Thread: OT: Jason Garrison
View Single Post
Old
02-23-2013, 05:03 AM
  #128
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,255
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by medgett View Post
1) Context does certainly have some impact on the play of an individual. It isn't everything though and just as many have explained, there are many reasons/explanations for some of Garrison's perceived weaknesses that should resolve themselves at some point. Some of the weaknesses that I, orcatown and others have pointed to are not related to the play of others. For example, not following up the play is definitely something Garrison himself is responsible for and as I posted yesterday, I feel its something he's improved significantly on in the last 2 games, (IMO he stayed up with the play more often than not against the preds tonight). Also, he has very little poise and patience with the puck in his own zone specifically. This is something that can be judged as an individual strength or weakness. It may be a result of unfamiliarity with the system, but for now, its an issue. Context is important to consider, but it isn't everything. If Orcatown was criticizing aspects of the game that depended on the play of his teammates, (+/-, PK GA, 5 on 5 GA, offensive output, etc.) then I'd agree with you. He isn't and thus your counterargument regarding context is somewhat irrelevant.


Completely disagree. How can context ever be irrelevant? It _never_ is. This is a team sport and context is always a factor in that regard. If you want to weight context differently, feel free, but that doesn't make it irrelevant. Everyone places a different emphasis upon it. But to me, it's one of the three major factors when judging a player: There are the things Garrison does in isolation, things he is asked to do as a function of team play, and his apparent effectiveness vs his actual effectiveness. Some have chosen to overvalue the first, and not even delve into the remaining two factors... which breeds an incomplete analysis.

Like I said, opendoor's quote says this pretty well. If you don't like hearing it from me, fine. Just read his post.

Lastly, poise and supporting the play are "issues". I actually listed the lack of poise here myself (I think). But are these things enough of an issue to start calling for a buyout? Not a chance... not a chance.



Quote:
2) I don't really want to get into the entire cap situation in this thread given that there is another one currently available to discuss that specifically, but there are reasons to consider buy outs. If you would like to have a read through that thread, it may make what I'm about to say a little clearer. The canucks will basically be forced to utilize the compliance buy outs this offseason to get to the 64.3m cap. Assuming they want to bring back Tanev, Raymond, Schroeder and Higgins, (others would be resigned as well, but not bringing them back doesn't result in significant savings aka Volpatti, Wiese, Lapierre), they will need to shed somewhere in the neighborhood of 7-9m. Even if you trade Luongo for pure futures, buying out Booth or Ballard still is likely to not get you there as you need to replace them on the roster. For this reason alone, the organization needs to be considering and building contingencies around who to use the buyouts on and potentially finding another way to get under the cap for next season. So to reiterate what has been said a thousand times here, it is premature to say that Garrison or, in fact anyone on the roster, should be bought out. It is not premature to start building a list of names of guys that could be considerations.


I think it's even premature to start building lists. Just think about the Ballard situation pre and post 13 games. He went from a player with heavy consideration for a buyout (after 2 years of data) to the best performing Dman in the early season. Now he has value back. Now people can imagine getting a return for him. A lot can change. In that sense, the mere considerations are premature. 13 games in doesn't provide enough data. It just doesn't. If it did, Ballard would have been bought out a long time ago, amnesty or not.

On the cap situation: I have seen and have posted many line-ups in that thread. As a result, I think I'm pretty up to speed on the matter. Some good rosters posted there come from poster Proto. In them, he has Raymond and Higgins re-signed at 3m and 2.5m respectively, and gives appropriate raises to the remaining players. The key changes come in the form of Ballard and Luongo. Luongo is dealt for pure futures, and Ballard is assumed to be dealt for the same. With those two off the books like that, the resulting roster has about 500-700k in cap space with Raymond. Without him, it's about 2.5m in space.

Now, if Raymond insists on more than that, he will be allowed to walk in FA, IMO. Plus you have Malhotra and Alberts coming off the books as well. Point being, at worst, it should come down to a decision to buy out Ballard or trade him for futures (which I think is completely feasible). With that, there's no need to even get into Garrison's contract. Now add the precedent of patience the team has taken with Ballard and it becomes even more of a stretch to put Garrison's name on that list so early. Any way you look at it, it's a reach.



Quote:
3) Analyzing someone's play based on how they look isn't everything and its subjective to a large degree. Still, you're quick to point out hypocrisy so I'd like you to consider your statement regarding Bieksa "floating hopers towards the net" when you talk about the stats bearing things out. As far as most are concerned, goals and assists are still pretty important stats and if you're asking others to show how stats bear out their arguments, you should probably try not to disregard them when they are counter to other arguments you're putting forth. That said, I do think its important to combine subjective analysis with statistics and in Garrison's case I find them those two to be somewhat at odds. I have already stated my opinion regarding his play without the puck in the d zone and I'm not suprised to see that reflected. I am suprised that his possession stats are as good as they are considering that when I watch the games I see him continually get caught in puck battles where a quick play could've avoided it, he gives the puck away up the boards fairly consistently, and I don't really notice him connecting on many passes, (If someone could further explain the posession stat, I would be apppreciative). As I've said, much of this has improved in this back to back, but I still find him to be slow with the puck in his own end. Lastly here, your bolded statement seems to imply that his "effectiveness" is directly and perfectly reflected in advanced statistics which I think we can all agree is not true.


Sorry, what's not true? Garrison still drives play even when looking out of synch and jumpy. This is truth borne from stats. His effectiveness is directly reflected in those stats. So far, his lack of poise and slow reads have not negatively impacted his underlying numbers to the point where he both looks bad _and_ is objectively ineffective/detrimental to his team. Beyond that, I'm not sure what you are referring to as untrue?

How do Bieksa's stats run counter to my arguments? AFAIK, both Orca and I have recognized Bieksa's game to be poor, regardless of his conversion recently. The "hoper" comment is meant to illustrate that I don't think Bieksa is playing well, despite his recent _unsustainable_ conversion rate. Do you think he's playing well based on his goals scored? I don't. If I'm off on this interpretation of your comment, please clarify further...


Last edited by Bleach Clean: 02-23-2013 at 09:00 AM.
Bleach Clean is offline   Reply With Quote