Player Discussion: Erik Gudbranson

[Nomobo]

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?

I don't see it that way and like I said, pairing him with a puck mover like Hutton should benefit his game.


The poster did say he's " a container and hard to score against", he's not a wall of course. I guess he could be better by being "very" hard or "impossible" to score against. If he defends well and is difficult to score against, that's good enough for me. A good 3-4 defenseman.

 

[RobertKron]

I don't see it that way and like I said, pairing him with a puck mover like Hutton should benefit his game.


The poster did say he's " a container and hard to score against", he's not a wall of course. I guess he could be better by being "very" hard or "impossible" to score against. If he defends well and is difficult to score against, that's good enough for me. A good 3-4 defenseman.

That's great, and we don't have to agree on the fine details. I've said he's an alright piece, too, but keep in mind that this discussion started based on the idea that Gudbranson should make roughly Tanev money because he's intimidating. That's the bar that is being set.

So is he roughly as hard to score against as Tanev?

 

[Shareefruck]

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.

Not necessarily. Only in the traditional sense. The only thing that matters about being a defenseman is that you can positively impact the game through whichever means necessary, not treating how good you are at limiting goals when you're in your own zone as being the be all end all.

If, in an extreme hypothetical, Gudbranson is a player who gets hemmed in his own end every time he's out there because he's unable to drive possession in a positive direction, but he's impressive at limiting the conversion rate of that possession in his own end, he would be doing a bad job of being a defenseman, despite satisfying the thing you're pointing to (because his team would be scored on more often than it can score, all else being equal).

The strengths need to outweigh the limitations. I think that's essentially what racerjoe's getting at.

 

[Nomobo]

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.

I think you need to go back and reread some posts. I did say that you have to be able to play in todays NHL. To "play" means to score and or prevent scoring and if a player can have an intimidating effect on the opposition at the same time, that's a good thing. If he isn't hard to score against or a contributor on the score board, he won't last long in the league.

Intimidation is a fact of life, not only in hockey.

 

[Nomobo]

Not necessarily. Only in the traditional sense. The only thing that matters about being a defenseman is that you can positively impact the game through whichever means necessary, not how good you are at limiting goals when you're in your own zone being the be all end all.

If, in an extreme hypothetical, Gudbranson is a player who gets hemmed in his own end every time he's out there because he's unable to drive possession in a positive direction, but he's impressive at limiting the conversion rate of that possession in his own end, he would be doing a bad job of being a defenseman, despite satisfying the thing you're pointing to.

You know what? you're drifting towards leading this debate into the analytics and we're going to have to parts ways there because I really don't use the numbers and don't enjoy number crunching, reminds me too much of work.

 

[bossram]

That's great, and we don't have to agree on the fine details. I've said he's an alright piece, too, but keep in mind that this discussion started based on the idea that Gudbranson should make roughly Tanev money because he's intimidating. That's the bar that is being set.

So is he roughly as hard to score against as Tanev?

No. Far from it. This is what people like me are trying to point out.

 

[Shareefruck]

You know what? you're drifting towards leading this debate into the analytics and we're going to have to parts ways there because I really don't use the numbers and don't enjoy number crunching, reminds me too much of work.

Well, that was his point. My point was that your response to it didn't address what he was saying in any way.

It's not exactly rocket science. It's as simple as:

Stopping most chances in your end = Good
Not being good at getting out of your own end = Bad
Good - Bad = how good of a defenseman you are

I mean sure, if you don't want to think about it, don't. But your line of argument wasn't valid.

 

[Shareefruck]

For no reason, other than because I said it:

 

[ahmon]

First of all I made the post where I believe Gudbranson shouldn't be paid over 4 million, and should be paid less than Tanev who is a superior defender.

But that's not to say intimidation and physical play doesn't have value.

Couple examples:

1. If two dmen are as good at limiting shots at the net. Does it matter the means/style?

For example if Olli Juolevi plays 1 shift against the other teams top line and generates 0 shots for, and 3 shots against.
Gudbranson does the exact same, 0 shots for and 3 shots against.

Are they equal defensively?

What if Olli did it by staying in passing lanes, and using an active stick. While Gudbranson was able to lay a couple more hits and some crosschecks (unpenalized) to the opposition?

Is there not more wear and tear on the opposition? Wouldn't the "style" that Gudbranson plays increase the chance the other team can suffer injuries?

Wouldn't that be advantageous in a 7 game series? Weren't injuries one of the reasons the canucks lost in the finals?

2. Hockey is about momentum. Are there any advanced stats that track momentum shifts in a game, and who was able to create a momentum shift?

It could be a timely timeout, a timely goal, a timely save, a big hit, a fight that lifts the bench etc..

That physical element can be a source of potential momentum shift. But the momentum shift might not be accounted for in "that" player's advanced stats. A positive momentum shift can be a boost to the entire team.

 

[Shareefruck]

First of all I made the post where I believe Gudbranson shouldn't be paid over 4 million, and should be paid less than Tanev who is a superior defender.

But that's not to say intimidation and physical play doesn't have value.

Couple examples:

1. If two dmen are as good at limiting shots at the net. Does it matter the means/style?

For example if Olli Juolevi plays 1 shift against the other teams top line and generates 0 shots for, and 3 shots against.
Gudbranson does the exact same, 0 shots for and 3 shots against.

Are they equal defensively?

What if Olli did it by staying in passing lanes, and using an active stick. While Gudbranson was able to lay a couple more hits and some crosschecks (unpenalized) to the opposition?

Is there not more wear and tear on the opposition? Wouldn't the "style" that Gudbranson plays increase the chance the other team can suffer injuries?

Wouldn't that be advantageous in a 7 game series? Weren't injuries one of the reasons the canucks lost in the finals?

2. Hockey is about momentum. Are there any advanced stats that track momentum shifts in a game, and who was able to create a momentum shift?

It could be a timely timeout, a timely goal, a timely save, a big hit, a fight that lifts the bench etc..

That physical element can be a source of potential momentum shift. But the momentum shift might not be accounted for in "that" player's advanced stats. A positive momentum shift can be a boost to the entire team.

Both are correct.

However, neither example that you just described can be considered "intimidation".

Nobody will argue against the fact that toughness and physicality can have a significant impact on the outcome of a game/series. That much is pretty well objectively undeniable. Every one of us greatly values those attributes. The question is whether or not it is a deterrence mentally, to a degree where it will cause a half-way decent professional player at the NHL level to become less effective than they are physically able to be, out of fear of injury.

 

[F A N]

First of all I made the post where I believe Gudbranson shouldn't be paid over 4 million, and should be paid less than Tanev who is a superior defender.

I think a lot of people miss the fact that Tanev is actually being paid over $5M a year for his UFA years. Demers got a 5 year deal with a cap hit of $4.5M this past summer. Hamhuis' cap hit is a $3.7M and considered a good deal. Gudbranson's qualifying offer alone would be $3.5M. And Benning gave $3.6M AAV to Sbisa. So Gudbranson making over $4M a year for his UFA years isn't that outrageous if he is a top 4 Dman moving forward. In fact, I think anything below Tanev's AAV without a full NTC would be a solid deal (provided Gudbranson meshes well with Hutton of course and proves to be a good top 4 Dman).

 

[Hit the post]

I think a lot of people miss the fact that Tanev is actually being paid over $5M a year for his UFA years. Demers got a 5 year deal with a cap hit of $4.5M this past summer. Hamhuis' cap hit is a $3.7M and considered a good deal. Gudbranson's qualifying offer alone would be $3.5M. And Benning gave $3.6M AAV to Sbisa. So Gudbranson making over $4M a year for his UFA years isn't that outrageous if he is a top 4 Dman moving forward. In fact, I think anything below Tanev's AAV without a full NTC would be a solid deal (provided Gudbranson meshes well with Hutton of course and proves to be a good top 4 Dman).

Hope Tryamkin's agent doesn't expect at least what Sbisa got on his next deal (he'll need to be re-uppd soon).

 

[Roy Baby*]

Both are correct.

However, neither example that you just described can be considered "intimidation".

Nobody will argue against the fact that toughness and physicality can have a significant impact on the outcome of a game/series. That much is pretty well objectively undeniable. Every one of us greatly values those attributes. The question is whether or not it is a deterrence mentally, to a degree where it will cause a half-way decent professional player at the NHL level to become less effective than they are physically able to be, out of fear of injury.

Oh now we're going to haggle over the definitions of a word? :roll eyes: Intimidation, Presence, Physiciality, etc... Who cares. The argument is still the same and valid.

The nay sayers arguing this have once are wrong as per usual against Roy Baby

 

[CanaFan]

Oh now we're going to haggle over the definitions of a word? :roll eyes: Intimidation, Presence, Physiciality, etc... Who cares. The argument is still the same and valid.

The nay sayers arguing this have once are wrong as per usual against Roy Baby

Well you were pretty specific about it being "intimidation"

Those D also don't intimidate the **** out of the opposition....he made Lucic look as soft and non threatening as that Nylander kid

Still floored by the amount of people on here who just don't get "it". Guds will get paid more than 4 mill and will deserve it...Is he "better" than Tanev? No. But Tanev's presence also doesn't make opponents flip the puck in and go for a line change.

I think only people that actually played hockey growing up will understand this though.

Physicality requires actually battling with a player to be effective. You argued that Gudbranson's mere presence alone makes players play soft and flip the puck in so they can go for a line change. It's not haggling, they mean entirely different things.

 

[MS]

Man, I still get nostalgic thinking back about how the biggest, toughest Canuck team ever intimidated their way to the 1998 Stanley Cup. That was awesome.

And watching Milan Lucic quiver in fear on the bench and basically give up on even playing hockey because Eric Gudbranson was dressed for us? Amazing!

 

[Nomobo]

Well you were pretty specific about it being "intimidation"



Physicality requires actually battling with a player to be effective. You argued that Gudbranson's mere presence alone makes players play soft and flip the puck in so they can go for a line change. It's not haggling, they mean entirely different things.

It is haggling in a way because they have the same effect, it's a good thing for us. I don't know why you won't see that.

 

[Nomobo]

Man, I still get nostalgic thinking back about how the biggest, toughest Canuck team ever intimidated their way to the 1998 Stanley Cup. That was awesome.

And watching Milan Lucic quiver in fear on the bench and basically give up on even playing hockey because Eric Gudbranson was dressed for us? Amazing!

Lucic just didn't have the same presence in the corner scrums when Gudbranson was out there. He looked a bit lost as if not sure of what to do.

 

[MS]

[/B]

Lucic just didn't have the same presence in the corner scrums when Gudbranson was out there. He looked a bit lost as if not sure of what to do.

Yeah, give me a break.

Lucic was playing in 3rd gear in a preseason game.

I can't stand the guy but he's been around for a long time and kicked the crap out of tougher guys than Gudbranson (Komisarek for starters) and lives for that ****. The notion that he wanted no part of the corners with Gudbranson in them is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read here.

 

[CanaFan]

It is haggling in a way because they have the same effect, it's a good thing for us. I don't know why you won't see that.

Except the don't have the same effect. Having to physically battle a player means you may lose, take a penalty, suffer injury, etc. It's a positive thing but it isn't the 100% effective "stare at them scary so they skate off the ice" outcome that RB was dreaming up.

I'll gladly agree that Gud's size and strength offer up certain practical advantages for a player, I just don't believe in this mythical intimidation that causes players to not even try.

 

[TacitEndorsement]

[/B]

Lucic just didn't have the same presence in the corner scrums when Gudbranson was out there. He looked a bit lost as if not sure of what to do.

Can't tell if serious.

 

[Nomobo]

Yeah, give me a break.

Lucic was playing in 3rd gear in a preseason game.

I can't stand the guy but he's been around for a long time and kicked the crap out of tougher guys than Gudbranson (Komisarek for starters) and lives for that ****. The notion that he wanted no part of the corners with Gudbranson in them is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read here.

First game in his home town playing with McDavid for a team that has an intense rivalry with the Canucks. I don't think he was in third gear, I saw a lack of confidence, he buckles under pressure, something he's shown at various times in his career.

If he lives for that ****, he sure didn't show that.

 

[lousy]

Everyone seems to be settling into their extreme positions nicely. Sounds just like offseason.

We really need to see more games from him

 

[Nomobo]

Except the don't have the same effect. Having to physically battle a player means you may lose, take a penalty, suffer injury, etc. It's a positive thing but it isn't the 100% effective "stare at them scary so they skate off the ice" outcome that RB was dreaming up.

I'll gladly agree that Gud's size and strength offer up certain practical advantages for a player, I just don't believe in this mythical intimidation that causes players to not even try.

There you go, you said it, it's a positive thing. Who really cares in the terminology used?

Even hockey players have a sense of self preservation, go into the corner with a 20% chance of making a play or an 80% chance of getting mauled. I don't know about you but it would cause me to think it over.
So, I'm not sure if it's mythical.

 

[MS]

First game in his home town playing with McDavid for a team that has an intense rivalry with the Canucks. I don't think he was in third gear, I saw a lack of confidence, he buckles under pressure, something he's shown at various times in his career.

If he lives for that ****, he sure didn't show that.

Give me a break.

He had a crap game but he's a notorious slow starter and doesn't give a rat's ass about physical play in a preseason game. The notion that Gudbranson's mere presence somehow intimidated or confused a 10-year veteran power forward is so laughable it's almost beyond belief.

Thank God we had Andrew Alberts to confuse and intimidate Lucic in the 2011 Finals!

 

[Nomobo]

Give me a break.

He had a crap game but he's a notorious slow starter and doesn't give a rat's ass about physical play in a preseason game. The notion that Gudbranson's mere presence somehow intimidated or confused a 10-year veteran power forward is so laughable it's almost beyond belief.

Thank God we had Andrew Alberts to confuse and intimidate Lucic in the 2011 Finals!

Yeah ok, just conveniently don't respond to my first point I made.

Really sorry I offended your sensibilities.