He probably played himself out of the NHL last season.
Puck Stops Here on Ryan Johnson who had the worst adjusted Corsi rating of any player last year. Though clearly Mr. Puck (who has had his own issues this summer already) doesn't know a fucking thing about Vancouver to make that statement.
almost 3 years ago
Yankee Canuck
20 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
You think forwards who scored only 2 goals last year and have no defensive ability belong in the NHL?
Corsi be damned! They don’t call him BALLS for nothin’ .
by Sean Zandberg on Aug 8, 2009 2:00 PM PDT up reply actions
Oh you’re right. He’s worthless. Let’s ignore that he’s a fourth liner who makes his living on the PK for the third most penalized team last season. Let’s ignore that he lead TOI/60 for forwards on the kill. Let’s ignore he lead all VAN forwards in blocked shots. Hell let’s ignore the post season where he ranked in the top five in faceoff winning %.
I doubt you actually watched a VAN game last year; Johnson on the PK made a hell of a difference.
Looking solely at the Corsi without considering other factors or variables really weakens your argument (IMHO). You seemed to speak off cuff about the plunging value of those players, so why were Madden and Pahlsson snatched up so quickly in July? And to suggest Johnson has played himself out of the NHL based solely on his even strength stats is terribly misguided. No one is looking at him for goals…except you.
'Nucks Misconduct - Housing Swedish Millionaires Since 2000.
by Yankee Canuck on Aug 8, 2009 2:05 PM PDT up reply actions
If you actually read my Kukla’s Korner profile you might notice that I am a Vancouver Canuck fan (though I try to kep a non-biased blog). I definitely watched more Canuck games than any other team.
Ryan Johnson is poor defensively at even strength – that is clearly shown in his Corsi. He is poor on the penalty kill as well. He has the worst ranking of any Canuck player who played considerable power play time at behind the net (he ranks among the worst in the league here as well). He certainly has no offensive value. He isn’t an NHL calibre talent – but he works hard. Typically the players who maintain NHL jobs despite a lack of any sign of success are hard working just like Johnson and that is the reason they keep their job despite failing at it. And the fans often get behind them because they work so hard and defend their failures just like you have done.
by PuckStopsHere on Aug 8, 2009 6:31 PM PDT up reply actions
Did you mean
“Penalty Kill time” rather than “power play time”? Because I’m not convinced three minutes for the season counts as considerable… 8)
I’m still not sure what Corsi’s numbers are designed to show, exactly. Minutia, to be sure; but I’m unconvinced there’s much value to them, or if it’s a case of creating mud instead of brick. Those numbers are going to have to wait for a time when I’m not newly home from work to look at again, I think.
Johnson spent 200 minutes on the PK and 480 at even strength: is there a distinction made between the two on his (Corsi’s) scale, or are they weighted equally? Is there any distinction for the quality of either shots (or opponents) faced? Is 3-on-5 ice time increased in value over 4-on-5? Is there any mention what happens in the shift (or two) following Johnson’s time on the ice? Is there any consideration for how his teammates play around him when they see what Johnson does to himself on the ice? What exactly are the “signs of success” you refer to? And why do you dismiss working hard as a lack of them?
I bring these up because anyone who remembers the 2002 series against Detroit knows that Lidstrom didn’t deserve the Conn Smythe that year: without Yzerman coming back and playing harder on one leg than any other Red Wing had the previous two games, Detroit doesn’t get out of the first round that year.
It may be that I’m missing the point of these numbers entirely, and should simply shut up until I get a good night’s sleep, too.
Sorry. Yes I mean penalty kill and not power play. Johnson may have played a lot of penalty kill time but he did it badly. He was the wrst Canuck with considerable penalty kill time and among the worst in the NHL.
Corsi only counts 5 on 5 time. In that situation these numbers show Johnson was the worst in the NHL. Even assuming reasonable uncertainty in them, we coe up with a safe conclusion that he is among the worst in the NHL.
“Signs of success” in this context basically means that your team controls the puck when you are on the ice and the other team does not. In Ryan Johnson"s case, if he is on the ice it is quite likely that the other team is dominating the Canucks.
The fact that these stats are adjusted takes into account teammates and other issues quite well. Ryan Johnson does out worse than everybody in the entire NHL. Does that not worry you? It should.
What is important is playing good hockey. Any player who works really hard and plays bad hockey in the process is near useless. That description fits Ryan Johnson perfectly.
by PuckStopsHere on Aug 9, 2009 6:37 AM PDT up reply actions
Your definition of “signs of success” obscure the fact Johnson had the second fewest TOI/60 at ES (like many fourth liners) and an abundance of his time on the PK (where odds are the Canucks weren’t controlling the puck). And your adjusted rates, from what I can tell, take into account his +/- relative to his teammates on and off the ice, but not something like quality of competition where Johnson ranked second highest on the team. And anecdotally speaking, as Kent W suggested, fourth liners also get pulled down by the goon’s they skate with. You see this with Johnson anchored to Hordichuk; the stats for the latter, as I imagine for most goons, are simply awful across the board.
There are a great deal of stats to gauge how effective a player may be and why, either on his own or as the part of a team total. And no one is sitting here saying Johnson is an all star. Like a lot of fourth liners it’s a job of small unglamorous acts that define what they do, often times just staying average to remain employed. So be it, but that doesn’t mean they don’t serve a purpose.
That gets back to the point of my criticism (which you ignored above): you provided a single stat as the sole reason to suggest a whole host of players shouldn’t be in the NHL. Hell, if you had included the PK rating stat that you just provided in this thread, you would have at least had strengthened your criticism of Johnson alone. Now comments in your post at KK are saying the same thing I am (and the last time you chimed in over at C&B, they also spoke about your context).
What is important is playing good hockey
Sure, but it would appear you’re more focused on trying to solely define that criteria with a limited perspective. Say and believe what you want, but in my ever humble opinion, clinging to the Corsi without context isn’t saying much and going a step further suggesting Johnson has no right being in the NHL because of his Corsi at 5×5 alone is, again, terribly misguided. If you’re going to say the guy is basically a complete bust, then at least write a post that broadly proves it and I’d be the first guy in line to read it.
Lastly, I’m happy you’re a Canucks fan (no I didn’t know that) and the Keenan years did truly suck. Safe to say we can agree on that.
'Nucks Misconduct - Housing Swedish Millionaires Since 2000.
by Yankee Canuck on Aug 9, 2009 9:21 AM PDT up reply actions
To clarify
The fact that these stats are adjusted takes into account teammates and other issues quite well.
This means “how teammates react to his play” or “who he plays with”?
"Signs of success" in this context basically means that your team controls the puck when you are on the ice and the other team does not.
That I like: time of possession. Shots on net isn’t particularly relevant in the Canucks’ case, as Luongo has explicitly told his team that unless they’re diving to the ice to block shots, get the hell out of the way to let him see them.
Corsi only counts 5 on 5 time.
As does +/- (less short handed goals for either side), where Johnson was a +1 for the season. Why is that not worse? A few “fluke goals” doesn’t really explain that.
Just as a reference point, has he done these stats for any of the checkers of the past? I’d be curious to see what Brian Skrudland’s or Bob Gainey’s or Esa Tikkanen’s Corsi numbers would look like!
Speaking of Tikkanen and player worth, remember when he and Russ Courtnall were with Vancouver, and both publicly declared Ton Renney was “the worst coach they’ve ever had”? Is there any indication what effect that may have had on the team at the time, and what their Corsi numbers were then?
Further, do you think Alexi Yashin had an overall positive or negative affect on his teams, and is there a corresponding indication shown by the Corsi numbers?
It is hard to argue that Ryan Johnson is being dragged down by his linemates when his Corsi is worse than any of them. If anything, it is Johnson dragging down people like Darcy Hordichuk (who were not any good to start with).
There does not exist a sufficient statistical record to calculate Corsi Numbers from the years before the lockout (unless one goes back and attempts to piece it all together from game tapes) so I cannot immediately calculate those of any of the examples you ask. However, I can assure you, that none of them were ever last in the league as Ryan Johnson is (likely they were nowhere near last).
Why does Johnson look worse in his Corsi than in his +/-? Simply because he plays so much penalty kill time. On the penalty kill, one cannot get a minus. It is only possible to get a plus as power play goals will not count against a player in +/-. This is a well known distortion of +/- ratings and why in this case, Corsi is probably more reliable.
I think that the player who most hurts a team is rarely a player who is clearly unfit to play into the NHL but forced into action because of injuries or a lack of depth. It is a more borderline player who has (for now) a safer job. They are the ones who get more ice time and play in more significant situations. Given that opportunity, they can hurt their team more significantly. Ryan Johnson was a significant liability for the Canucks last year. Unless he plays better very early into next season, he won’t be given the chance to do that again. He will find hinself out of an NHL job before long without significant improvement.
I know that many fans like to defend their guy when he is attacked (you see that in my Kukla’s comments where the Detroit faithful defend Osgood or Draper or anyone else on their team who isn’t play well, whenever I point that out). The fact is Ryan Johnson hurt the Canucks last year and there is no reason to imagine he won’t continue doing it into the future if given the chance. He just isn’t a very good hockey player. He works hard but lacks the ability to make a positive impact even when he is working that hard. He would make a great AHLer, but lacks the talent to be a successful NHL player. He has had over 600 NHL games so far, which is quite a few more than most players of his talent level. A 33 year old who plays as poorly as he does has no NHL future. He is lucky to be in the NHL at all. I can guarantee that when his contract ends in 2010, he will find himself out of the NHL (barring a big turn around in the upcoming season) and if the Canucks are smart, they will not give him nearly as much ice time next year and hopefully have the depth to send hi to the AHL.
by PuckStopsHere on Aug 10, 2009 7:37 PM PDT up reply actions
Given
That the average NHL career is less than 5 years, I’d say he’s already had his “NHL future”, wouldn’t you say? 8) Players come and go from teams all the time, and declaring a fourth-liner to be at the end of his career is hardly brilliant prognostication.
He works hard but lacks the ability to make a positive impact even when he is working that hard.
The only impact you consider in this is statistical – period. What I’d like is for you to address the players I mentioned, at the times I mentioned: (Courtnall, Yashin, and Tikkanen; heck, toss in Sean Avery with Dallas if you’d like, or Theo Fleury with the Rangers) and tell me what influence you think they had on their teams. Do you think they had a positive or negative impact?
If you were building a team on paper, without actually playing any games, then I agree wholeheartedly that Johnson was a liability. Alas, the game is not played on paper, and the effect players have on their teammates does have bearing on their play.
The criticism you receive isn’t because (or isn’t just because) of the statistics you compile; it’s that you use them in such a limited way. Instead of being another tool to use in assessment of a player, you’re using it as the only means of that assessment, and I think that’s a mistake.
Out of curiosity, who are the best fourth-liners out there, and what do they contribute to their teams?
The only impact you consider in this is statistical – period
This is false. It is a strawman lie you made up.
What I’d like is for you to address the players I mentioned, at the times I mentioned: (Courtnall, Yashin, and Tikkanen; heck, toss in Sean Avery with Dallas if you’d like, or Theo Fleury with the Rangers) and tell me what influence you think they had on their teams. Do you think they had a positive or negative impact?
This is an entirely irrelevant question to Ryan Johnson. Obviously there were off ice problems in each of these cases and there isn’t one with Johnson. His problem is that he isn’t an NHL talent and he has been hurting the team with his play on the ice. The comparison to Avery or somebody like that is totally irrelevant.
If it is intended to show that Johnson is not disruptive asshole to his team, I accept that without question. But a nice guy that teammates like without enough hockey talent has no place in the NHL.
If you were building a team on paper, without actually playing any games, then I agree wholeheartedly that Johnson was a liability. Alas, the game is not played on paper, and the effect players have on their teammates does have bearing on their play.
You are implying that Ryan Johnson is such a nice popular guy that he makes his teammates play better and this effect is important to the Canucks. That is a total bullshit argument.
The criticism you receive isn’t because (or isn’t just because) of the statistics you compile; it’s that you use them in such a limited way. Instead of being another tool to use in assessment of a player, you’re using it as the only means of that assessment, and I think that’s a mistake
This is false. That is not an accurate description of anything I have ever done. It is your strawman.
Out of curiosity, who are the best fourth-liners out there, and what do they contribute to their teams?
I cannot clearly answer this question. It quickly devolves into an argument about who is an isn’t a fourth line player. The best fourth liner is the best player who is miscast as a fourth liner in whatever definition you use as fourth liner.
I can say with certainty, with any logical definition of fourth liner, Ryan Johnson is one of the weaker ones in the league or at least he was last year and there is no reason to believe he will be any better in the future.
That the average NHL career is less than 5 years, I’d say he’s already had his "NHL future", wouldn’t you say? 8) Players come and go from teams all the time, and declaring a fourth-liner to be at the end of his career is hardly brilliant prognostication.
The irony here is that I made an offhand comment that Ryan Johnson has basically played himself out of the NHL with his play last season and you have basically acknowledged it to be correct and hardly a brilliant prognostication and this who attempt to attack me is because i clearly don"t know a fucking thing about Vancopuver to make that statement and yet you acknowledge it to be true and not much of a prediction. I guess you don"t know a fucking thing about Vancouver either (or perhaps the attack by Yankee Canuck is wrong).
Sigh…wrong again PSH. You’ve ignored my criticism twice now. Let’s recap:
The whole reason I bothered linking to you in the first place WAS your offhand comment. I didn’t detract from your analytic work other than to say if YOU are going to suggest he (along with others in his ilk like Madden and Pahlsson) have no right being in the NHL because of their ES Corsi from a single season that’s an extremely limited perspective to maintain. Then if you’re going to actually proclaim Johnson played himself out of the league (again based on one season…and why would you assume he can’t improve his play going into next?), I think that’s terribly misguided.
It suggests you are more interested in either (a) assuming you alone know the true value of a player or (b) propping up the Corsi to be more valuable then any other possible variable, or combination of variables, currently available that could shed more light on the value of a player, the impact he has on his team mates and vice versa, what situations he frequently sees on the ice, etc.
Shit I even admitted you were bolstering your argument by providing his PK Corsi stats and that’s why I suggested if you feel so strongly Johnson has no place in the NHL, then write a post proving it because the ES Corsi, on its own, can’t support your claim. And that was all your wrote in your post at KK.
And regardless of what you, I or anyone else here thinks about the Corsi, the value of a fourth liner, etc, the bottom line is Vancouver has an absolute glut of bottom six guys along with prospects like Hodgson, Grabner and others gunning for a job. If Johnson has no right being in the NHL, why is still around? What hasn’t there been rumor one about the possibility he will lose his job? He can be sent down or bought out just to save some salary (especially true as Vancouver nears the cap ceiling) if not get a better, more NHL-capable player in there. Maybe Gillis will do that, but for now, chances are his role as a fourth line center is safe.
My reaction to your piece was exactly what I quoted. No one is sitting here (not me anyway) saying Johnson is a phenomenal player. If you had said nothing about Johnson short of he had the worst ES Corsi in the league, I would have made a note about that and probably include it in future posts but there would have been no reaction. In short: I made a harsh comment about your harsh comment. That doesn’t make me wrong.
'Nucks Misconduct - Housing Swedish Millionaires Since 2000.
by Yankee Canuck on Aug 12, 2009 8:42 AM PDT up reply actions
Quick glance at the Top 20(or Low 20) shows 8 Stanley Cup champs(multiple times in the case of Draper, Pandolfo and Madden) who positively contributed to teams during Cup runs, plus a few guys who’ve gone deep in the playoffs. Perhaps not all-stars,
but their experience can be useful.
Despite an off-season by the likes of Madden, he’s still worth his weight in gold.
Same goes for ‘Balls’ Johnson.
The criticism you receive isn’t because (or isn’t just because) of the statistics you compile; it’s that you use them in such a limited way. Instead of being another tool to use in assessment of a player, you’re using it as the only means of that assessment, and I think that’s a mistake
This is false. That is not an accurate description of anything I have ever done. It is your strawman.
No, it’s true. You have made the assessment that Johnson has played himself out of the NHL based on Corsi.
My judgement on Ryan Johnson is on watching him play as much as it is from any statistic. He clearly is not the player Madden or Pahlsson is (it is entirely possible to be a useful player with a poor Corsi if you play a tougher role than Johnson does and that said the players who do so (ie Madden, Pahlsson) had better Corsi rates by a significant margin. He might be about the level of Kris Draper the 2009 version (who is a shell of what he once was).
The fact I never found any reason to mention Johnson except for one sentance does not imply that one sentance is the sum total of my reasons for judging him.
It is a bullshit strawan. You want to keep propping it up to put it on me, but it never was true
Help me out here...
The only impact you consider in this is statistical – period
This is false. It is a strawman lie you made up.
Where in your post does it mention – anywhere – what criteria you used to make your judgement other than the Corsi number? From your own writing, the Corsi is your proof of Johnson’s value. If you want to accuse me of lying because you intended something different from what you wrote, there’s not much I can do to stop you, I guess. Perhaps it’s my lack of psychic abilities at fault here.
This is an entirely irrelevant question to Ryan Johnson.
Actually, it’s about how you assess the value of a player to a team. Ignoring their affect on team morale is limited, at best.
You are implying that Ryan Johnson is such a nice popular guy that he makes his teammates play better and this effect is important to the Canucks. That is a total bullshit argument.
Never mind implying, I’m stating outright that a hard working player is a positive influence on his team, and that’s important in every sport. Alexander Daigle has top-flight talent, and didn’t do much with it. He ended up being toxic to his team despite his talent level, not because of it.
I’m sure you’ve heard the phrase “addition through subtraction”, right? Why do you think it was invented?
I can say with certainty, with any logical definition of fourth liner, Ryan Johnson is one of the weaker ones in the league or at least he was last year and there is no reason to believe he will be any better in the future.
Now that’s a better argument: there’s actually somewhere to go with it. That implies the totality of the player, comparing him with others, and you can defend your choice. But it remains your opinion: the way you’re bringing Corsi up is that you think it ends all debate, and there’s nothing left to discuss. Now before you -
This is false. It is a strawman lie you made up.
Sigh. Okay, maybe you’re right. The impression you’ve been leaving is simply one that gets misinterpreted over and over again, and nothing’s wrong with your presentation at all. Or maybe, just maybe, you could try to figure out why you’re being misinterpreted over and over again…
It is a bullshit strawan. You want to keep propping it up to put it on me, but it never was true
Or not.
The irony here is that I made an offhand comment that Ryan Johnson has basically played himself out of the NHL with his play last season and you have basically acknowledged it to be correct and hardly a brilliant prognostication and this who attempt to attack me is because i clearly don"t know a fucking thing about Vancopuver to make that statement and yet you acknowledge it to be true and not much of a prediction. I guess you don"t know a fucking thing about Vancouver either (or perhaps the attack by Yankee Canuck is wrong).
I’m still trying to parse this. Perhaps you can try again?
This whole discussion seems to have started with the premise that all I know about Ryan Johnson was put into my post. There was essentially one sentence on him. That’s it. The post was not on Ryan Johnson. It is about adjusting Corsi rates. It turns out Ryan Johnson comes out the worst in the league, so he needed to get a passing mention. Had I desired to write a post about why Ryan Johnson doesn’t belong in the NHL, obviously more would be written about him than one sentence. When I try to point that out, more than one commenter tells me that all I look at is statistics (which is clearly false).
The falsity in this post and its comments was in the assumption that I know nothing about Vancouver. The assumption that all I know about Ryan Johnson is one sentence. When I provide more information – more information that shows Ryan Johnson is not a good player – commenters want to return to the one sentence.
It is a very reasonable conclusion to imagine that a two goal scoring forward who has poor defensive numbers while being played in defensive situations is playing himself out of the NHL. Because the original post was not on Ryan Johnson, the argument was not presented, in any detail, but it is sound. But you want to continue to attack despite the fact it makes sense because you don’t like the conclusion.
…….annnnnnnd I give up. This is fruitless.
'Nucks Misconduct - Housing Swedish Millionaires Since 2000.
by Yankee Canuck on Aug 13, 2009 4:52 PM PDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Nucks Misconduct
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Nucks Misconduct Store
Your clothing sucks. Go fix it.
