Player Discussion Brendan Gaunce (Canucks will not extend qualifying offer - Dhaliwal)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Oddleifson

Registered User
Sep 28, 2011
37
24
New Westminster
Not that plus minus means a lot, but the three worst plus minus players on the team are this year's prized free agent acquisitions Gagner, Vanek and Del Zotto, and other players are not close to them.
In relation to players on the same team in a given year... it says everything anyone needs to know.

... about management... and especially the GM.
 

m9

m9
Sponsor
Jan 23, 2010
25,107
15,229
Putting aside the nonsense of congratulating Gaunce for having a better +/- than some other players in one game, I do like Gaunce and Virtanen together. Hope it continues.
 

Megaterio Llamas

el rey del mambo
Oct 29, 2011
11,219
5,929
North Shore
I like the sleek new aerodynamic look with the new wheels.

And I think it's making a difference too..


y9UVGF6.png
 

Fire Benning

diaper filled piss baby
Oct 2, 2016
6,970
8,252
Hell
I like Gaunce. Good underlying numbers, good defensively and on the PK, good in puck battles, good boardwork etc. I'll forever and always be on the side that sees him as a serviceable depth player. He has a very poor shot, hence the fact that he's literally never shot a puck past an NHL goalie, that will be what ultimately prevents him from holding down an NHL gig long term. As Ray Ferraro has said, it's difficult to continue to have players who can't score playing, because the best thing that can happen when they're on the ice is nothing.
 

WTG

December 5th
Jan 11, 2015
23,748
7,685
West Coast
I like Gaunce. Good underlying numbers, good defensively and on the PK, good in puck battles, good boardwork etc. I'll forever and always be on the side that sees him as a serviceable depth player. He has a very poor shot, hence the fact that he's literally never shot a puck past an NHL goalie, that will be what ultimately prevents him from holding down an NHL gig long term. As Ray Ferraro has said, it's difficult to continue to have players who can't score playing, because the best thing that can happen when they're on the ice is nothing.

Funnily enough, when Gaunce is on the ice, we score 33.33 % of the goals scored. That's not good by any stretch, but, Markus Granlund/Sam Ganger are at 32%/25% respectively. That means, that we control more goals for when Gaunce is on the ice for then when Granlund or Ganger is on the ice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Megaterio Llamas

Catamarca Livin

Registered User
Jul 29, 2010
4,908
983
Funnily enough, when Gaunce is on the ice, we score 33.33 % of the goals scored. That's not good by any stretch, but, Markus Granlund/Sam Ganger are at 32%/25% respectively. That means, that we control more goals for when Gaunce is on the ice for then when Granlund or Ganger is on the ice.
33% vs 32% wow. Gaunce is fine for a bad team not convinced he is good enough for good team other than as filler for injuries.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Andre Boudrias

Ryan Miller*

Registered User
Jan 13, 2017
1,079
322
Funnily enough, when Gaunce is on the ice, we score 33.33 % of the goals scored. That's not good by any stretch, but, Markus Granlund/Sam Ganger are at 32%/25% respectively. That means, that we control more goals for when Gaunce is on the ice for then when Granlund or Ganger is on the ice.
For a stats guy, sometimes your posts read like a list of the most common fallacies in Stats 101. You present #s all the time only from a certain angle to fit your preconceived ideas about player quality, which creates a series of distorted pictures. Controlling percentage of GA/GF means nothing without factoring in QOC. Weird that I have to tell you that.
 

nucks88

Registered User
Jan 8, 2012
4,454
2,405
The Left Coast
93 games, 1 accidental goal. Can he make it to 100?

:hockey:

Getting close to one of the statistically worst forwards to ever play in the NHL. His stats are worse than most enforcers from the dead puck era. Incredibly awful!
You would figure at least one would go in off of his ass while he is being so stellar in all other aspects of the game. :laugh:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Megaterio Llamas

WTG

December 5th
Jan 11, 2015
23,748
7,685
West Coast
For a stats guy, sometimes your posts read like a list of the most common fallacies in Stats 101. You present #s all the time only from a certain angle to fit your preconceived ideas about player quality, which creates a series of distorted pictures. Controlling percentage of GA/GF means nothing without factoring in QOC. Weird that I have to tell you that.
When I start off a post with "funnily", don't take it too seriously.

But if you want to take this seriously... here they are, you'll be surprised that the difference ain't much.

gauncbr94
granlma93
 
Last edited:

F A N

Registered User
Aug 12, 2005
18,626
5,890
That Ferraro argument is such an overly simplistic and black and white way of looking at player evaluation, though. You can't just go "This guy is good defensively, but doesn't chip in offensively. You can obtain players who are good defensively but are also able to chip in offensively. Therefore, this guy is a replacement level player." The goal isn't to try to check off as many binary checkboxes as possible. The only thing that should matter is the net outcome from the degree which a player is good defensively vs. bad offensively.

I think Ferraro's argument may be black and white, but I don't think it's overly simplistic. He's expressing his opinion as to how he would build a team. The trend is to roll 4 lines and not use a checking line where offensive production is more of a bonus. You can call it overly simplistic and black and white all you want, the best forward in hockey can't have zero goals. He can't be an under 15 goal under 40 point producer. Traditionally, if you have a player who looks great or even absolutely dominates on the ice but can't seem to score we describe him as not having a finishing touch or simply he can't finish. Maybe even stone hands. If you're in sales, how much does it matter that you are the most knowledgeable, most prepared, and most liked member of the staff when you have the worst sales figures? You're not a good salesman if you can't sell. You're not good offensively if you don't produce offensively.

Suggesting that Gaunce is actually not good enough defensively to overcome zero offense (due to his lack of lateral mobility) is a significantly better argument than suggesting that a player who is effective defensively but has zero offense is doomed to be a nothing player, ignoring all other factors.

Those are fair points, but he is doomed to be a nothing player if Gaunce's offensive potential is perceived as all but gone. It's the harsh reality of the NHL. Young prospects with potential are given more opportunities. By the time Gaunce is 26-28 years old and if he's been putting up less than 3 goals and under 10-12 point seasons, I think you would find that he's out of the NHL. Why wouldn't the Canucks give his spot to say Lockwood and see if he can provide similar defensive play with increased offensive production?

In relation to players on the same team in a given year... it says everything anyone needs to know.

... about management... and especially the GM.

I personally put some weight on plus minus stats, especially for a Dman, but many posters here who are critical of management seem to be think they don't used "advanced stats" enough and I think it's generally accepted that plus minus is not a reliable stat for the advanced stats crowd. So if you're suggesting that Benning doesn't care about the plus minus stat...
 

wonton15

Höglander
Dec 13, 2009
18,140
24,382
He'll get it soon. Green will put him out in an empty net situation and Henrik will pass it to him!
 

Jay Cee

P4G
May 8, 2007
6,151
1,229
Halifax
Funnily enough, when Gaunce is on the ice, we score 33.33 % of the goals scored. That's not good by any stretch, but, Markus Granlund/Sam Ganger are at 32%/25% respectively. That means, that we control more goals for when Gaunce is on the ice for then when Granlund or Ganger is on the ice.

Given how utterly useless he is at creating offense I am guessing his Corsi luck is high?
 
Last edited:

PG Canuck

Registered User
Mar 29, 2010
62,739
23,887
Funnily enough, when Gaunce is on the ice, we score 33.33 % of the goals scored. That's not good by any stretch, but, Markus Granlund/Sam Ganger are at 32%/25% respectively. That means, that we control more goals for when Gaunce is on the ice for then when Granlund or Ganger is on the ice.

And yet Gaunce has one assist.
 

Melvin

21/12/05
Sep 29, 2017
15,198
28,055
Montreal, QC
His production has been disappointing, and his corsi numbers are actually not very good this season.

But has deployment has been Manny Malhotra level.

There is not a player in the NHL with 100+ minute (Gaunce has 200) 5v5 whose O-Zone % is lower than the 15% given to Gaunce. No one is even close.

Brendan Gaunce 15.13
Johan Larsson 23.17
Jay Beagle 24.77
Cal Clutterbuck 25.10
Brandon Sutter 26.32

All of these guys have CF% under 45% and none of these guys are scoring goals. Gaunce has produced the least but also played half as many games.

Still, I am rooting for him to put up some points.
 

Shareefruck

Registered User
Apr 2, 2005
28,875
3,570
Vancouver, BC
I think Ferraro's argument may be black and white, but I don't think it's overly simplistic. He's expressing his opinion as to how he would build a team. The trend is to roll 4 lines and not use a checking line where offensive production is more of a bonus. You can call it overly simplistic and black and white all you want, the best forward in hockey can't have zero goals. He can't be an under 15 goal under 40 point producer. Traditionally, if you have a player who looks great or even absolutely dominates on the ice but can't seem to score we describe him as not having a finishing touch or simply he can't finish. Maybe even stone hands. If you're in sales, how much does it matter that you are the most knowledgeable, most prepared, and most liked member of the staff when you have the worst sales figures? You're not a good salesman if you can't sell. You're not good offensively if you don't produce offensively.



Those are fair points, but he is doomed to be a nothing player if Gaunce's offensive potential is perceived as all but gone. It's the harsh reality of the NHL. Young prospects with potential are given more opportunities. By the time Gaunce is 26-28 years old and if he's been putting up less than 3 goals and under 10-12 point seasons, I think you would find that he's out of the NHL. Why wouldn't the Canucks give his spot to say Lockwood and see if he can provide similar defensive play with increased offensive production?



I personally put some weight on plus minus stats, especially for a Dman, but many posters here who are critical of management seem to be think they don't used "advanced stats" enough and I think it's generally accepted that plus minus is not a reliable stat for the advanced stats crowd. So if you're suggesting that Benning doesn't care about the plus minus stat...
The sales analogy is a terrible one-- The only goal is generating sales, and there is no other way to be effective at it, so of course someone who doesn't generate sales will be useless. Scoring goals is not the only goal nor is it the only way to contribute in hockey. It's an analogy without a genuine comparable for what is being argued in the first place. Yeah, if Gaunce didn't produce and also didn't do anything else that mattered, of course he would be useless. That doesn't tell us anything. Hypothetically, if there were some weird specialization that allowed a salesman to increase the sales of his colleagues, or prevented the competition from making sales, it would be stupid not to value that due to lack of individual sales.

Nobody has argued that Gaunce is good offensively (and this specific argument is assuming that Gaunce hypothetically has zero offense anyways), so I'm not sure why that point was made.

Sure, it's pretty much an impossibility for the best forward in hockey to not be offensively productive (because the best forwards tend to tilt the ice so heavily that they inherently do more than simply break even against the best competition), but what does that have to do with anything? You don't need to be the best foward in hockey to be effective and valuable to a hockey team, and it's pretty much impossible to build a team with four lines of three players who can each individually do that, so I'm not sure why that's relevant. I will grant you that if it were possible to build that team (where even the fourth liners could break even against the opposition's best players while chipping in offensively), then sure, Gaunce would be a pointless asset. But realistically, that's never going to be the case.

The only thing that should matter is what degree a player contributes to a team letting in fewer goals than it scores and against what level of competition. If Gaunce is able to be a top-end defensive forward who barely lets in goals when on the ice against top-end competition, he's inevitably going to be more effective and valuable at helping a team win hockey games than most strong, two-way third or fourth liners who can chip offensively, even if he produces nothing offensively. Even the most stacked teams who win cups don't have three players more effective than that on their fourth line. If you had the opportunity to add a version of Sammy Pahlsson in his prime that produced zero points rather than the 5 goals and 20 points he usually does, you'd be crazy not to welcome the addition.

The only question and reason for skepticism should be whether or not Gaunce can even be that player to begin with. Whether or not he can be good enough defensively to compensate for that lack of offense, or whether or not he can contribute modest enough offense that he wouldn't need to be. There are many posters who have legitimate concerns about his ability to do that (mostly concerns about the mobility/quick reactions/assertiveness that is necessary in a great defensive player), and I think that's a very respectable opinion.

However, this idea that he needs to check off both boxes and meet a baseline standard both offensively and defensively in order to be worthwhile regardless of how strong he is at one or the other is really archaic, silly, and illogical. It's manufacturing a bottom line that doesn't have any reason to exist.
 
Last edited:

Megaterio Llamas

el rey del mambo
Oct 29, 2011
11,219
5,929
North Shore
The sales analogy is a terrible one-- The only goal is generating sales, and there is no other way to be effective at it, so of course someone who doesn't generate sales will be useless. Scoring goals is not the only goal nor is it the only way to contribute in hockey. It's an analogy without a genuine comparable for what is being argued in the first place. Yeah, if Gaunce didn't produce and also didn't do anything else that mattered, of course he would be useless. That doesn't tell us anything. Hypothetically, if there were some weird specialization that allowed a salesman to increase the sales of his colleagues, or prevented the competition from making sales, it would be stupid not to value that due to lack of individual sales.

Nobody has argued that Gaunce is good offensively (and this specific argument is assuming that Gaunce hypothetically has zero offense anyways), so I'm not sure why that point was made.

Sure, it's pretty much an impossibility for the best forward in hockey to not be offensively productive (because the best forwards tend to tilt the ice so heavily that they inherently do more than simply break even against the best competition), but what does that have to do with anything? You don't need to be the best foward in hockey to be effective and valuable to a hockey team, and it's pretty much impossible to build a team with four lines of three players who can each individually do that, so I'm not sure why that's relevant. I will grant you that if it were possible to build that team (where even the fourth liners could break even against the opposition's best players while chipping in offensively), then sure, Gaunce would be a pointless asset. But realistically, that's never going to be the case.

The only thing that should matter is what degree a player contributes to a team letting in fewer goals than it scores and against what level of competition. If Gaunce is able to be a top-end defensive forward who barely lets in goals when on the ice against top-end competition, he's inevitably going to be more effective and valuable at helping a team win hockey games than most strong, two-way third or fourth liners who can chip offensively, even if he produces nothing offensively. Even the most stacked teams who win cups don't have three players more effective than that on their fourth line. If you had the opportunity to add a version of Sammy Pahlsson in his prime that produced zero points rather than the 5 goals and 20 points he usually does, you'd be crazy not to welcome the addition.

The only question and reason for skepticism should be whether or not Gaunce can even be that player to begin with. Whether or not he can be good enough defensively to compensate for that lack of offense, or whether or not he can contribute modest enough offense that he wouldn't need to be. There are many posters who have legitimate concerns about his ability to do that (mostly concerns about the mobility/quick reactions/assertiveness that is necessary in a great defensive player), and I think that's a very respectable opinion.

However, this idea that he needs to check off both boxes and meet a baseline standard both offensively and defensively in order to be worthwhile regardless of how strong he is at one or the other is really archaic, silly, and illogical. It's manufacturing a bottom line that doesn't have any reason to exist.



:thumbu:
 

F A N

Registered User
Aug 12, 2005
18,626
5,890
The sales analogy is a terrible one-- The only goal is generating sales, and there is no other way to be effective at it, so of course someone who doesn't generate sales will be useless. Scoring goals is not the only goal nor is it the only way to contribute in hockey. It's an analogy without a genuine comparable for what is being argued in the first place. Yeah, if Gaunce didn't produce and also didn't do anything else that mattered, of course he would be useless. That doesn't tell us anything. Hypothetically, if there were some weird specialization that allowed a salesman to increase the sales of his colleagues, or prevented the competition from making sales, it would be stupid not to value that due to lack of individual sales.

That depends on your viewpoint and how you want to twist things. Those Best Buy employees on the floor aren't commission based but I'm pretty sure they are evaluated based on their sales (especially sales of extended warranties).

Nobody has argued that Gaunce is good offensively

You didn't read say MS' argument about how if he was given Sutter's minutes he would be a 20+ goal scorer?

Sure, it's pretty much an impossibility for the best forward in hockey to not be offensively productive (because the best forwards tend to tilt the ice so heavily that they inherently do more than simply break even against the best competition), but what does that have to do with anything? You don't need to be the best foward in hockey to be effective and valuable to a hockey team, and it's pretty much impossible to build a team with four lines of three players who can each individually do that, so I'm not sure why that's relevant. I will grant you that if it were possible to build that team (where even the fourth liners could break even against the opposition's best players while chipping in offensively), then sure, Gaunce would be a pointless asset. But realistically, that's never going to be the case.

Your reasons for it being impossible for the best forwards in hockey not to be among the most offensive productive is confusing. The point is that at the end of the day, it's the results that truly matter. The point is that teams these days are looking to roll 4 lines without a line that doesn't need to contribute offensively. Teams will put a Sam Gagner on the 4th line rather than a guy who is much better defensively but who has 1 goal and 7 points in over 90 games.

The only thing that should matter is what degree a player contributes to a team letting in fewer goals than it scores and against what level of competition. If Gaunce is able to be a top-end defensive forward who barely lets in goals when on the ice against top-end competition, he's inevitably going to be more effective and valuable at helping a team win hockey games than most strong, two-way third or fourth liners who can chip offensively, even if he produces nothing offensively.

I think Jack Skille was slightly better than Gaunce in not letting in goals when he is on the ice last season and they faced around the same level of competition. Skille also contributed more offensively than Gaunce. Are you suggesting Skille was more valuable than Gaunce?

Even the most stacked teams who win cups don't have three players more effective than that on their fourth line. If you had the opportunity to add a version of Sammy Pahlsson in his prime that produced zero points rather than the 5 goals and 20 points he usually does, you'd be crazy not to welcome the addition.

Pahlsson has 10 goals 29 points in 86 playoff games. In today's NHL, Pahlsson likely won't be a 3rd line C in the regular season.

The only question and reason for skepticism should be whether or not Gaunce can even be that player to begin with. Whether or not he can be good enough defensively to compensate for that lack of offense, or whether or not he can contribute modest enough offense that he wouldn't need to be. There are many posters who have legitimate concerns about his ability to do that (mostly concerns about the mobility/quick reactions/assertiveness that is necessary in a great defensive player), and I think that's a very respectable opinion.

However, this idea that he needs to check off both boxes and meet a baseline standard both offensively and defensively in order to be worthwhile regardless of how strong he is at one or the other is really archaic, silly, and illogical. It's manufacturing a bottom line that doesn't have any reason to exist.

I think you're just taking Ferraro's somewhat generalized comment and running with it. I'm pretty sure he is of the opinion that you can't be a defensive liability and play in the NHL but he would make the exception for an Art Ross trophy winner. If Gaunce is so dominant defensively that he is the toughest matchup for the likes of Crosby and McDavid, I'm sure Ferraro would make the exception. But Gaunce is not.

It's extremely hard for a forward's defensive game to be so good to compensate for 0 goals and under 10 points. There is simply no player that has managed to stay in the NHL for long with Gaunce's type of production. Like I said, once Gaunce's offensive potential is considered to be the equivalent of the numbers he has been putting up he will likely find himself out of the NHL.
 

me2

Go ahead foot
Jun 28, 2002
37,903
5,595
Make my day.
93 games, 1 accidental goal. Can he make it to 100?

:hockey:

Getting close to one of the statistically worst forwards to ever play in the NHL. His stats are worse than most enforcers from the dead puck era. Incredibly awful!
looks like Derek Dorsett's playoffs stats. Only with the goal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->