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

[Shareefruck]

Are we even talking about the same thing? I think you are confused. If Gaunce is playing 10 minutes a game mostly on the wing next season and putting up less than 20 points, he's not an elite 3rd line C. If Gaunce putting up 12+ goals 22+ points on the 4th line means he needs a bump up in minutes and he gets those minutes his value to this team has increased IMO. A good 4th line player that you would sign long term at $2M-3M AAV shouldn't average 10 minutes a game on your 4th line. Somehow, there seems to be posters here who think all it matters are the averages like if you give Gaunce Sutter's minutes he will score 20+ goals. It doesn't work that way.

I'm definitely confused about how the continued discussion of the second paragraph related to what we're actually talking about.

I didn't say that putting up less than 20 points makes him an elite 3rd line C. I said that putting up 12+ goals and 22+ points from a limited 4th line role (which isn't going to get significantly more than 10-13 minutes) with the kind of defensive ability he has would put him in that ballpark. Giving any random player Sutter minutes may not bump a player up to a 20 goalscorer, but a jump from 4th line minutes/linemates to 3rd minutes/linemates will typically bump a player up by at least around five points. Totals aren't just going to stay the same regardless of deployment.

And apparently, as MS mentioned earlier, Gaunce himself saw this bump in production with an increase in icetime, although that's not something I was aware of until now or can confirm.

Oh, and Gaunce was 4-1-5 in 11 games where he played over 15 minutes last year, for the record. When he was given icetime, he scored.

Edit: I would also make a clear distinction between what "high end" means and what "elite" means. When I say "high end", I just mean one of the better ones, not a Selke-level 3rd liner.

 

[Melvin]

I'm definitely confused about how the continued discussion of the second paragraph related to what we're actually talking about.

I didn't say that putting up less than 20 points makes him an elite 3rd line C. I said that putting up 12+ goals and 22+ points from a limited 4th line role (which isn't going to get significantly more than 10-13 minutes) with the kind of defensive ability he has would put him in that ballpark. Giving any random player Sutter minutes may not bump a player up to a 20 goalscorer, but a jump from 4th line minutes/linemates to 3rd minutes/linemates will typically bump a player up by at least around five points. Totals aren't just going to stay the same regardless of deployment.

And apparently, as MS mentioned earlier, Gaunce himself saw this bump in production with an increase in icetime, although that's not something I was aware of until now or can confirm.

It's true.

Put another way, Brandon Sutter scored zero goals and had 2 assists in the 17 games where he played fewer than 16 minutes. However he scored 11 points in the 14 games he played 19+ minutes.

It shouldn't need to be explained that there is a correlation between playing more and scoring more but we apparently need to go over this ad nauseam.

Cue DL44 to dismiss this as "advanced analytics."

 

[Shareefruck]

Essentially, my argument is that

1) someone who plays on the fourth line who scores 12+ goals and 22+ points with 10 minutes of icetime and grind-y journey-men line mates would likely score 14+ goals and 27+ points on the third line with 15 minutes and moderately offensively capable two-way line mates (and that's a pretty conservative reading).

and 2) that someone who plays on the third line who scores 14+ goals and 27+ points while suppressing shots/scoring chances at the rate that Gaunce does is in the ballpark of an above average to high end 3rd liner.

In an extremely limited sample, Gaunce himself jumped from a 7 point pace with 9 minutes of icetime to a 13 point pace with 13 minutes of icetime, and as mentioned, was on a 37 point pace (which I personally wouldn't expect with a larger sample) when he was given 15+ minutes. Admittedly, you could argue that this is explained by playing better and being rewarded with more icetime (although really, a lot of it was injury based and a result of circumstance), but you'd be a fool to think that this alone paints the full picture.

What I can concede to is that there might be an argument about whether or not he can sustain the defensive ability that he's shown with increased/tougher minutes over an 82 game season and whether or not that's a fair assumption to make (afterall, his lack of footspeed may still turn out to be an issue if he regularly gets used as a shutdown forward matched up against elite offensive players), but this other argument about what are overly impressive numbers being the standard for what makes a solid 4th liner worth hanging onto for cheap, I don't see any validity in and find completely ridiculous.

 

[sting101]

Brendan Gaunce was not very good on the PK. 17/18

8 top by usage - GA/60 - CA/60

1 SUTTER --------8.03-----91.56
2 GRANLUND----8.11-----101.57
3 ERIKSSON------7.88-----87.23
4 HORVAT--------6.12-----91.13
5 ARCHIBALD----7.22-----91.48
6 GAUNCE--------8.89 (Dead last)---95.97 (2nd last to Granlund)
7 DOWD----------8.51-----95.46
8 DORSETT-------8.05----83.96

So still waiting to have someone explain to me where i am completely wrong that Gaunce is not the hardest to play against, not a quality 3rd liner unless your making a prediction and where i am completely off base in my claims of him as a player without directing insults to my intelligence and understanding of the game of hockey.

2 posts without using draft position any sidetrack comparisons and almost no mentioning of his production other than a blip about his lack of production making him easier for opposition teams to deploy 3rd pair defense when he is on the ice which i can support with data if you dont believe me and would further support the fallacy that he is tough to play against.

 

[DL44]

It's true.

Put another way, Brandon Sutter scored zero goals and had 2 assists in the 17 games where he played fewer than 16 minutes. However he scored 11 points in the 14 games he played 19+ minutes.

It shouldn't need to be explained that there is a correlation between playing more and scoring more but we apparently need to go over this ad nauseam.

Cue DL44 to dismiss this as "advanced analytics."

Nothing to dismiss. Seems pretty simple... if you completely ignore the context that surrounds the decision to play a player less than 16 minutes a game then playing him over 19.

Otherwise there's some top shelf observations right there.

 

[Melvin]

Brendan Gaunce was not very good on the PK. 17/18

8 top by usage - GA/60 - CA/60

1 SUTTER --------8.03-----91.56
2 GRANLUND----8.11-----101.57
3 ERIKSSON------7.88-----87.23
4 HORVAT--------6.12-----91.13
5 ARCHIBALD----7.22-----91.48
6 GAUNCE--------8.89 (Dead last)---95.97 (2nd last to Granlund)
7 DOWD----------8.51-----95.46
8 DORSETT-------8.05----83.96

So still waiting to have someone explain to me where i am completely wrong that Gaunce is not the hardest to play against, not a quality 3rd liner unless your making a prediction and where i am completely off base in my claims of him as a player without directing insults to my intelligence and understanding of the game of hockey.

2 posts without using draft position any sidetrack comparisons and almost no mentioning of his production other than a blip about his lack of production making him easier for opposition teams to deploy 3rd pair defense when he is on the ice which i can support with data if you dont believe me and would further support the fallacy that he is tough to play against.

What was his TOI on penalty kill? I feel like it was pretty low.

I think logically he should be a good penalty killer but I don't think he's olaud there much and it's fair to say we haven't seen the results yet.

 

[Melvin]

Nothing to dismiss. Seems pretty simple... if you completely ignore the context that surrounds the decision to play a player less than 16 minutes a game then playing him over 19.

Otherwise there's some top shelf observations right there.

Don't you see that this is begging the question?

 

[Fatass]

Defense is great but in today’s NHL you just don’t cut it with such low offensive production. If he doesn’t produce more goals and points this year he’s pretty much done as a regular NHL player imo.

Unless he adds physicality. If he will learn from Schaller, then he has a good chance of having an NHL career.

 

[Shareefruck]

I think it's entirely fair to suggest that at this point in his career, Gaunce has not shown that he's a good penalty killer, personally. But I don't see how that's a deal-breaker with regards to whether or not he's a solid 4th liner right now, considering his 5-on-5 play. It's not something that he can't improve either. Horvat was an outright bad defensive player his first few years in the league, and is only now becoming okay at it.

--

I don't think it's fair to attribute shifts in production when icetime is increased or decreased entirely to the context of why the promotion/demotion was made. In the case of Gaunce, the circumstances of him getting more or less ice-time has typically had more to do with circumstances involving other players being injured than anything to do with him wildly fluctuating between playing any better or worse than he usually does. His effort level/performance tends to stay pretty consistent-- he's the epitome of a "slow and steady wins the race" player, to the dismay of so many fans.

 

[DL44]

Gaunce is the hardest player to play against on the Canucks aside from Tanev.

Amazing hyperbole.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Just curious @sting101 can you link to your numbers? I’d like to see how you are sourcing your data. Thx

 

[Melvin]

Amazing hyperbole.

Amazing contribution.

The Canucks are a very bad team. He doesn't have a lot of competition here. And I see you ignored my previous query.

 

[absolute garbage]

Brendan Gaunce was not very good on the PK. 17/18

8 top by usage - GA/60 - CA/60

1 SUTTER --------8.03-----91.56
2 GRANLUND----8.11-----101.57
3 ERIKSSON------7.88-----87.23
4 HORVAT--------6.12-----91.13
5 ARCHIBALD----7.22-----91.48
6 GAUNCE--------8.89 (Dead last)---95.97 (2nd last to Granlund)
7 DOWD----------8.51-----95.46
8 DORSETT-------8.05----83.96

So still waiting to have someone explain to me where i am completely wrong that Gaunce is not the hardest to play against, not a quality 3rd liner unless your making a prediction and where i am completely off base in my claims of him as a player without directing insults to my intelligence and understanding of the game of hockey.

2 posts without using draft position any sidetrack comparisons and almost no mentioning of his production other than a blip about his lack of production making him easier for opposition teams to deploy 3rd pair defense when he is on the ice which i can support with data if you dont believe me and would further support the fallacy that he is tough to play against.

Where is this even coming from? Did someone say he's a very good PKer? How is PK ability relevant to "hardest to play against" and "quality 3rd liner"? I certainly didn't think he was a good PKer last season. Average at best. His slow-ish step is more meaningful there in terms of closing in and taking away lanes. He was much better 5on5, like numbers also say.

More than that, where exactly are you putting the baseline for this minimum wage guy playing sporadically starting his NHL career? Are you expecting him to contend for Selke or something? That's what it sounds like in this thread. People seem to want him to double his production playing mostly shit minutes while keeping his defensive play great? That would make him literally the best shutdown player in the league. At the same time people are applauding Jim Benning for tying his shoelaces in the morning? What's going on here? Time to check your expectations maybe?

The bottom line is this is a young player who was absolutely buried last season and did well in those minutes. It's only logical for people to want to see what he could do with an increased role in the bottom 6. But Benning opted out of that and overpaid for a 33 year old version of Gaunce instead.

(Gaunce only played 65 minutes on the PK. That's 10 minutes less than Archibald even though Gaunce played 10 more games. Also I'm not sure where you are getting those numbers? Are you including 5on3? If so, that's not smart. 5on4 Gaunce had better GA/60 than Dowd and Dorsett, and very close to Granlund [8.1 vs 8.19].)

 

[DL44]

Amazing contribution.

The Canucks are a very bad team. He doesn't have a lot of competition here. And I see you ignored my previous query.

I assumed it was rhetorical.

Or are you seriously asking me what factors contribute to the amount of ice a player receives?

 

[Shareefruck]

I assumed it was rhetorical.

Or are you seriously asking me what factors contribute to the amount of ice a player receives?

Pretty sure he's talking about this query rather than what you said

Don't you see that this is begging the question?

which is not rhetorical.

 

[DL44]

Pretty sure he's talking about this query rather than what you said

which is not rhetorical.

I don't get it.

"Don't you see that this is begging the question?"

What's the question? What determines ice time?

Everything that factors to the coach’s decision how he roles his lines or plays his players: Role, matchups, effectiveness in that game, injuries, depth, special teams, game situation, score effects, conditioning, maybe how he practice that week, jaw line, how much he weighs, grit level, coach’s mood, zone of faceoff, lose track of which line is up and accidently double shifts him, effectiveness of the other lines etc etc, etc,

 

[Melvin]

I don't get it.

"Don't you see that this is begging the question?"

What's the question? What determines ice time?

Everything that factors to the coach’s decision how he roles his lines or plays his players: Role, matchups, effectiveness in that game, injuries, depth, special teams, game situation, score effects, conditioning, maybe how he practice that week, jaw line, how much he weighs, grit level, coach’s mood, zone of faceoff, lose track of which line is up and accidently double shifts him, effectiveness of the other lines etc etc, etc,

So then what's your point?

 

[DL44]

So then what's your point?

Before I answer that, answer what is the point of pointing out Sutter's ice time to production correlation?

What was the suggestion or point being made? (and then naming me in the post)

 

[Shareefruck]

I don't get it.

"Don't you see that this is begging the question?"

What's the question? What determines ice time?

Everything that factors to the coach’s decision how he roles his lines or plays his players: Role, matchups, effectiveness in that game, injuries, depth, special teams, game situation, score effects, conditioning, maybe how he practice that week, jaw line, how much he weighs, grit level, coach’s mood, zone of faceoff, lose track of which line is up and accidently double shifts him, effectiveness of the other lines etc etc, etc,

I'll let Melvin explain why he thinks your argument might be begging the question, but FYI, in case you were confused because you were reading that literally or something, "Begging the Question" is just the name of a logical fallacy.

Begging the question - Wikipedia

 

[DL44]

I'll let Melvin explain why he thinks your argument might be begging the question, but FYI, in case you were reading that literally, "Begging the Question" is just the name of a logical fallacy.

Begging the question - Wikipedia

Thank you... I was definitely reading that literally.

Guess I'll wait to see his explanation on why it is.

 

[Shareefruck]

Thank you... I was definitely reading that literally.

Guess I'll wait to see his explanation on why it is.

Just to gain greater clarification, though, is your point just "No, increased/decreased ice time/role does not significantly influence offensive production. Trends in production that are consistent with this pattern are just the result of the context behind the decision being the primary influence (eg. the player playing well enough or poorly enough + various other factors, to deserve ice time that perfectly accounts for increases/decreases in production)"?

If not, what is your point? If so, how far would you take this?

Completely fantasy hypothetical taken to extremes:

Let's say prime Todd Bertuzzi scored 100 points under normal circumstances, playing 25 minutes of mostly offensive ice time all year, with prime Henrik/Daniel Sedin, and earned this spot as a direct result of his strong performance (and everything else you mentioned). If, hypothetically, under the same circumstance, the coach happened to have a problem with him and stapled him to the 4th line all year, only getting 10 minutes of mostly defensive ice time with Archibald/Megna, what totals would you expect from him in that role? Still 100 points? 75 points? 50 points? If he only put up 40 points in that role, would you attribute the entire 60 point drop to laziness, poor performance, and other factors beyond role/icetime?

Likewise, let's say Chaput scored 10 points under normal circumstances, playing 10 minutes of defensive ice time all year with Archibald/Megna, and earned this spot as a direct result of his poor performance (and everything else you mentioned). If, hypothetically, under the same circumstance, the coach happened to have a man-crush on him and stapled him to the 1st line all year, getting 25 minutes of offensive ice time with prime Henrik/Daniel Sedin, what totals would you expect from him? Still 10 points? 20 points? 30 points? If he scored 40 points in that role, would you attribute the entire 30 point increase to improved skill/performance, and other factors beyond role/icetime?

 

[DL44]

Just to gain greater clarification, though, is your point just "No, increased/decreased ice time/role does not significantly influence offensive production. Trends in production that are consistent with this pattern are just the result of the context behind the decision being the primary influence (eg. the player playing well enough or poorly enough + various other factors, to deserve ice time that perfectly accounts for increases/decreases in production)"?

If not, what is your point? If so, how far would you take this?

His Sutter example...

"Put another way, Brandon Sutter scored zero goals and had 2 assists in the 17 games where he played fewer than 16 minutes. However he scored 11 points in the 14 games he played 19+ minutes."

Put ianother way...
Is he trying to suggest that Sutter scored his goals once he passed 16 mins of ice time in the games he scored in?
So maybe he should be given more than 16 mins of ice all the time?
So maybe Gaunce should be given an opportunity as well for more ice to see how it effects HIS production....


OR is it more likely that Sutter was playing well defensively or scored early or was making plays to earn some extra minutes due to displaying early in-game effectiveness which pushed him to be played for 19+mins?

That's why I asked him what his point was... what he was trying to suggest.

Correlation of more ice and higher production is there...
But people either fail to understand, misrepresent intentionally/unintentionally, are disingenuous why that correlation exits.
Over and over.


(Another reason /60 stats suck for the way they 'are utilized' on these message boards)

 

[Peter10]

Brendan Gaunce was not very good on the PK. 17/18

8 top by usage - GA/60 - CA/60

1 SUTTER --------8.03-----91.56
2 GRANLUND----8.11-----101.57
3 ERIKSSON------7.88-----87.23
4 HORVAT--------6.12-----91.13
5 ARCHIBALD----7.22-----91.48
6 GAUNCE--------8.89 (Dead last)---95.97 (2nd last to Granlund)
7 DOWD----------8.51-----95.46
8 DORSETT-------8.05----83.96

So still waiting to have someone explain to me where i am completely wrong that Gaunce is not the hardest to play against, not a quality 3rd liner unless your making a prediction and where i am completely off base in my claims of him as a player without directing insults to my intelligence and understanding of the game of hockey.

2 posts without using draft position any sidetrack comparisons and almost no mentioning of his production other than a blip about his lack of production making him easier for opposition teams to deploy 3rd pair defense when he is on the ice which i can support with data if you dont believe me and would further support the fallacy that he is tough to play against.

First of all, it would be interesting to where you got your numbers from (I seriously fail to understand why you consistantly post questionable numbers when it should be easy to just add the link to prove your numbers). Anyway Natural Stat Trick has it somewhat different:


Player Season Totals - Natural Stat Trick

Also how is your top 8 calculated? From the numbers provided non of the sorting makes any sense. Furthermore, Gaunces numbers arent too different from glorified foundational super defensive Center Brandon Sutter - how is that?

 

[Shareefruck]

His Sutter example...

"Put another way, Brandon Sutter scored zero goals and had 2 assists in the 17 games where he played fewer than 16 minutes. However he scored 11 points in the 14 games he played 19+ minutes."

Put ianother way...
Is he trying to suggest that Sutter scored his goals once he passed 16 mins of ice time in the games he scored in?
So maybe he should be given more than 16 mins of ice all the time?
So maybe Gaunce should be given an opportunity as well for more ice to see how it effects HIS production....


OR is it more likely that Sutter was playing well defensively or scored early or was making plays to earn some extra minutes due to displaying early in-game effectiveness which pushed him to be played for 19+mins?

That's why I asked him what his point was... what he was trying to suggest.

Correlation of more ice and higher production is there...
But people either fail to understand, misrepresent intentionally/unintentionally, are disingenuous why that correlation exits.
Over and over.


(Another reason /60 stats suck for the way they 'are utilized' on these message boards)

Frankly, I can't say I understand what your point is.

So...

1. Increased ice time leads to increased production. We agree on that.
2. Every player's range of possible production depending on extreme deployments is different-- some more favorable than others. I THINK we agree on that.
3. There are a variety of other reasons why coaches deploy players in the ways that they do-- some players deployed in more favorable ways over others. We agree on that. (I think this is your point-- correct me if I'm wrong)
4. We DON'T, however, know which of these other reasons are good reasons, whether they are able to counter-act/affect assessments made based on (1) and (2), or whether or not they are being assessed correctly by the one who ultimately makes that decision. (this is just my point that I'm adding, don't know if you agree or not)

But what is your actual point and how is that relevant to anything that's being discussed though? Are you saying that because (3) is true, any scenario involving deployment that differs from that based on (1) and (2) shouldn't be considered and must not be relevant or accurate? Isn't that just a roundabout appeal to authority? Doesn't (4) negate the relevance of (3) somewhat?

On top of that, in order to dismiss opinions made based on (1) and (2), don't you need to ACTUALLY break down the various factors considered in (3) and explain how each one specifically changes the premises of the argument, if they even do at all?

You can't just throw out a statement like (3) out of nowhere and call it a day.

 

[sting101]

Just curious @sting101 can you link to your numbers? I’d like to see how you are sourcing your data. Thx

First of all, it would be interesting to where you got your numbers from (I seriously fail to understand why you consistantly post questionable numbers when it should be easy to just add the link to prove your numbers). Anyway Natural Stat Trick has it somewhat different:


Player Season Totals - Natural Stat Trick

Also how is your top 8 calculated? From the numbers provided non of the sorting makes any sense. Furthermore, Gaunces numbers arent too different from glorified foundational super defensive Center Brandon Sutter - how is that?

We obviously are using diffrent sources at times. For this post i used Corsica

It seems Natural stat trick comes to the same conclusions though just slightly different numbers??

NHL Player Stats - Corsica Hockey