Player Discussion The Bad Granlund Phenomenon Part 4 (mod warning post #393)

[y2kcanucks]

That line has been an outstanding shutdown line this year while being buried in tough minutes, and if you aren't realizing that you either aren't watching the games, don't understand what you're watching, or are in complete denial.

I don't particularly like any of those three players, especially Sutter. And we'll see if they keep it up. But they've been very good.

And using raw corsi numbers to judge players is really, really dumb.

They have also been quite lucky in terms of PDO, I wouldn't expect this to last.

 

[MS]

They have also been quite lucky in terms of PDO, I wouldn't expect this to last.

Absolutely they have.

But I'm not talking about their GF/GA results (which have been exceptional for how they've been used), I'm talking about their actual play. They've been very effective and playing like this would have still been effective even if a couple more goals had flown in.

Dorsett in particular I don't think can maintain this level of play. But right now they're doing very, very well.

 

[y2kcanucks]

Absolutely they have.

But I'm not talking about their GF/GA results (which have been exceptional for how they've been used), I'm talking about their actual play. They've been very effective and playing like this would have still been effective even if a couple more goals had flown in.

Dorsett in particular I don't think can maintain this level of play. But right now they're doing very, very well.

I still would expect a better than 22 point/82 game pace for someone who leads this forward group in ice-time. Shutdown role or not. It's not as if their deployment has been extreme like how we deployed Malhotra.

All the talk about Granlund from last season was about how he was a 2nd/3rd line tweener and how he's a lock to score 20 goals and 45+ points. I'm not seeing it.

 

[Tim Calhoun]

Dorsett in particular I don't think can maintain this level of play. But right now they're doing very, very well

Eventually, it would be interesting to see Dorsett taken off that line and put Gaunce in between Granlund and Sutter (as a RW).

 

[sting101]

I still would expect a better than 22 point/82 game pace for someone who leads this forward group in ice-time. Shutdown role or not. It's not as if their deployment has been extreme like how we deployed Malhotra.

All the talk about Granlund from last season was about how he was a 2nd/3rd line tweener and how he's a lock to score 20 goals and 45+ points. I'm not seeing it.

Actually all the talk was about him being a replacement level player?

Looks more like an integral part of the team to me

 

[elwin316]

I still would expect a better than 22 point/82 game pace for someone who leads this forward group in ice-time. Shutdown role or not. It's not as if their deployment has been extreme like how we deployed Malhotra.

All the talk about Granlund from last season was about how he was a 2nd/3rd line tweener and how he's a lock to score 20 goals and 45+ points. I'm not seeing it.

He makes $900K a year! Unless you are saying he's not even an NHL player, there isn't much of an argument to make.

However, it is worth noting that he does make more than Shinkaruk's $70K AHL salary.

 

[y2kcanucks]

He makes $900K a year! Unless you are saying he's not even an NHL player, there isn't much of an argument to make.

However, it is worth noting that he does make more than Shinkaruk's $70K AHL salary.

Red herring.

What he makes has zero to do with this discussion. I'm talking about his offensive production relative to his ice-time, as well as relative to the expectations that a lot of pro-Granlund people were hyping over the summer.

 

[TruGr1t]

I would never have imagined Granlund turning into a shut-down winger, but good for him. He'll definitely have a good NHL career with that skill set.

 

[elwin316]

Red herring.

What he makes has zero to do with this discussion. I'm talking about his offensive production relative to his ice-time, as well as relative to the expectations that a lot of pro-Granlund people were hyping over the summer.

Yea it's not 2005 so salary is 100% relevant to every player discussion. If anything the red herring is your comment about summer hype.

 

[NoShowWilly]

Red herring.

What he makes has zero to do with this discussion. I'm talking about his offensive production relative to his ice-time, as well as relative to the expectations that a lot of pro-Granlund people were hyping over the summer.

People may or may not have overhyped him but he is playing on a key matchup line with two guys who don't set up anything through passing. That isn't easy.

He isn't choosing to play that many minutes. That's up to the coach. As of right now he isn't a negative in those minutes.

He is an everyday NHL player. There is a point where it just isn't worth arguing about anymore.

 

[VanJack]

One of the best players on the ice in last night's game.....but all the 'haters' will still find something wrong with his game.

 

[Motte and Bailey]

There are no 'haters' left just a single stubborn jabroni because Granlund is dope

 

[krutovsdonut]

Red herring.

What he makes has zero to do with this discussion. I'm talking about his offensive production relative to his ice-time, as well as relative to the expectations that a lot of pro-Granlund people were hyping over the summer.

"salary cap is always relevant"

who said that a million times? oh, wait.

 

[tyhee]

Red herring.

What he makes has zero to do with this discussion. I'm talking about his offensive production relative to his ice-time, as well as relative to the expectations that a lot of pro-Granlund people were hyping over the summer.

There's no question his offensive production is low relative to his ice time.

This is also a point the media raise with respect to the line of Granlund-Sutter-Dorsett.

From my point of view, as long as these guys can keep playing other teams' best lines to a near standstill, I'm satisfied to see them out there against those lines, even though it means they play more than players who have more offensive (and probably overall) ability.

 

[LeftCoast]

There's no question his offensive production is low relative to his ice time.

This is also a point the media raise with respect to the line of Granlund-Sutter-Dorsett.

From my point of view, as long as these guys can keep playing other teams' best lines to a near standstill, I'm satisfied to see them out there against those lines, even though it means they play more than players who have more offensive (and probably overall) ability.

Just don't bother. In one thread, he argues that Corsi is the everything, in the next it's - his Qot is too high (playing with Dorsett and Sutter whom he says are rubbish in other threads) and QoC is low (while matching up against the top lines in the league). When his Corsi is good (team leading) - its his G/60 and P/60 that are the problem. In another thread he argue that you always have to consider salary cap. He just cherry picks analytics to support the same conclusion no matter what.

It's been said that statistics are like a lamp post - you can use them for support OR illumination. Or just watch the game.

Yes, many people suggested that, if he were healthy and deployed in offensive situations he could easily improve on his production from last year. But he is being deployed in a shut down checking role. His line has been matched against McDavid/Draisaitl, Eichel/Kane, Laine/Ehlers and Scheifele/Wheeler, Ovechkin/Kuznetsov, Seguin/Benn, etc. and come out on top of the match ups. So given that, is it really that difficult to understand why his offensive production is off?

If Granlund scored 5 goals next game there are 2 things you could count on. 1) Safeway would cancel the Score and Win contest and 2) Pauser/Y2K would say his shooting percentage is unsustainable.

 

[RobertKron]

If Granlund scored 5 goals next game there are 2 things you could count on. 1) Safeway would cancel the Score and Win contest and 2) Pauser/Y2K would say his shooting percentage is unsustainable.

Are you trying to say that he’d be incorrect?

 

[LeftCoast]

Are you trying to say that he’d be incorrect?

No - if Granlund walked on water Pauser would say it's because he can't swim.

 

[Pavel96]

One of the best players on the ice in last night's game.....but all the 'haters' will still find something wrong with his game.

Guddy was better.

 

[y2kcanucks]

The Canucks rank 25th in the NHL in goals per game, but sure, I guess there’s no problem with the guy who leads our forwards in ice-time at even strength having 3 points in 12 games. A pathetic 20 point pace over 82 games, but hey, if it weren’t for the big bad goalies stopping the puck he would have more points so maybe we should cut him a break.

I TOLD YOU SO!

 

[mossey3535]

I don't think he's any better or worse than last year.

All his points are on Dorsett goals or assisted by Dorsett who is producing unsustainable offence. Let that sink in for a bit.

I don't think it's a foregone conclusion he would break last year's point totals, because it would take the same untenable usage he had last year as well.

 

[Shareefruck]

It's all about the process for me. He played poor hockey last year. He's playing good hockey this year (easily passes the eye test, too) and that bodes well for his progression as a hockey player, regardless of whether or not he's producing the way he should be after only a dozen games. I can't see a reason to nitpick over that, especially when playing high shutdown minutes effectively.

I don't expect Sutter or Dorsett to keep this up, though, personally.

 

[Verviticus]

Absolutely they have.

But I'm not talking about their GF/GA results (which have been exceptional for how they've been used), I'm talking about their actual play. They've been very effective and playing like this would have still been effective even if a couple more goals had flown in.

Dorsett in particular I don't think can maintain this level of play. But right now they're doing very, very well.

thats all that matters though. i dont give a f*** if for 15 games they're the three best hockey players in the history of the game. i want to know that they'll be good from 16-whenever we dont need them anymore. we know that they won't be

 

[bossram]

Absolutely they have.

But I'm not talking about their GF/GA results (which have been exceptional for how they've been used), I'm talking about their actual play. They've been very effective and playing like this would have still been effective even if a couple more goals had flown in.

Dorsett in particular I don't think can maintain this level of play. But right now they're doing very, very well.

I would agree. I am the last person who would admit to being a fan of any of Dorsett/Sutter/Granlund, or even say they were good acquisitions. But as a line thus far, even goals aside, they have been very effective. Coming out positive in terms of shot attempts and expected goals in tough deployment is an accomplishment. If you can get a saw-off from a bottom-six line matched up against an opposition top-six line, you're doing pretty good.

 

[bossram]

thats all that matters though. i dont give a **** if for 15 games they're the three best hockey players in the history of the game. i want to know that they'll be good from 16-whenever we dont need them anymore. we know that they won't be

Eyy Verv, I think you'd know I'm definitely not a pro Dorsett/Sutter/Granlund guy. But credit where it's due. They've been effective. And the underlying metrics support that as well. Will they keep it up? I don't really think so, but we'll need to see a little more to make a statement either way.

Granlund/Sutter was actually a decent combo by shot metrics last season, so this might not be a fluke.

 

[Verviticus]

Eyy Verv, I think you'd know I'm definitely not a pro Dorsett/Sutter/Granlund guy. But credit where it's due. They've been effective. And the underlying metrics support that as well. Will they keep it up? I don't really think so, but we'll need to see a little more to make a statement either way.

Granlund/Sutter was actually a decent combo by shot metrics last season, so this might not be a fluke.

i guess "we know" is too strong. i predict that they wont keep being effective through the year. that said, you're correct on all counts