Player Discussion: Erik Gudbranson

[Nomobo]

But having that mentality limits your chances of even getting to the NHL. It gets weeded out by the intense selection pressures of hundreds of thousands of people vying for 600 or so jobs.

It's doesn't get weeded out completely. The ones doing the intimidation face the same selection pressures. It is still a part of the game, not like it was in the seventies of course, the game has evolved for the better.

 

[Hit the post]

Meh, I just don't buy the conspiracy stuff.

Sorry I can't read your post very well, the tin foil hat I'm wearing covers part of my eyes.

 

[Shareefruck]

Spot on. The few players who it legitimately would impact are likely marginal players anyway since most teams have a guy or two who they would be intimidated by. Those guys aren't the ones who'll hurt you anyway. The stars battle through that stuff and usually draw their share of PP's from it. It's why a Chris Tanev can be so damn effective despite having the intimidation of a caterpillar.

Essentially, I would argue that having an intimidating figure may have its benefits throughout the rigors of a an 82 game regular season against numerous mediocre teams with questionable rosters.

But if you're in a competitive Stanley Cup playoff series against any sort of team worth their salt, the amount that having an intimidating figure on the team is going help is probably close to nil, regardless of the size of the players on it.

 

[Nomobo]

Sorry I can't read your post very well, the tin foil hat I'm wearing covers part of my eyes.

Sorry, I don't buy that excuse either.

 

[Nomobo]

Essentially, I would argue that having an intimidating figure may have its benefits throughout the rigors of a an 82 game regular season against numerous mediocre teams with questionable rosters.

But if you're in a competitive Stanley Cup playoff series against any sort of team worth their salt, the amount that having an intimidating figure on the team is going help is probably close to nil, regardless of the size of the players on it.

So ultimately, it amounts to being about as useful as having a guy who's a shootout specialist or a 3-on-3 specialist. Maybe that's worth it for the points in the standings alone, but it's not going to help you contend for a cup run.

I agree it's less of a factor in the playoffs but during the grind to get there, especially the last six weeks of the season when the intensity ramps up, intimidation can be a very effective tactic.

 

[Shareefruck]

I agree it's less of a factor in the playoffs but during the grind to get there, especially the last six weeks of the season when the intensity ramps up, intimidation can be a very effective tactic.

I can get onboard with that. But personally, I don't want the GM to build a team that has an advantage making the playoffs but loses that advantage going into the playoffs. That's a recipe for poor playoff success + mediocre draft picks = endless mediocrity, which we've seen more than enough of.

It's a fine approach to begin taking that into consideration as a tiebreaker attribute, all else being equal, but it's moronic to go out of your way to seek that attribute, IMO.

You're not in any way shape or form making your team harder to play against in the playoffs, which is really what it all comes down to and what we should be arguing based on, isn't it?

 

[Nomobo]

I can get onboard with that. But personally, I don't want the GM to build a team that has an advantage making the playoffs but loses that advantage going into the playoffs. That's a recipe for poor playoff success + mediocre draft picks = endless mediocrity, which we've seen more than enough of.

It's a fine approach to begin taking that into consideration as a tiebreaker attribute, all else being equal, but it's moronic to go out of your way to seek that attribute, IMO.

You're not in any way shape or form making your team harder to play against in the playoffs, which is really what it all comes down to and what we should be arguing based on, isn't it?

I was discussing the intimidation factor in the NHL. I don't want to talk about Benning, that dead pony has been ****** over enough, in my mind anyway. Brings out the extremes on both sides.

 

[Shareefruck]

I was discussing the intimidation factor in the NHL. I don't want to talk about Benning, that dead pony has been ****** over enough, in my mind anyway. Brings out the extremes on both sides.

I mean, sure, it's on my mind because of Benning, but I'm really just talking about the general approach of targeting intimidating players in general. It's a very misguided approach. It seems to be perceived as something that might not help you in the regular season but will be a HUGE boost in the playoffs. In reality, it's the other way around. It might help you in the regular season where some non-NHL caliber players are in the lineup and teams may have huge holes that will prevent them from being legitimate threats. It's completely useless when the stakes are high in a playoff environment against a competent team.

Using beer league tactics against vetted professionals on the largest stage is an embarassingly dumb losing strategy.

 

[CanaFan]

It's doesn't get weeded out completely. The ones doing the intimidation face the same selection pressures. It is still a part of the game, not like it was in the seventies of course, the game has evolved for the better.

Not really. If they can play, they succeed. If they can't play then all the "intimidation" doesn't earn them a job. The John Scott's of the world are pretty much gone. You gotta play to stay.

 

[Nomobo]

I mean, sure, it's on my mind because of Benning, but I'm really just talking about the general approach of targeting intimidating players in general. It's a very misguided approach. It seems to be perceived as something that might not help you in the regular season but will be a HUGE boost in the playoffs. In reality, it's the other way around. It might help you in the regular season where some non-NHL caliber players are in the lineup and teams may have huge holes that will prevent them from being legitimate threats. It's completely useless when the stakes are high in a playoff environment.

Using beer league tactics against professionals is a laughably dumb losing strategy.

I prefer hitting and fighting over stick work myself, both are intimidating but hitting and fighting have more entertainment value to me. Your gonna have one, that's just the reality.

 

[Shareefruck]

I prefer hitting and fighting over stick work myself, both are intimidating but hitting and fighting have more entertainment value to me. Your gonna have one, that's just the reality.

I'm not sure what this has to do with what I said.

 

[Nomobo]

Not really. If they can play, they succeed. If they can't play then all the "intimidation" doesn't earn them a job. The John Scott's of the world are pretty much gone. You gotta play to stay.

I said a page or so ago that designated fighters are becoming extinct. You can play and intimidate too, it can take different forms.

 

[Shareefruck]

I said a page or so ago that designated fighters are becoming extinct. You can play and intimidate too, it can take different forms.

But his point was that they don't face the same selection pressures like you suggested, not that the two things can't co-exist.

 

[Nomobo]

I'm not sure what this has to do with what I said.

Sorry. I misinterpreted how you used "targeting" in your post. I thought you meant strive to get intimidation out of the game. Gotta slow down a bit, I'm picking up the bad habit of skimming over posts rather than read them.

I'll try to reply again.

 

[bossram]

The term tough can have multiple meanings. I'm not going to speak for the poster you're quoting, but I would say having a defensemen that can use their size and "toughness" to clear the crease and allow goaltenders to see screened shots is very valuable.

Obviously the "tough" defensemen should be able to do more than that to be an effective top 4 defensemen and I believe Gudbranson does show the skills to do that. He is a pain in the ass in the corners, clears the crease very well, has an active stick, and has really good defensive awareness. Could definitely work on his quickness and offensive zone game though

Though I am a lazy piece of **** and didn't read the whole conversation, so I could've missed your point entirely as well.

No you pretty much got it. I don't dispute that "tough" defensemen can be effective through whatever repertoire they have. The key word is effective though. Not being tough. There's no point to being a "tough" player if the end results aren't good anyway.

 

[Shareefruck]

Sorry. I misinterpreted how you used "targeting" in your post. I thought you meant strive to get intimidation out of the game. Gotta slow down a bit, I'm picking up the bad habit of skimming over posts rather than read them.

I'll try to reply again.

Oh. By targetting, I meant, "going out of your way to focus on trying to obtain"

 

[Nomobo]

But his point was that they don't face the same selection pressures like you suggested, not that the two things can't co-exist.

Sure they do. To be able to play and contribute while being intimidating bring just as much pressure. Lots of players try the game that way but very few succeed. You have to be able to play the game these days and if you can intimidate and stay out of the penalty box, that's goes in your tool box.
As long as we have contact hockey, intimidation will be part of it, in one form or another.

 

[Nomobo]

Oh. By targetting, I meant, "going out of your way to focus on trying to obtain"

I get it.

 

[racerjoe]

No you pretty much got it. I don't dispute that "tough" defensemen can be effective through whatever repertoire they have. The key word is effective though. Not being tough. There's no point to being a "tough" player if the end results aren't good anyway.

This pretty much.

I don't get how this conversation has continued for so long. The bottom line is it is a results business. IF he does intimidate, it needs to benefit his game positively, and thus the team. You need to see a positive results. so for his advance stats haven't shown much. I still think he is a fine 4-5 dman.

He is a container defensively it means it's hard to score against him, but he doesn't break up plays early and it will often create prolonged pressure against. Thus the poor advanced stats. Where this can be a problem is the wear and tare it puts on him and his linemantes, and it can create more mistakes.

 

[RobertKron]

This pretty much.

I don't get how this conversation has continued for so long. The bottom line is it is a results business. IF he does intimidate, it needs to benefit his game positively, and thus the team. You need to see a positive results. so for his advance stats haven't shown much. I still think he is a fine 4-5 dman.

He is a container defensively it means it's hard to score against him, but he doesn't break up plays early and it will often create prolonged pressure against. Thus the poor advanced stats. Where this can be a problem is the wear and tare it puts on him and his linemantes, and it can create more mistakes.

Basically, yeah. Personally, I'd rather emphasize guys who stop zone entries and effectively move play in your favour, rather than guys who are leaned towards making life tough once the opposition has gained the zone. That doesn't mean there can't, or even shouldn't be room for those types of guys on a team, though, as long as they're effective players overall.

Overall, I tend to think Gudbranson is a decent piece, but I think he cost too much to obtain - especially since I don't see him as a guy who will be likely to outplay the contract he gets going forward. That can still be fine, assuming you're getting good value on your other trades and contracts. As long as you're still getting useful pieces, you don't have to win every trade or signing. If you aren't coming out ahead on the majority of them, though, you'll quickly end up in trouble.

 

[Nomobo]

This pretty much.

I don't get how this conversation has continued for so long. The bottom line is it is a results business. IF he does intimidate, it needs to benefit his game positively, and thus the team. You need to see a positive results. so for his advance stats haven't shown much. I still think he is a fine 4-5 dman.

He is a container defensively it means it's hard to score against him, but he doesn't break up plays early and it will often create prolonged pressure against. Thus the poor advanced stats. Where this can be a problem is the wear and tare it puts on him and his linemantes, and it can create more mistakes.

That's a pretty big part of being a defenseman, isn't it? Is that the positive result you're looking for?

Part of the reason he's hard to score against is that he's intimidating.

Pairing him with Hutton will make him more effective I think, Hutton will have to move the puck when things hectic.

 

[RobertKron]

That's a pretty big part of being a defenseman, isn't it? Is that the positive result you're looking for?

Part of the reason he's hard to score against is that he's intimidating.

Not to speak for OP, but I think that they meant hard as in "physically taxing."

I think that the question is, hypothetically, if he still gets scored on more than a less-physical player, how is that somehow better?

 

[bossram]

This pretty much.

I don't get how this conversation has continued for so long. The bottom line is it is a results business. IF he does intimidate, it needs to benefit his game positively, and thus the team. You need to see a positive results. so for his advance stats haven't shown much. I still think he is a fine 4-5 dman.

He is a container defensively it means it's hard to score against him, but he doesn't break up plays early and it will often create prolonged pressure against. Thus the poor advanced stats. Where this can be a problem is the wear and tare it puts on him and his linemantes, and it can create more mistakes.

People keep telling me he brings a "missing element" to the team worth more than whatever actual on-ice value he has. What people should care about is if he helps the team. Not how he does it. Tanev couldn't intimidate a kitten yet he is our most effective defenseman.

He has clear limitations and needs a good puck-mover and transition player to be effective. We'll have to hope Hutton can be that. I agree it'd be more ideal to have Gud in a less critical role, more of a #5, rather than a #3/4 who is paired with a sophomore we're relying equally as crucially.

I'd like to believe he's a container-type defenseman, but from what data I could parse that doesn't really look like it. His corsi and fenwick rates are mid-pack for Florida defenders (so not terrible), yet his scoring chance and xGF rates are bottom of the heap. So he's actually losing out on the metrics you think he would excel, where he could contain "quality shots". Further, what drives his %s aren't his shot attempt against rates, but his shot rates for. He's last in relative shot attempts against among Florida defenders, much higher in individual shot attempts for. So he drives his own corsi with his own shot attempts. But unlike someone like Ekblad, he doesn't create a lot of individual scoring chances.

So we're getting a pretty cloudy picture here of someone who probably isn't great defensively but tries to make up for it in the offensive end (to not great effect).

 

[bossram]

That's a pretty big part of being a defenseman, isn't it? Is that the positive result you're looking for?

Part of the reason he's hard to score against is that he's intimidating.

Pairing him with Hutton will make him more effective I think, Hutton will have to move the puck when things hectic.

What if he isn't hard to score on? Then what's the point of being intimidating?

I find a lot of people mixing end/means. I don't care how a player drives goal differentials. It's the actual coming out with positive results that matter.

 

[Shareefruck]

Sure they do. To be able to play and contribute while being intimidating bring just as much pressure. Lots of players try the game that way but very few succeed. You have to be able to play the game these days and if you can intimidate and stay out of the penalty box, that's goes in your tool box.
As long as we have contact hockey, intimidation will be part of it, in one form or another.

For argument's sake, even going along with what you're describing, it still wouldn't come close to being an equivalently rigorous and tested selection process. In the scenario you're describing, being intimidating is merely having a feather in your cap, a nice to have that may come in handy, not a fundamental qualifying prerequisite like being able to handle physicality without being intimidated is, or if you could win a competition for a job predominantly by being intimidating.

If it's useful, how useful remains to be seen.