nice to get a guy who is playing an offensive role in the AHL to come and bolster the 4th line. It's been a while. Boquist, Brown, Steen, and Lauko can't even produce in Providence so hoping for an explosion at the NHL level is wishful thinking. Now just get Merk and Lysell up here and let's go with a 4th line that can score!
|
|
|
Post by chappy28 on Feb 20, 2024 17:20:43 GMT
Smart, careful, good hands, very big. Solid debut overall, much more impact than most 4th liners they have trotted out. Nice to get a guy who is playing an offensive role in the AHL to come and bolster the 4th line. It's been a while. Boquist, Brown, Steen, and Lauko can't even produce in Providence so hoping for an explosion at the NHL level is wishful thinking. Now just get Merk and Lysell up here and let's go with a 4th line that can score! When I said that last part it was a joke, but come to think of it, if there was a year/team that could go offensive on the 4th line it's this year's team. Right now all lines play a grinding style, making it perhaps a bit less important to have a "heavy" 4th line banging around. (since we have 3 other heavy lines running around out there already)
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Feb 20, 2024 17:32:02 GMT
At some point in time, you have to check what you're seeing against something tangible. That's why I use the stats; because I guarantee there's a reason the franchise that has won more games and put up more points this millenium than any other continues to roll a player universally hated as - to paraphrase M. Hulot - barely an ECHL defenseman and sometimes quite probably the reason for climate change. There's a reason when Lindholm goes down and Monty puts Toby with McAvoy, they come back and win a game they probably shouldn't have won. Right? Having to play Toby more didn't hurt them. He played more minutes than he's played in months, and they won. How would you like to explain that without stats without sounding like confirmation bias? Oh, it's because everyone else stepped up while he continued to suck. Nah. I don't think the stats make the player but I do think that at some point in time, if the stats tell a completely different story than what you're trying to sell, it's fair to ask why we should believe your story and not the data. And we can agree to disagree on him being "1st line" LD. My case on that one has never been reliant on stats. It has always been that being paired with the team's best defenseman doesn't make you "1st line" LD. If your coach never uses you on special teams, or only when he has to for some reason, and he subs you out of that spot situationally when he needs to press the offense or hold a lead and he wants to shorten the bench, then you're not "1st line". You're playing with the best D on the team because the coach thinks that's his best bet to get the most value out of your mediocre talents. See Matt Bartkowski playing beside Chara, rookie Carlo playing beside Chara, rookie Boychuk playing beside Chara.... It's a strategy; it's not a misguided decision based on thinking Toby is your second best D. I would think this is obvious, but when people push back and say no, he's a 3rd D being played as 1st line, that's where I try to bring in the numbers rather than say "no, he's not" "yes, he is!" "no, he's not...". Stats like +/- are not real enough to substantiate your argument of Gyrz to be a Bs defenseman heralded as maligned ie. Toby. He his on the game lineup as the 1st defenseman. He moves down the pairings when the Bs are at the end of the game. So he then becomes a 3rd pairing. The plus/minus argument is then skewed and made moot. He is an NHL defenseman, at best a third pairing whose claim to play along McAvoy is his familiarity. +/- though is not accurate. I say this only because I think you don't I know this: A player can be placing his skate on the ice when a goal is scored and gain a plus. He may have been the 4th player on the 5 player team on ice to make the pass that completes the score. The paradox when using the stat as evidence is it does not have "definitive" connection to the theory or argument that he is "Toby" and maligned. The inconvenient truth of the matter is plus/minus has no real meaning at all when Gyrz is paired with McAvoy. I can not disagree or agree with your remarks or theory if you use =/- as a stat. My point is your opinion matters most, it is not sacrosanct but your word generally has more weight with this poster. So here are my three opinions that generally seem to get ignored in this context because if you say anything other than "GRZ is the worst defenseman ever!" then it's cancel culture time. Opinion 1: The bold has been widely circulated since the time that silly stats came into vogue with exactly this sort of argument. In my opinion, this is both a superficial argument and one that doesn't appreciate the nuances of hockey as a team game. It's superficial because it uses an exceptional case (a guy in mid line change taking a plus or minus despite having no influence on the play) to dismiss what is the much more common situation where a player is part of the run of play and the question is really only the degree of influence he had on the goal. Similarly, how many goals are scored in hockey where you can conclusively say the goal was someone's "fault" in a way that accounts for the myriad ways in which the other players on the ice pick up their teammates when they commit similar "faults"? The objection that you can't trust +/- because you can't always directly ascribe "fault" on the scoring play is also based on an exception and hypothetical case. You could as easily say that every goal where the goalie has a chance to make a save is the goalie's fault an no one else's because his job is to make the save when there's a shot on goal. In addition to being superficial, I also think the objection to the stat doesn't appreciate how, ever since the Soviets entered the conversation if not before, the game has been played with an emphasis on a five-man unit working in unison. Players influence scoring in a variety of ways that are hard to attribute - being in a lane to deny a pass that forces a more difficult pass which leads to a turnover and a goal. That's the common situation where the colour guy says "he won't get a point on that goal, but the goal doesn't happen if player X doesn't make this play." For a D, making a quick 7 foot pass on the tape to an accelerating forward on the breakout rarely gets you a point on the goal that follows, but it's a cornerstone of speed through the neutral zone. "Puck management" is a buzz phrase now, and players make smart "puck management" decisions all the time that extend possession, increase pressure, and create scoring situations without ever getting a point for it. Plus/Minus is the stat that attempts to capture that second tier bit of data beyond scoring numbers. It also is the only stat we have that gives you any type of measure for the level of risk a player takes in order to try and create offense. And lastly, I think you have to know when it has value and when it doesn't. Small sample? Sure. That's when it's far too easy for one of those line change situations to skew the data. But when a player has never been a minus over a full season for 7 seasons? I think that's hard to dismiss just because sometimes he may have gotten a plus or avoided a minus on a line change. And it's also valuable relative to teammates. It's meaningful when a player has a plus/minus that is disproportionately higher or lower than the average on his team. It absolutely requires some consideration of usage, too, but that's easier to validate to help put the plus/minus in context. And it works both ways. Bergeron and Marchand often went head to head with the best scoring lines in the league and still had not only the best plus/minuses of their era...if you go back to Marchand's rookie season, they are 70 goals better than the third place player (McDonagh). All hail one of the best two-way tandems ever to play. Opinion 2: I couldn't give a rats ass what order Montgomery writes players names on a game sheet. I really couldn't. To use that as a major factor in assessing what the coach's depth chart is will never make sense to me when you can look at how the players are used, how much TOI they get, and who the coach turns to when the going gets tough instead. Besides these points, I've also made the point that playing Toby with McAvoy is part of a long Bruin tradition of playing perhaps the weakest defenseman with the top defenseman because they can play a complementary role better than if they're paired with another bottom pairing quality player and one of the two has to get his head out of his ass long enough to make a play every now and then. The fact that Toby has played that complementary role with McAvoy for longer than anyone else and McAvoy is comfortable with him is enough for me to think it's a valid strategy. I would then compare it to the Sharts and the Penguins trying to find a way to pair Burns and Karlsson or Karlsson and Letang with absolutely shite results - because pairings are not simply a question of putting the two best defensemen together. Opinion 3: I've never said Toby is anything other than a third pairing D, and maybe a #7. What I've said all along is that if you think Toby is the biggest problem with this team, then you're giving a huge pass to the garbage lazy game Pastrnak's been playing since the AS break. You're not seeing that Ullmark seems less focussed than before his injury. You're willing to give a pass to Shattenkirk's terrible play and complete lack of contribution offensively because he's not on the PP - the only place where he has any utility - and to the drop in quality in both McAvoy's play and Lindholm's. Possibly you think Toby is the reason Geekie, Coyle and Zacha have forgotten where the opposition net is. My original point all along has been that the number of comments hating on Toby is totally disproportionate to the impact he has on wins and losses. That's it. That was the point. But as usual when you point out that someone is being overly dramatic, they respond dramatically.
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Feb 20, 2024 17:39:17 GMT
Stats like +/- are not real enough to substantiate your argument of Gyrz to be a Bs defenseman heralded as maligned ie. Toby. He his on the game lineup as the 1st defenseman. He moves down the pairings when the Bs are at the end of the game. So he then becomes a 3rd pairing. The plus/minus argument is then skewed and made moot. He is an NHL defenseman, at best a third pairing whose claim to play along McAvoy is his familiarity. +/- though is not accurate. I say this only because I think you don't I know this: A player can be placing his skate on the ice when a goal is scored and gain a plus. He may have been the 4th player on the 5 player team on ice to make the pass that completes the score. The paradox when using the stat as evidence is it does not have "definitive" connection to the theory or argument that he is "Toby" and maligned. The inconvenient truth of the matter is plus/minus has no real meaning at all when Gyrz is paired with McAvoy. I can not disagree or agree with your remarks or theory if you use =/- as a stat. My point is your opinion matters most, it is not sacrosanct but your word generally has more weight with this poster. When he's on his game, Gryz is good at what he is good at --- namely, puck retrieval, a good first pass, and when necessary skating the puck out of the zone and dumping it in. At the same time, there are things he's never been good at --- taking the puck away from a larger forward in a corner/board battle, any kind of shooting of the puck, and making passes that directly lead to scoring opportunities. The main issue is that he's been off his game pretty much this whole season. At his best, Gryz is a middle pairing guy (4th), that can complement a bigger defenseman with his ability to get the puck moving from defense to offense. I can live with that guy and manage his exposure. At his worst though he's a major liability because he crumbles under physical pressure, can't clear the front of the net, and will lose the majority of his battles with larger forwards, and won't create enough offense to outweigh his defensive challenges. Basically. The only thing I'd say is that history shows he's NOT a 4. They've tried him there in the past, when he was more on his game than he's been this year, and the results just weren't there. Maybe it's that he's not a good fit with Carlo? But I don't think he can regularly carry more than 17-18 min without being overexposed. And then I'd just double down on the "at his worst..." and say that - to the point OC made - teams can create his worst reliably because they know he doesn't have it in him to take the hits to make good plays. But this is a reasonable assessment of why they need to upgrade that D spot and let him walk this offseason, but also why playing the inconsistent Wotherspoon or rushing Lohrei might not be a better alternative to getting what you can out of him for now.
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Feb 20, 2024 17:44:45 GMT
Smart, careful, good hands, very big. Solid debut overall, much more impact than most 4th liners they have trotted out. Nice to get a guy who is playing an offensive role in the AHL to come and bolster the 4th line. It's been a while. Boquist, Brown, Steen, and Lauko can't even produce in Providence so hoping for an explosion at the NHL level is wishful thinking. Now just get Merk and Lysell up here and let's go with a 4th line that can score! Just by way of reminder...after 7 NHL games spread out of multiple call-ups in 2021-22, Oskar Steen had a goal and 4 assists and was +4. In his first 12 games last year, Jakub Lauko had 3 goals and 2 assists. And in 2021-22, Boqvist had 23 points in 56 games with NJ. Let's not get ahead of ourselves because Richard is on a two game heater and Brazeau got a tap in in his first game.
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Feb 20, 2024 17:46:19 GMT
Nice to get a guy who is playing an offensive role in the AHL to come and bolster the 4th line. It's been a while. Boquist, Brown, Steen, and Lauko can't even produce in Providence so hoping for an explosion at the NHL level is wishful thinking. Now just get Merk and Lysell up here and let's go with a 4th line that can score! When I said that last part it was a joke, but come to think of it, if there was a year/team that could go offensive on the 4th line it's this year's team. Right now all lines play a grinding style, making it perhaps a bit less important to have a "heavy" 4th line banging around. (since we have 3 other heavy lines running around out there already) Yeah, that's not the worst idea. Merkulov, to me, looked a little to tentative, though. I liked the energy of that trio they have now, and from and AHL perspective, Richard's credentials are as good as anyone else on the farm.
|
|
|
Post by islamorada on Feb 20, 2024 20:28:37 GMT
Stats like +/- are not real enough to substantiate your argument of Gyrz to be a Bs defenseman heralded as maligned ie. Toby. He his on the game lineup as the 1st defenseman. He moves down the pairings when the Bs are at the end of the game. So he then becomes a 3rd pairing. The plus/minus argument is then skewed and made moot. He is an NHL defenseman, at best a third pairing whose claim to play along McAvoy is his familiarity. +/- though is not accurate. I say this only because I think you don't I know this: A player can be placing his skate on the ice when a goal is scored and gain a plus. He may have been the 4th player on the 5 player team on ice to make the pass that completes the score. The paradox when using the stat as evidence is it does not have "definitive" connection to the theory or argument that he is "Toby" and maligned. The inconvenient truth of the matter is plus/minus has no real meaning at all when Gyrz is paired with McAvoy. I can not disagree or agree with your remarks or theory if you use =/- as a stat. My point is your opinion matters most, it is not sacrosanct but your word generally has more weight with this poster. So here are my three opinions that generally seem to get ignored in this context because if you say anything other than "GRZ is the worst defenseman ever!" then it's cancel culture time. Opinion 1: The bold has been widely circulated since the time that silly stats came into vogue with exactly this sort of argument. In my opinion, this is both a superficial argument and one that doesn't appreciate the nuances of hockey as a team game. It's superficial because it uses an exceptional case (a guy in mid line change taking a plus or minus despite having no influence on the play) to dismiss what is the much more common situation where a player is part of the run of play and the question is really only the degree of influence he had on the goal. Similarly, how many goals are scored in hockey where you can conclusively say the goal was someone's "fault" in a way that accounts for the myriad ways in which the other players on the ice pick up their teammates when they commit similar "faults"? The objection that you can't trust +/- because you can't always directly ascribe "fault" on the scoring play is also based on an exception and hypothetical case. You could as easily say that every goal where the goalie has a chance to make a save is the goalie's fault an no one else's because his job is to make the save when there's a shot on goal. In addition to being superficial, I also think the objection to the stat doesn't appreciate how, ever since the Soviets entered the conversation if not before, the game has been played with an emphasis on a five-man unit working in unison. Players influence scoring in a variety of ways that are hard to attribute - being in a lane to deny a pass that forces a more difficult pass which leads to a turnover and a goal. That's the common situation where the colour guy says "he won't get a point on that goal, but the goal doesn't happen if player X doesn't make this play." For a D, making a quick 7 foot pass on the tape to an accelerating forward on the breakout rarely gets you a point on the goal that follows, but it's a cornerstone of speed through the neutral zone. "Puck management" is a buzz phrase now, and players make smart "puck management" decisions all the time that extend possession, increase pressure, and create scoring situations without ever getting a point for it. Plus/Minus is the stat that attempts to capture that second tier bit of data beyond scoring numbers. It also is the only stat we have that gives you any type of measure for the level of risk a player takes in order to try and create offense. And lastly, I think you have to know when it has value and when it doesn't. Small sample? Sure. That's when it's far too easy for one of those line change situations to skew the data. But when a player has never been a minus over a full season for 7 seasons? I think that's hard to dismiss just because sometimes he may have gotten a plus or avoided a minus on a line change. And it's also valuable relative to teammates. It's meaningful when a player has a plus/minus that is disproportionately higher or lower than the average on his team. It absolutely requires some consideration of usage, too, but that's easier to validate to help put the plus/minus in context. And it works both ways. Bergeron and Marchand often went head to head with the best scoring lines in the league and still had not only the best plus/minuses of their era...if you go back to Marchand's rookie season, they are 70 goals better than the third place player (McDonagh). All hail one of the best two-way tandems ever to play. Opinion 2: I couldn't give a rats ass what order Montgomery writes players names on a game sheet. I really couldn't. To use that as a major factor in assessing what the coach's depth chart is will never make sense to me when you can look at how the players are used, how much TOI they get, and who the coach turns to when the going gets tough instead. Besides these points, I've also made the point that playing Toby with McAvoy is part of a long Bruin tradition of playing perhaps the weakest defenseman with the top defenseman because they can play a complementary role better than if they're paired with another bottom pairing quality player and one of the two has to get his head out of his ass long enough to make a play every now and then. The fact that Toby has played that complementary role with McAvoy for longer than anyone else and McAvoy is comfortable with him is enough for me to think it's a valid strategy. I would then compare it to the Sharts and the Penguins trying to find a way to pair Burns and Karlsson or Karlsson and Letang with absolutely shite results - because pairings are not simply a question of putting the two best defensemen together. Opinion 3: I've never said Toby is anything other than a third pairing D, and maybe a #7. What I've said all along is that if you think Toby is the biggest problem with this team, then you're giving a huge pass to the garbage lazy game Pastrnak's been playing since the AS break. You're not seeing that Ullmark seems less focussed than before his injury. You're willing to give a pass to Shattenkirk's terrible play and complete lack of contribution offensively because he's not on the PP - the only place where he has any utility - and to the drop in quality in both McAvoy's play and Lindholm's. Possibly you think Toby is the reason Geekie, Coyle and Zacha have forgotten where the opposition net is. My original point all along has been that the number of comments hating on Toby is totally disproportionate to the impact he has on wins and losses. That's it. That was the point. But as usual when you point out that someone is being overly dramatic, they respond dramatically. Much better read, condescending but without the useless stats. +/- is still vaguely recognizable as a stat. The reason is simple, not all who participate in making a goal are responsible. Same goes with the minus. I do know Gryz tends to pass when pressured and it ends up with a neutral zone puck battle. McAvoy makes it easier on his inability to make outlet passes because the opposition knows McAvoy can move through the neutral zone. Lastly I will always admit error when my expertise of not playing organized hockey is amiss. Yet, I don't need a tutorial since I have been watching since I was 13. I know the game well enough. I value your opinion as I always did when I was teaching AP USHistory with students that were merit scholars. Good day.
|
|
|
Post by The OC on Feb 20, 2024 23:01:18 GMT
Smart, careful, good hands, very big. Solid debut overall, much more impact than most 4th liners they have trotted out. Good foot speed, too. Only one game but let's hope Montgomery liked what he saw enough to give him a good go. One of the more interesting observations was from the NESN player tracker when he scored his goal. The end result was a big guy tapping it in from in tight, but the previous several seconds while there was the boards battle showed Justin circling through the netfront/slot area 3 times while the defender chased him. Constant movement. It's how you get open. It's one thing to be 6'5" and plant yourself in front, a total other if you're a big guy that can move around, shake the D and get open. A crazy factoid about our new friend: he lead the OHL with 61 goals in 68 games in '19. 2nd with 113 points (1st was Jason Robertson with 117). Obviously he as an overager in his last year, but it's still noteworthy that he has the hands/smarts to put up 61 goals. I always find it odd when a huge guy who has done something like lead the League in goals doesn't get drafted or even a real shot at the NHL until he's 26. He's really had to earn his way up, but some interesting scoring seasons in Junior (he was 20th in points in the OHL in '18, with a solid 39 goals in 68 games) can make a person think there might be a bit of a gem here if he can play at the NHL level.
|
|
|
Post by fifthline on Feb 20, 2024 23:41:38 GMT
I’ve been thinking the Bs really need some more Canadian players - Brazeau fits the bill!
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Feb 21, 2024 15:03:33 GMT
Good foot speed, too. Only one game but let's hope Montgomery liked what he saw enough to give him a good go. One of the more interesting observations was from the NESN player tracker when he scored his goal. The end result was a big guy tapping it in from in tight, but the previous several seconds while there was the boards battle showed Justin circling through the netfront/slot area 3 times while the defender chased him. Constant movement. It's how you get open. It's one thing to be 6'5" and plant yourself in front, a total other if you're a big guy that can move around, shake the D and get open. A crazy factoid about our new friend: he lead the OHL with 61 goals in 68 games in '19. 2nd with 113 points (1st was Jason Robertson with 117). Obviously he as an overager in his last year, but it's still noteworthy that he has the hands/smarts to put up 61 goals. I always find it odd when a huge guy who has done something like lead the League in goals doesn't get drafted or even a real shot at the NHL until he's 26. He's really had to earn his way up, but some interesting scoring seasons in Junior (he was 20th in points in the OHL in '18, with a solid 39 goals in 68 games) can make a person think there might be a bit of a gem here if he can play at the NHL level. In my experience, the reason is almost always that they can't skate a lick. You get these big players with some good hands and they skate well enough to play junior and get to where they need to be to - as you say - plant themselves and the 17yr old D who still weighs 150 can't move them off the spot. They're usually strong enough, too, that they have a good shot and overpower attempts to tie up their sticks - especially when they're 20 and more physically mature. There's a laundry list of those guys that parallels the other side of the ledger - 5'7" 134lb forwards who score 100 points in junior because they're super quick...just not quick enough to stay alive in the AHL or above. So many of them end up playing Canadian U-sports after junior. It might be starting to change a bit, though. I'm seeing more undrafted overagers starting strong in the A, so maybe that will include bigger players having to have some skating skills even in junior now. Bruins fell for it a couple of times years ago - Kyle Wanvig and Matt Zultek in the same year. Both guys had been previously drafted. Both guys sucked but they were big and put up big numbers.
|
|
|
Post by Fletcher on Feb 21, 2024 16:46:06 GMT
One of the more interesting observations was from the NESN player tracker when he scored his goal. The end result was a big guy tapping it in from in tight, but the previous several seconds while there was the boards battle showed Justin circling through the netfront/slot area 3 times while the defender chased him. Constant movement. It's how you get open. It's one thing to be 6'5" and plant yourself in front, a total other if you're a big guy that can move around, shake the D and get open. A crazy factoid about our new friend: he lead the OHL with 61 goals in 68 games in '19. 2nd with 113 points (1st was Jason Robertson with 117). Obviously he as an overager in his last year, but it's still noteworthy that he has the hands/smarts to put up 61 goals. I always find it odd when a huge guy who has done something like lead the League in goals doesn't get drafted or even a real shot at the NHL until he's 26. He's really had to earn his way up, but some interesting scoring seasons in Junior (he was 20th in points in the OHL in '18, with a solid 39 goals in 68 games) can make a person think there might be a bit of a gem here if he can play at the NHL level. In my experience, the reason is almost always that they can't skate a lick. You get these big players with some good hands and they skate well enough to play junior and get to where they need to be to - as you say - plant themselves and the 17yr old D who still weighs 150 can't move them off the spot. They're usually strong enough, too, that they have a good shot and overpower attempts to tie up their sticks - especially when they're 20 and more physically mature. There's a laundry list of those guys that parallels the other side of the ledger - 5'7" 134lb forwards who score 100 points in junior because they're super quick...just not quick enough to stay alive in the AHL or above. So many of them end up playing Canadian U-sports after junior. It might be starting to change a bit, though. I'm seeing more undrafted overagers starting strong in the A, so maybe that will include bigger players having to have some skating skills even in junior now. Bruins fell for it a couple of times years ago - Kyle Wanvig and Matt Zultek in the same year. Both guys had been previously drafted. Both guys sucked but they were big and put up big numbers. Not just Junior either, as this description generally makes me think of the Hugh Jessiman phenomenon. 6'6 and over 220lbs as an 18-year old freshmen at Dartmouth and he piled up 23 goals and 47 points, playing against vastly smaller and weaker defenders in the ECAC. Drafted #12 overall as a result. But Jessiman never got any better, while everyone else got bigger, faster, and stronger. Jessiman never learned elite skating. Never had too. Not a good passer either. Fast forward a decade and it became apparent that Jessiman was good for 20 AHL goals a season. Nothing more.
|
|
|
Post by islamorada on Feb 21, 2024 17:22:32 GMT
Stats like +/- are not real enough to substantiate your argument of Gyrz to be a Bs defenseman heralded as maligned ie. Toby. He his on the game lineup as the 1st defenseman. He moves down the pairings when the Bs are at the end of the game. So he then becomes a 3rd pairing. The plus/minus argument is then skewed and made moot. He is an NHL defenseman, at best a third pairing whose claim to play along McAvoy is his familiarity. +/- though is not accurate. I say this only because I think you don't I know this: A player can be placing his skate on the ice when a goal is scored and gain a plus. He may have been the 4th player on the 5 player team on ice to make the pass that completes the score. The paradox when using the stat as evidence is it does not have "definitive" connection to the theory or argument that he is "Toby" and maligned. The inconvenient truth of the matter is plus/minus has no real meaning at all when Gyrz is paired with McAvoy. I can not disagree or agree with your remarks or theory if you use =/- as a stat. My point is your opinion matters most, it is not sacrosanct but your word generally has more weight with this poster. So here are my three opinions that generally seem to get ignored in this context because if you say anything other than "GRZ is the worst defenseman ever!" then it's cancel culture time. Opinion 1: The bold has been widely circulated since the time that silly stats came into vogue with exactly this sort of argument. In my opinion, this is both a superficial argument and one that doesn't appreciate the nuances of hockey as a team game. It's superficial because it uses an exceptional case (a guy in mid line change taking a plus or minus despite having no influence on the play) to dismiss what is the much more common situation where a player is part of the run of play and the question is really only the degree of influence he had on the goal. Similarly, how many goals are scored in hockey where you can conclusively say the goal was someone's "fault" in a way that accounts for the myriad ways in which the other players on the ice pick up their teammates when they commit similar "faults"? The objection that you can't trust +/- because you can't always directly ascribe "fault" on the scoring play is also based on an exception and hypothetical case. You could as easily say that every goal where the goalie has a chance to make a save is the goalie's fault an no one else's because his job is to make the save when there's a shot on goal. In addition to being superficial, I also think the objection to the stat doesn't appreciate how, ever since the Soviets entered the conversation if not before, the game has been played with an emphasis on a five-man unit working in unison. Players influence scoring in a variety of ways that are hard to attribute - being in a lane to deny a pass that forces a more difficult pass which leads to a turnover and a goal. That's the common situation where the colour guy says "he won't get a point on that goal, but the goal doesn't happen if player X doesn't make this play." For a D, making a quick 7 foot pass on the tape to an accelerating forward on the breakout rarely gets you a point on the goal that follows, but it's a cornerstone of speed through the neutral zone. "Puck management" is a buzz phrase now, and players make smart "puck management" decisions all the time that extend possession, increase pressure, and create scoring situations without ever getting a point for it. Plus/Minus is the stat that attempts to capture that second tier bit of data beyond scoring numbers. It also is the only stat we have that gives you any type of measure for the level of risk a player takes in order to try and create offense. And lastly, I think you have to know when it has value and when it doesn't. Small sample? Sure. That's when it's far too easy for one of those line change situations to skew the data. But when a player has never been a minus over a full season for 7 seasons? I think that's hard to dismiss just because sometimes he may have gotten a plus or avoided a minus on a line change. And it's also valuable relative to teammates. It's meaningful when a player has a plus/minus that is disproportionately higher or lower than the average on his team. It absolutely requires some consideration of usage, too, but that's easier to validate to help put the plus/minus in context. And it works both ways. Bergeron and Marchand often went head to head with the best scoring lines in the league and still had not only the best plus/minuses of their era...if you go back to Marchand's rookie season, they are 70 goals better than the third place player (McDonagh). All hail one of the best two-way tandems ever to play. Opinion 2: I couldn't give a rats ass what order Montgomery writes players names on a game sheet. I really couldn't. To use that as a major factor in assessing what the coach's depth chart is will never make sense to me when you can look at how the players are used, how much TOI they get, and who the coach turns to when the going gets tough instead. Besides these points, I've also made the point that playing Toby with McAvoy is part of a long Bruin tradition of playing perhaps the weakest defenseman with the top defenseman because they can play a complementary role better than if they're paired with another bottom pairing quality player and one of the two has to get his head out of his ass long enough to make a play every now and then. The fact that Toby has played that complementary role with McAvoy for longer than anyone else and McAvoy is comfortable with him is enough for me to think it's a valid strategy. I would then compare it to the Sharts and the Penguins trying to find a way to pair Burns and Karlsson or Karlsson and Letang with absolutely shite results - because pairings are not simply a question of putting the two best defensemen together. Opinion 3: I've never said Toby is anything other than a third pairing D, and maybe a #7. What I've said all along is that if you think Toby is the biggest problem with this team, then you're giving a huge pass to the garbage lazy game Pastrnak's been playing since the AS break. You're not seeing that Ullmark seems less focussed than before his injury. You're willing to give a pass to Shattenkirk's terrible play and complete lack of contribution offensively because he's not on the PP - the only place where he has any utility - and to the drop in quality in both McAvoy's play and Lindholm's. Possibly you think Toby is the reason Geekie, Coyle and Zacha have forgotten where the opposition net is. My original point all along has been that the number of comments hating on Toby is totally disproportionate to the impact he has on wins and losses. That's it. That was the point. But as usual when you point out that someone is being overly dramatic, they respond dramatically. I finally had time to fully comprehend the breakdown of your opinions. I could go on in length on the evolution of the game the past 50 years coupled with my limited knowledge of 1950s-60s hockey*. Of the major sports in NA, it is by far the most difficult of sports to use quantitative analysis on team play. The two sports that are easiest are baseball and football. This is primarily due to the continued stoppage during the game. Basketball and hockey are more fluid until the final two minutes in basketball which is the most boring aspect of the sport. Basketball's court and basket are need of measured expansion. The talented athletes are just too good for the old dimensions. Hockey though is has less stoppage but it's ice is bigger. The size of the puck and speed of the players make it difficult to analyze if not impossible. So, quantitive analytics or statistics are really not useful in determining the effectiveness of the coach's system. It is why I balk at +/- stats. I suppose the plus side could be better quantified because the goal scoring is the object of the game. It could be enlarged to include all 5 players (6 as well) to determine the quality of the line. Even then the eye test is best. The minus side is almost impossible to make more quantifiable as you made special and clear references to in the "opinion" one. The Soviet remark was certainly something I have thought off occasionally. I am thinking of the summit series with Canada in the 1970s. The Henderson goals, and Espo's determination are visual memories. The Soviets did use all players to move the puck through the neutral zone. Passing the puck back to the defensive zone from the neutral zone was noticeable. Monty's system of puck movement seems to be a modification. The Soviets were all stars on the Red Army team, they did not come from other teams. They were the best of talents in their system. The Bs under Monty are not the best of talents in the NHL. I am not sure Monty's system can accommodate Gryz under those systemic thoughts. We are in agreement he is a third pairing. I disagree on the lineup comment. When the shit hits the fan during the game Hampus moves up be with McAvoy. So there is the basis for your remark. Thanks for writing out your opinion. Please excuse my "condescending" remark. It was connected to your use of "opinion" in each paragraph. My brother's birthday is coming up. I bought him some auchentoshan scotch and am looking for another scotch to go with it. Any recommendation is helpful. If not, good day.
|
|
|
Post by The OC on Feb 21, 2024 17:26:09 GMT
One of the more interesting observations was from the NESN player tracker when he scored his goal. The end result was a big guy tapping it in from in tight, but the previous several seconds while there was the boards battle showed Justin circling through the netfront/slot area 3 times while the defender chased him. Constant movement. It's how you get open. It's one thing to be 6'5" and plant yourself in front, a total other if you're a big guy that can move around, shake the D and get open. A crazy factoid about our new friend: he lead the OHL with 61 goals in 68 games in '19. 2nd with 113 points (1st was Jason Robertson with 117). Obviously he as an overager in his last year, but it's still noteworthy that he has the hands/smarts to put up 61 goals. I always find it odd when a huge guy who has done something like lead the League in goals doesn't get drafted or even a real shot at the NHL until he's 26. He's really had to earn his way up, but some interesting scoring seasons in Junior (he was 20th in points in the OHL in '18, with a solid 39 goals in 68 games) can make a person think there might be a bit of a gem here if he can play at the NHL level. In my experience, the reason is almost always that they can't skate a lick. You get these big players with some good hands and they skate well enough to play junior and get to where they need to be to - as you say - plant themselves and the 17yr old D who still weighs 150 can't move them off the spot. They're usually strong enough, too, that they have a good shot and overpower attempts to tie up their sticks - especially when they're 20 and more physically mature. There's a laundry list of those guys that parallels the other side of the ledger - 5'7" 134lb forwards who score 100 points in junior because they're super quick...just not quick enough to stay alive in the AHL or above. So many of them end up playing Canadian U-sports after junior. It might be starting to change a bit, though. I'm seeing more undrafted overagers starting strong in the A, so maybe that will include bigger players having to have some skating skills even in junior now. Bruins fell for it a couple of times years ago - Kyle Wanvig and Matt Zultek in the same year. Both guys had been previously drafted. Both guys sucked but they were big and put up big numbers. Oh yeah, to be clear I'm not saying I'm surprised that a big guy who can finish as an overager doesn't make it. I've played with a few failed Justin Brazos over the years and usually the reason is they can't think the game quick enough. I'm more surprised someone hasn't given him a shot yet. He's shown some pretty solid progression from league to league, year to year so it does look like he clearly wasn't ready when he was young but worked hard on whatever was holding him back. If he succeeds one of the best parts could be the quote from your favorite GM saying if he doesn't play for the Leafs one day, we have failed him haha.
|
|
|
Post by Fletcher on Feb 21, 2024 17:44:26 GMT
A few thoughts on Grizz and the correlating stats.
I do agree with Book, that fans hating the Bruins 6th/7th best defensemen is a trend as old as time, and has always been a topic and going back to the BDC board. Nobody likes the 6th defensemen and every team has one. Every team has to fill that position, on the cheap, and hopes they can get away with it as much as possible. There have been so many negative threads about Kevan Miller and Matt Bartkowski and Mark Stuart and Andrew Alberts, etc. etc. Grizz has not been worse than our 6th/7th d-man options of the past, or worse than most other team's 6th/7th D-man.
However, more and more, I am really disliking +/- ratings as a useful stat, and I think Grizz may be the poster boy for misleadingly good +/- totals. I think it's getting closer and closer to a garbage stat, without some serious context at least, because analytics and micromanaging of shifts impacts things so much now.
I think it's useful to compare Grizz with Brandon Carlo, for example. Last year Grizz was +46 and Carlo was +44. Both impressive, and so close. But Carlo had 65% D-zone starts. Grizz had 41% D-zone starts. Carlo plays lots of shorthanded minutes (no minuses there, but lots of hard minutes in the D zone), Grizz plays none. Carlo gets paired against other teams top scoring lines as much as possible. Grizz doesn't. Carlo plays more minutes when the Bruins are trying to hold a lead, not trying to score. Grizz is the opposite -- he gets to attack with Marchand and Pasta when they're behind. Carlo plays defense when the other team desperately attacks at the end of games.
The bottom line is that Carlo being +44 is staggeringly impressive. Grizz being +46 is less impressive.
Fast forward to this year, and Grizz really does not look good, with all of that context behind the +/- totals. Grizz is no longer pacing Carlo, despite the advantages. The same scenarios apply, yet Grizz is +6 with 7 points. Carlo is +23 with 13 points. Despite every possible advantage on +/- and playing way more sheltered and offensive (no pun intended...) minutes, Grizz is looking unfavorable. He is having a bad season. Hope he turns it around.
|
|
|
Post by fifthline on Feb 21, 2024 18:06:06 GMT
I think Gryz is having an up year based 100% on the eye test as I didn’t know his +|~ had come down to earth. Mainly it’s because he’s improved his D zone leverage which is a less direct way to physically win a puck or neutralize the opponents intent. He’s been playing PK minutes so it seems the coach has seen something too. He does play non-courageously and won’t take a hit to make a play as he seems concussion prone. I agree with others that this should be disqualifying for a defensemen- particularly one with almost zero offensive feel to his game.
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Feb 21, 2024 18:31:42 GMT
So here are my three opinions that generally seem to get ignored in this context because if you say anything other than "GRZ is the worst defenseman ever!" then it's cancel culture time. Opinion 1: The bold has been widely circulated since the time that silly stats came into vogue with exactly this sort of argument. In my opinion, this is both a superficial argument and one that doesn't appreciate the nuances of hockey as a team game. It's superficial because it uses an exceptional case (a guy in mid line change taking a plus or minus despite having no influence on the play) to dismiss what is the much more common situation where a player is part of the run of play and the question is really only the degree of influence he had on the goal. Similarly, how many goals are scored in hockey where you can conclusively say the goal was someone's "fault" in a way that accounts for the myriad ways in which the other players on the ice pick up their teammates when they commit similar "faults"? The objection that you can't trust +/- because you can't always directly ascribe "fault" on the scoring play is also based on an exception and hypothetical case. You could as easily say that every goal where the goalie has a chance to make a save is the goalie's fault an no one else's because his job is to make the save when there's a shot on goal. In addition to being superficial, I also think the objection to the stat doesn't appreciate how, ever since the Soviets entered the conversation if not before, the game has been played with an emphasis on a five-man unit working in unison. Players influence scoring in a variety of ways that are hard to attribute - being in a lane to deny a pass that forces a more difficult pass which leads to a turnover and a goal. That's the common situation where the colour guy says "he won't get a point on that goal, but the goal doesn't happen if player X doesn't make this play." For a D, making a quick 7 foot pass on the tape to an accelerating forward on the breakout rarely gets you a point on the goal that follows, but it's a cornerstone of speed through the neutral zone. "Puck management" is a buzz phrase now, and players make smart "puck management" decisions all the time that extend possession, increase pressure, and create scoring situations without ever getting a point for it. Plus/Minus is the stat that attempts to capture that second tier bit of data beyond scoring numbers. It also is the only stat we have that gives you any type of measure for the level of risk a player takes in order to try and create offense. And lastly, I think you have to know when it has value and when it doesn't. Small sample? Sure. That's when it's far too easy for one of those line change situations to skew the data. But when a player has never been a minus over a full season for 7 seasons? I think that's hard to dismiss just because sometimes he may have gotten a plus or avoided a minus on a line change. And it's also valuable relative to teammates. It's meaningful when a player has a plus/minus that is disproportionately higher or lower than the average on his team. It absolutely requires some consideration of usage, too, but that's easier to validate to help put the plus/minus in context. And it works both ways. Bergeron and Marchand often went head to head with the best scoring lines in the league and still had not only the best plus/minuses of their era...if you go back to Marchand's rookie season, they are 70 goals better than the third place player (McDonagh). All hail one of the best two-way tandems ever to play. Opinion 2: I couldn't give a rats ass what order Montgomery writes players names on a game sheet. I really couldn't. To use that as a major factor in assessing what the coach's depth chart is will never make sense to me when you can look at how the players are used, how much TOI they get, and who the coach turns to when the going gets tough instead. Besides these points, I've also made the point that playing Toby with McAvoy is part of a long Bruin tradition of playing perhaps the weakest defenseman with the top defenseman because they can play a complementary role better than if they're paired with another bottom pairing quality player and one of the two has to get his head out of his ass long enough to make a play every now and then. The fact that Toby has played that complementary role with McAvoy for longer than anyone else and McAvoy is comfortable with him is enough for me to think it's a valid strategy. I would then compare it to the Sharts and the Penguins trying to find a way to pair Burns and Karlsson or Karlsson and Letang with absolutely shite results - because pairings are not simply a question of putting the two best defensemen together. Opinion 3: I've never said Toby is anything other than a third pairing D, and maybe a #7. What I've said all along is that if you think Toby is the biggest problem with this team, then you're giving a huge pass to the garbage lazy game Pastrnak's been playing since the AS break. You're not seeing that Ullmark seems less focussed than before his injury. You're willing to give a pass to Shattenkirk's terrible play and complete lack of contribution offensively because he's not on the PP - the only place where he has any utility - and to the drop in quality in both McAvoy's play and Lindholm's. Possibly you think Toby is the reason Geekie, Coyle and Zacha have forgotten where the opposition net is. My original point all along has been that the number of comments hating on Toby is totally disproportionate to the impact he has on wins and losses. That's it. That was the point. But as usual when you point out that someone is being overly dramatic, they respond dramatically. I finally had time to fully comprehend the breakdown of your opinions. I could go on in length on the evolution of the game the past 50 years coupled with my limited knowledge of 1950s-60s hockey*. Of the major sports in NA, it is by far the most difficult of sports to use quantitative analysis on team play. The two sports that are easiest are baseball and football. This is primarily due to the continued stoppage during the game. Basketball and hockey are more fluid until the final two minutes in basketball which is the most boring aspect of the sport. Basketball's court and basket are need of measured expansion. The talented athletes are just too good for the old dimensions. Hockey though is has less stoppage but it's ice is bigger. The size of the puck and speed of the players make it difficult to analyze if not impossible. So, quantitive analytics or statistics are really not useful in determining the effectiveness of the coach's system. It is why I balk at +/- stats. I suppose the plus side could be better quantified because the goal scoring is the object of the game. It could be enlarged to include all 5 players (6 as well) to determine the quality of the line. Even then the eye test is best. The minus side is almost impossible to make more quantifiable as you made special and clear references to in the "opinion" one. The Soviet remark was certainly something I have thought off occasionally. I am thinking of the summit series with Canada in the 1970s. The Henderson goals, and Espo's determination are visual memories. The Soviets did use all players to move the puck through the neutral zone. Passing the puck back to the defensive zone from the neutral zone was noticeable. Monty's system of puck movement seems to be a modification. The Soviets were all stars on the Red Army team, they did not come from other teams. They were the best of talents in their system. The Bs under Monty are not the best of talents in the NHL. I am not sure Monty's system can accommodate Gryz under those systemic thoughts. We are in agreement he is a third pairing. I disagree on the lineup comment. When the shit hits the fan during the game Hampus moves up be with McAvoy. So there is the basis for your remark. Thanks for writing out your opinion. Please excuse my "condescending" remark. It was connected to your use of "opinion" in each paragraph. My brother's birthday is coming up. I bought him some auchentoshan scotch and am looking for another scotch to go with it. Any recommendation is helpful. If not, good day. Hmmm. Bowmore Mariner might be a good pairing with an auchentoshan. Hit the palate in a couple of different ways.
|
|