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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Melvin

21/12/05
Sep 29, 2017
15,198
28,055
Montreal, QC
Thank you... I was definitely reading that literally.

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

Your original post seemed to indicate your belief that Sutter earned more ice time because he played better, and you know he played better because he earned more ice time. It was this that prompted me to accuse you of circular reasoning.

However, in followup posts you seem to instead espouse the idea that we don't know why he got more ice time, and that it could be due to a myriad of factors. I agree with this, but it seems to confuse whatever point you were originally trying to make and I am struggling to see the relevance to this discussion.

Whatever the reason for Sutters ice time variation, he was merely one exhibit of how a player scores more when he plays more. You seem to agree thst these two things are correlated so I remain confused as to where you actually stand.

The reason I brought up your name in the first place is because we have had this argument before and your response was to roll your eyes about advanced stats and mumble something about Dan Hamhuis. I am glad you are at least engaging this time.
 

Melvin

21/12/05
Sep 29, 2017
15,198
28,055
Montreal, QC
Like....

Literally said:
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?

Or maybe, wait, hold on...

Literally 2 hours earlier said:
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,

?????

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.

Maybe you can shed some light onto why you think that correlation exists so that we don't have to go over it over and over. Since you have yet to do so and seem to be posting dissonant views.
 
  • Like
Reactions: geebaan

DL44

Status quo
Sep 26, 2006
17,894
3,801
Location: Location:
Whatever the reason for Sutters ice time variation, he was merely one exhibit of how a player scores more when he plays more. You seem to agree thst these two things are correlated so I remain confused as to where you actually stand.
More likely he plays more cuz he scores more.
 

Melvin

21/12/05
Sep 29, 2017
15,198
28,055
Montreal, QC
More likely he plays more cuz he scores more.

How do you know?

It's funny that you said this:

Is he trying to suggest that Sutter scored his goals once he passed 16 mins of ice time in the games he scored in?

Because yeah, that is pretty much the case in this instance.

Sutter scored 11 goals last season. Seven of them came in the 3rd period or OT, including three with fewer than 2 minutes to play. Three of his goals were scored in the last half of the second. He scored once all season long in the first period of play! And it was the first goal of the Canucks' season! After that he did not once score in the first period with the majority of his goals coming very late.

So yes, pretty much in some games despite not scoring the coach kept throwing him out there and eventually he did sometimes score one. In the games where the coach didn't play him as much, he usually didn't score. Pretty elementary.
 
Last edited:

Melvin

21/12/05
Sep 29, 2017
15,198
28,055
Montreal, QC
Because I can't sleep, I decided to take it one step further. Let's go through Brandon Sutter's 11 goals to try to find evidence of DL44's claim that he "plays more" in those games because he scores more. Before doing so I want to lay out DL44's argument as I best understand it, so as not to create a strawman and to keep the discussion buoyed to the subject of the thread (Brendan Gaunce.)

The argument we are trying to support is:

1. Brandon Sutter scored all of his goals in games where he played 16+ minutes.
2. This is because him scoring in those games is what led to his increased icetime in those games, not the other way around.
3. Ergo, Brendan Gaunce needs to score more to get more ice-time, not the other way around.

That is the argument as best as I understand it. In order to support this argument, I would want to find that Brandon Sutter was scoring in games and getting rewarded for his scoring with more ice-time, and not the other way around.

Here are Brandon Sutter's 11 goals last season, chronologically:

1. First game of the season, Sutter scores 8 minutes in, and plays 16 minutes. Oddly, despite scoring the first goal of the team's season, this was one of his lower ice-time games, barely cracking 16.

2. Scores an empty netter with 1:20 left after playing 18 minutes of the game. Nope.

3. Scores in OT after playing 17 minutes in regulation. Nope.

4. Scores 8:56 into the second, in a game where he played 18+ minutes. OK, maybe I can give you this one since I don't feel like going through shift charts and whatnot.

5. Scores 13:52 into the second, in a game where he played nearly 20 minutes. So yeah, he was getting a ton of shifts in this one regardless and did score a goal.

6. Scores with 4 minutes left in the 2nd in a game where he played 16 minutes. Call this one inconclusive.

7. Scores with 12 minutes left in the game in a game where he played nearly 20 minutes. Another one where he was getting a ton of shifts and scored a late goal.

8. Another 3rd period goal, in a game where he played 22+ minutes! So yeah, just getting a ton of ice time and eventually scores. Hard to believe that he "played more because he scored."

9 & 10. Two more third period goals, including the empty netter with 15 seconds left. Again he was going to finish with 16+ minutes regardless of scoring.

11. His final goal of the season is yet another 3rd period goal, in a game where he played 19:12. Again, he was already being shoveled shifts and was going to finish 16+ minutes regardless, and he rewarded the coach for all the ice time by scoring (not the other way around.)

So in trying to place the arrow of causality, I am finding the evidence that it points in the direction you suggest to be extremely weak. This case study suggests more to me that it is as we expected, that he scored more often in games when he was given more opportunities. Brandon Sutter almost never scored an early goal the entire season, but in the games where the coach stuck with him and kept giving him shifts, he would score at a decent rate. In the games where his ice time was cut for whatever reason, he never scored.

I would be pleased if you would counter with evidence that he does in fact play more in games when he scores more and he doesn't simply score more often when given more opportunities. Remember, I am trying to find evidence of your argument, and giving you as much benefit of the doubt as I can.

Finally, relating it back to Gaunce, it is much the same story. Gaunce did score 1 early goal, and did get a lot of ice time in that game, so that helps your case a little bit, but he only received 8 games all season where he played 16+ minutes, and guess what? He rewarded the coach by scoring 3 goals in those 8 games. Twice in the 2nd and once in the 3rd.
 
Last edited:

DL44

Status quo
Sep 26, 2006
17,894
3,801
Location: Location:
How do you know?

It's funny that you said this:



Because yeah, that is pretty much the case in this instance.

Sutter scored 11 goals last season. Seven of them came in the 3rd period or OT, including three with fewer than 2 minutes to play. Three of his goals were scored in the last half of the second. He scored once all season long in the first period of play! And it was the first goal of the Canucks' season! After that he did not once score in the first period with the majority of his goals coming very late.

So yes, pretty much in some games despite not scoring the coach kept throwing him out there and eventually he did sometimes score one. In the games where the coach didn't play him as much, he usually didn't score. Pretty elementary.
So it's like he was doing something else to earn ice time.
 

geebaan

7th round busted
Oct 27, 2012
10,193
8,751
Because I can't sleep, I decided to take it one step further. Let's go through Brandon Sutter's 11 goals to try to find evidence of DL44's claim that he "plays more" in those games because he scores more. Before doing so I want to lay out DL44's argument as I best understand it, so as not to create a strawman and to keep the discussion buoyed to the subject of the thread (Brendan Gaunce.)

The argument we are trying to support is:

1. Brandon Sutter scored all of his goals in games where he played 16+ minutes.
2. This is because him scoring in those games is what led to his increased icetime in those games, not the other way around.
3. Ergo, Brendan Gaunce needs to score more to get more ice-time, not the other way around.

That is the argument as best as I understand it. In order to support this argument, I would want to find that Brandon Sutter was scoring in games and getting rewarded for his scoring with more ice-time, and not the other way around.

Here are Brandon Sutter's 11 goals last season, chronologically:

1. First game of the season, Sutter scores 8 minutes in, and plays 16 minutes. Oddly, despite scoring the first goal of the team's season, this was one of his lower ice-time games, barely cracking 16.

2. Scores an empty netter with 1:20 left after playing 18 minutes of the game. Nope.

3. Scores in OT after playing 17 minutes in regulation. Nope.

4. Scores 8:56 into the second, in a game where he played 18+ minutes. OK, maybe I can give you this one since I don't feel like going through shift charts and whatnot.

5. Scores 13:52 into the second, in a game where he played nearly 20 minutes. So yeah, he was getting a ton of shifts in this one regardless and did score a goal.

6. Scores with 4 minutes left in the 2nd in a game where he played 16 minutes. Call this one inconclusive.

7. Scores with 12 minutes left in the game in a game where he played nearly 20 minutes. Another one where he was getting a ton of shifts and scored a late goal.

8. Another 3rd period goal, in a game where he played 22+ minutes! So yeah, just getting a ton of ice time and eventually scores. Hard to believe that he "played more because he scored."

9 & 10. Two more third period goals, including the empty netter with 15 seconds left. Again he was going to finish with 16+ minutes regardless of scoring.

11. His final goal of the season is yet another 3rd period goal, in a game where he played 19:12. Again, he was already being shoveled shifts and was going to finish 16+ minutes regardless, and he rewarded the coach for all the ice time by scoring (not the other way around.)

So in trying to place the arrow of causality, I am finding the evidence that it points in the direction you suggest to be extremely weak. This case study suggests more to me that it is as we expected, that he scored more often in games where he was given more opportunities. Brandon Sutter almost never scored an early goal the entire season, but in the games where the coach stuck with him and kept giving him shifts, he would score at a decent rate. In the games where his ice time was cut for whatever reason, he never scored.

I would be pleased if you would counter with evidence that he does in fact play more in games when he scores more and he doesn't simply score more often when given more opportunities. Remember, I am trying to find evidence of your argument, and giving you as much benefit of the doubt as I can.

Finally, relating it back to Gaunce, it is much the same story. Gaunce did score 1 early goal, and did get a lot of ice time in that game, so that helps your case a little bit, but he only received 8 games all season where he played 16+ minutes, and guess what? He rewarded the coach by scoring 3 goals in those 8 games. Twice in the 2nd and once in the 3rd.

This was amazing, thanks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Melvin

forty47seven

Registered User
May 2, 2009
757
223
How much of a role does deployment really play on production? Does having a high ratio of dZS to oZS significantly impact a player's output if everything else was equal? Sutter played more or less 14 EV mins a night with 77% dZS last season under Green and 56% dZS the year before under Desjardins. Oddly enough, Sutter saw his EV production increase (13G 13A/82 GP vs 14.5G 14.5A/ 82 GP) last season with a 21% increase in dZS. This could be for a number of reason, the most obvious being the coaching/role change, but it's counter intuitive to see a player's offensive role decrease and production increase. How much of an anomaly is this? What change would the average player see in similar circumstances?
 

DL44

Status quo
Sep 26, 2006
17,894
3,801
Location: Location:
How much of a role does deployment really play on production? Does having a high ratio of dZS to oZS significantly impact a player's output if everything else was equal? Sutter played more or less 14 EV mins a night with 77% dZS last season under Green and 56% dZS the year before under Desjardins. Oddly enough, Sutter saw his EV production increase (13G 13A/82 GP vs 14.5G 14.5A/ 82 GP) last season with a 21% increase in dZS. This could be for a number of reason, the most obvious being the coaching/role change, but it's counter intuitive to see a player's offensive role decrease and production increase. How much of an anomaly is this? What change would the average player see in similar circumstances?
just supports how overblown the zone start thing is.
 

DL44

Status quo
Sep 26, 2006
17,894
3,801
Location: Location:
This was your comment: "he plays more cuz he scores more." That is a direct copy/paste from your post. Are you retracting this?
I was countering your comment.
My words were up top.. that he gets more ice from earning it via.. the long list I posted.

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

21/12/05
Sep 29, 2017
15,198
28,055
Montreal, QC
I was countering your comment.
My words were up top.. that he gets more ice from earning it via.. the long list I posted.

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, "

Remember, your argument is that in the accepted correlation between ice-time and scoring, those of us who think the ice-time leads to scoring have it backwards. That is your position, as I understand it. You think it is the other way around, that scoring more leads to playing more. Is that or is that not your position?

If it is, then even if I concede to you that Brandon Sutter does "other stuff" to earn more ice time and then eventually scores with that ice time, how does that support your position that we have the causality backwards, that ice time does not lead to more scoring but the other way around? I can acknowledge that Sutter gets more ice time with sick defensive play, but he still needs to get that ice time in order to score goals. It strengthens my side, not yours.

Finally, just to close the loop, the argument that Sutter got more ice time in those games because of his play is why I accused you of begging the question. That argument is:

1. He got more ice-time because he played better.
2. We know he played better, because he got more ice-time.

This is circular reasoning. Your support of the first statement you are trying to prove is dependent on that very statement.

But now you are confusing matters even more, because you are also saying (via your long list,) that he is earning ice time for possibly completely random reasons ("coach's mood") so I am just utterly baffled at what you are trying to say, as you seem to be saying, at the same time:

1. He plays more cuz he scores more.
2. He plays more because he plays better.
3. He plays more for a whole host of reasons, which may or may not have anything to do with his play.

How do you argue all three of these in a manner that is consistently supportive of your overall position? Your arguments here seem completely scattershot to me.

Can you provide some other evidence that he "earned his icetime" in a significant way that differentiates him from Gaunce, that doesn't rely on the very point you are attempting to prove?
 
Last edited:

forty47seven

Registered User
May 2, 2009
757
223
just supports how overblown the zone start thing is.

Maybe? I'm not really sure, hence the questions. I've always subscribed to the idea that heavy offensive starts are beneficial to offensively gifted players and visa versa. But is there any tangible evidence for it? Do the returns diminish? ie Does a 60-40 vs 70-30 split yield more or similar benefit over 50-50?
 
Last edited:

F A N

Registered User
Aug 12, 2005
18,630
5,893
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.

Fair enough. Anyways, I have consistently said that I like Gaunce. But it's like that crazy 0 goal streak he had. At some point you have to factor into the scoresheet. That's really the point I was making. If he takes a step forward and develops into a 3rd line mainstay that would be awesome. But ice time is often earned. While I am actually hopeful that Gaunce might actually find some good chemistry with Beagle, I am mindful that the Canucks just signed Roussel and Shaller who are both left wingers.

For whatever reason, there are some who believe that players playing 10-12 minutes who have performed well can keep their averages with increased minutes. I just don't think it ever works out like that (unless you're playing with say Mario Lemieux or Gretzky in their primes). Gaunce doesn't strike me as a player who simply needs more ice time and opportunities to produce. To me, he's closer to being snakebitten then just needing an opportunity to shine. But again, at the end of they day, he needs to find a way to get on the score sheet.
 

Melvin

21/12/05
Sep 29, 2017
15,198
28,055
Montreal, QC
How much of a role does deployment really play on production? Does having a high ratio of dZS to oZS significantly impact a player's output if everything else was equal? Sutter played more or less 14 EV mins a night with 77% dZS last season under Green and 56% dZS the year before under Desjardins. Oddly enough, Sutter saw his EV production increase (13G 13A/82 GP vs 14.5G 14.5A/ 82 GP) last season with a 21% increase in dZS. This could be for a number of reason, the most obvious being the coaching/role change, but it's counter intuitive to see a player's offensive role decrease and production increase. How much of an anomaly is this? What change would the average player see in similar circumstances?

In general the research has indicated that it doesn't really play much of a role but I think at the extremes it does. Travis Green last season was the coach with the most fastidious attention to deployment in the NHL, and possibly the most we have ever seen. His players litter the leaderboard at both ends, with Gaunce, Dowd, Archibald, and Sutter ranking [1], [2], [3] and [4] at getting the lowest % of O-Zone starts in the entire league. If you lower the TOI threshold then Chaput is in there too. At the other end, you have the Sedin twins leading the NHL in most O-Zone starts by a pretty significant margin as well. I don't think there is a coach in the league who was as steadfast in his dogma of "in case of situation X, play player Y" and I think it's going to be difficult for anyone to score when they are pigeonholed that dramatically. There is just nothing else to really even compare it to.

Nobody else in the NHL was under 20% and the ones who were even close are Carter Rowney (1 ES goalsin 44 games,) Jay Beagle (6 in 79,) Casey Cizikas (6 in 64,) Steven Santini (2 in 36,) Cal Clutterbuck (7 in 76,) you get the idea. These are guys playing 12-14 minutes per game keep in mind as well, not 18 like Sutter.

If you look at the veterans on that list, guys like Clutterbuck and Beagle were scoring more in previous seasons when they were getting 40 instead of 20. I think that Sutter is something of an outlier here, and I think it's a combination of him having a legitimately great year as well as a few flukey things like empty netters and OT usage.

I think the impact is relatively minor, in general and don't think you are going to see much difference when the player is between 30-60 (let's say,) but I think at the absolute extreme ends it's basically impossible to score goals when you are playing 12 minutes AND getting 15% O-Zone starts. In that regard 4 goals in 37 games is actually damn good.

It will be interesting to see if Green changes his approach next season when he no longer has the Sedins to coddle. Does he similarly give Boeser the 75% O-Zone starts he was giving the twins or does he go to a more even spread? Maybe @Bad Goalie has some thoughts on whether Green was this extreme in his deployments in Utica or if it was more of a matter of him being terrified of using the Sedins anywhere but the offensive zone.
 
Last edited:

Shareefruck

Registered User
Apr 2, 2005
28,875
3,570
Vancouver, BC
Fair enough. Anyways, I have consistently said that I like Gaunce. But it's like that crazy 0 goal streak he had. At some point you have to factor into the scoresheet. That's really the point I was making. If he takes a step forward and develops into a 3rd line mainstay that would be awesome. But ice time is often earned. While I am actually hopeful that Gaunce might actually find some good chemistry with Beagle, I am mindful that the Canucks just signed Roussel and Shaller who are both left wingers.

For whatever reason, there are some who believe that players playing 10-12 minutes who have performed well can keep their averages with increased minutes. I just don't think it ever works out like that (unless you're playing with say Mario Lemieux or Gretzky in their primes). Gaunce doesn't strike me as a player who simply needs more ice time and opportunities to produce. To me, he's closer to being snakebitten then just needing an opportunity to shine. But again, at the end of they day, he needs to find a way to get on the score sheet.
By "averages", do you mean their points per minute? I think that it can be debated either way whether or not your points per minute will sustain as you receive more ice time. I think that's often dependent on a player's stamina, conditioning, mental consistency, and style of play. The tougher workload could cause that rate to drop if they can't handle the extra ice time for one reason or another.

Personally, I would expect Gaunce's points per minute to increase as he receives better ice time, because his offensive style is positional and involves passively supporting the play rather than creating chances on his own, which is basically next to useless on a plug line who just chases the puck, carries the puck with tunnel-vision, and crashes the net every chance it gets, whereas his skill set may become more useful as he moves up the line-up and his line mates progressively play a more structured, cooperative, possession-oriented game in the offensive zone. He's a useful net front and board presence in the offensive zone that other players can make use of, and he's an unselfish player with decent offensive awareness. He certainly isn't more suited to producing more efficiently with 4th line plugs.

Regardless of that point, though, even if the opposite happens and his points per minute actually decreases as he receives more ice time, his overall totals are still going to increase with better ice time/line mates/opportunity. I don't think that can be argued against. Players don't end up with LESS overall offensive output when they receive greater and more favorable ice time. I agree that better players will receive a larger and larger bump as they move up the line-up compared to offensively challenged players, which is why you give offensive guys more minutes than plugs, but it's always going to help a player's output overall, not harm it, IMO.

And as mentioned, so far, Gaunce has scored at a 7 point pace the year he received 9 minutes of icetime, almost double that pace the next year when receiving 13 minutes of icetime, and almost five times that pace in the games within that second year where he received 15+ minutes (albeit in a very limited sample size). I don't see any reason to think that he would be permanently snake-bitten regardless of where he plays in the line-up. The little evidence we have prematurely shows just the opposite, actually.

I also fundamentally disagree that with poor offensive players, you need to play with Gretzky or Lemieux in order for line mates to factor into a scoring increase. Over the years, we've seen plenty of crappy/hopeless offensive players be able to do more in the offensive zone playing with guys like Hansen or Higgins than with guys like Prust and Dorsett. Though I will concede that there may not be much to separate the quality of the Canucks 3rd and 4th lines this upcoming year, so line mates could end up being a moot point.
 
Last edited:

Jay Cee

P4G
May 8, 2007
6,151
1,229
Halifax
Because I can't sleep, I decided to take it one step further. Let's go through Brandon Sutter's 11 goals to try to find evidence of DL44's claim that he "plays more" in those games because he scores more. Before doing so I want to lay out DL44's argument as I best understand it, so as not to create a strawman and to keep the discussion buoyed to the subject of the thread (Brendan Gaunce.)

The argument we are trying to support is:

1. Brandon Sutter scored all of his goals in games where he played 16+ minutes.
2. This is because him scoring in those games is what led to his increased icetime in those games, not the other way around.
3. Ergo, Brendan Gaunce needs to score more to get more ice-time, not the other way around.

That is the argument as best as I understand it. In order to support this argument, I would want to find that Brandon Sutter was scoring in games and getting rewarded for his scoring with more ice-time, and not the other way around.

Here are Brandon Sutter's 11 goals last season, chronologically:

1. First game of the season, Sutter scores 8 minutes in, and plays 16 minutes. Oddly, despite scoring the first goal of the team's season, this was one of his lower ice-time games, barely cracking 16.

2. Scores an empty netter with 1:20 left after playing 18 minutes of the game. Nope.

3. Scores in OT after playing 17 minutes in regulation. Nope.

4. Scores 8:56 into the second, in a game where he played 18+ minutes. OK, maybe I can give you this one since I don't feel like going through shift charts and whatnot.

5. Scores 13:52 into the second, in a game where he played nearly 20 minutes. So yeah, he was getting a ton of shifts in this one regardless and did score a goal.

6. Scores with 4 minutes left in the 2nd in a game where he played 16 minutes. Call this one inconclusive.

7. Scores with 12 minutes left in the game in a game where he played nearly 20 minutes. Another one where he was getting a ton of shifts and scored a late goal.

8. Another 3rd period goal, in a game where he played 22+ minutes! So yeah, just getting a ton of ice time and eventually scores. Hard to believe that he "played more because he scored."

9 & 10. Two more third period goals, including the empty netter with 15 seconds left. Again he was going to finish with 16+ minutes regardless of scoring.

11. His final goal of the season is yet another 3rd period goal, in a game where he played 19:12. Again, he was already being shoveled shifts and was going to finish 16+ minutes regardless, and he rewarded the coach for all the ice time by scoring (not the other way around.)

So in trying to place the arrow of causality, I am finding the evidence that it points in the direction you suggest to be extremely weak. This case study suggests more to me that it is as we expected, that he scored more often in games when he was given more opportunities. Brandon Sutter almost never scored an early goal the entire season, but in the games where the coach stuck with him and kept giving him shifts, he would score at a decent rate. In the games where his ice time was cut for whatever reason, he never scored.

I would be pleased if you would counter with evidence that he does in fact play more in games when he scores more and he doesn't simply score more often when given more opportunities. Remember, I am trying to find evidence of your argument, and giving you as much benefit of the doubt as I can.

Finally, relating it back to Gaunce, it is much the same story. Gaunce did score 1 early goal, and did get a lot of ice time in that game, so that helps your case a little bit, but he only received 8 games all season where he played 16+ minutes, and guess what? He rewarded the coach by scoring 3 goals in those 8 games. Twice in the 2nd and once in the 3rd.

Great work. Though I don't know why you are picking on one of our best forwards. Now break down every point Brendan Gaunce has scored and show why he deserves more ice time.
 

Melvin

21/12/05
Sep 29, 2017
15,198
28,055
Montreal, QC
Great work. Though I don't know why you are picking on one of our best forwards. Now break down every point Brendan Gaunce has scored and show why he deserves more ice time.

Not picking on Sutter, just examining the evidence.

He posted a claim and I am trying to see how viable it is. Simple as that.

I don't like Sutter as a player but there is no denying he was effective last season and had a legitimately good year.

As for Gaunce, as I said he played eight games where he received 16 minutes and scored 3 goals in 8 games. Not too shabby.
 

forty47seven

Registered User
May 2, 2009
757
223
In general the research has indicated that it doesn't really play much of a role but I think at the extremes it does. Travis Green last season was the coach with the most fastidious attention to deployment in the NHL, and possibly the most we have ever seen. His players litter the leaderboard at both ends, with Gaunce, Dowd, Archibald, and Sutter ranking [1], [2], [3] and [4] at getting the lowest % of O-Zone starts in the entire league. If you lower the TOI threshold then Chaput is in there too. At the other end, you have the Sedin twins leading the NHL in most O-Zone starts by a pretty significant margin as well. I don't think there is a coach in the league who was as steadfast in his dogma of "in case of situation X, play player Y" and I think it's going to be difficult for anyone to score when they are pigeonholed that dramatically. There is just nothing else to really even compare it to.

Nobody else in the NHL was under 20% and the ones who were even close are Carter Rowney (1 ES goalsin 44 games,) Jay Beagle (6 in 79,) Casey Cizikas (6 in 64,) Steven Santini (2 in 36,) Cal Clutterbuck (7 in 76,) you get the idea. These are guys playing 12-14 minutes per game keep in mind as well, not 18 like Sutter.

If you look at the veterans on that list, guys like Clutterbuck and Beagle were scoring more in previous seasons when they were getting 40 instead of 20. I think that Sutter is something of an outlier here, and I think it's a combination of him having a legitimately great year as well as a few flukey things like empty netters and OT usage.

I think the impact is relatively minor, in general and don't think you are going to see much difference when the player is between 30-60 (let's say,) but I think at the absolute extreme ends it's basically impossible to score goals when you are playing 12 minutes AND getting 15% O-Zone starts. In that regard 4 goals in 37 games is actually damn good.

It will be interesting to see if Green changes his approach next season when he no longer has the Sedins to coddle. Does he similarly give Boeser the 75% O-Zone starts he was giving the twins or does he go to a more even spread? Maybe @Bad Goalie has some thoughts on whether Green was this extreme in his deployments in Utica or if it was more of a matter of him being terrified of using the Sedins anywhere but the offensive zone.

The militant depolyment by Green is certainly unusual. Looking back at passtseasons, you do see players getting 80%+ dZS but it's usually the same type of player. It's the 30+ year old defensive specialist centers, guys like, Gaustad, Gordon, and Malhotra. (Gaustad had a season with over 90% dZS!) I think this might be skewed a bit from situations where they're purely on the ice to take the defensive faceoff and then change; all the centers mentioned were 56%+ FO guys.

I'm not sure the evidence is there to say players at the extreme, 25% or less oZS, produce less. The example you gave, Clutterbuck and Beagle, did see drop in ES production with sub 25% oZS percentage, however, both saw their ice time reduced by over a minute at the same time. When you look at the last season where they played the same amount, their production is very similar.
 
Last edited:

bossram

Registered User
Sep 25, 2013
15,324
14,391
Victoria
Because I can't sleep, I decided to take it one step further. Let's go through Brandon Sutter's 11 goals to try to find evidence of DL44's claim that he "plays more" in those games because he scores more. Before doing so I want to lay out DL44's argument as I best understand it, so as not to create a strawman and to keep the discussion buoyed to the subject of the thread (Brendan Gaunce.)

The argument we are trying to support is:

1. Brandon Sutter scored all of his goals in games where he played 16+ minutes.
2. This is because him scoring in those games is what led to his increased icetime in those games, not the other way around.
3. Ergo, Brendan Gaunce needs to score more to get more ice-time, not the other way around.

That is the argument as best as I understand it. In order to support this argument, I would want to find that Brandon Sutter was scoring in games and getting rewarded for his scoring with more ice-time, and not the other way around.

Here are Brandon Sutter's 11 goals last season, chronologically:

1. First game of the season, Sutter scores 8 minutes in, and plays 16 minutes. Oddly, despite scoring the first goal of the team's season, this was one of his lower ice-time games, barely cracking 16.

2. Scores an empty netter with 1:20 left after playing 18 minutes of the game. Nope.

3. Scores in OT after playing 17 minutes in regulation. Nope.

4. Scores 8:56 into the second, in a game where he played 18+ minutes. OK, maybe I can give you this one since I don't feel like going through shift charts and whatnot.

5. Scores 13:52 into the second, in a game where he played nearly 20 minutes. So yeah, he was getting a ton of shifts in this one regardless and did score a goal.

6. Scores with 4 minutes left in the 2nd in a game where he played 16 minutes. Call this one inconclusive.

7. Scores with 12 minutes left in the game in a game where he played nearly 20 minutes. Another one where he was getting a ton of shifts and scored a late goal.

8. Another 3rd period goal, in a game where he played 22+ minutes! So yeah, just getting a ton of ice time and eventually scores. Hard to believe that he "played more because he scored."

9 & 10. Two more third period goals, including the empty netter with 15 seconds left. Again he was going to finish with 16+ minutes regardless of scoring.

11. His final goal of the season is yet another 3rd period goal, in a game where he played 19:12. Again, he was already being shoveled shifts and was going to finish 16+ minutes regardless, and he rewarded the coach for all the ice time by scoring (not the other way around.)

So in trying to place the arrow of causality, I am finding the evidence that it points in the direction you suggest to be extremely weak. This case study suggests more to me that it is as we expected, that he scored more often in games when he was given more opportunities. Brandon Sutter almost never scored an early goal the entire season, but in the games where the coach stuck with him and kept giving him shifts, he would score at a decent rate. In the games where his ice time was cut for whatever reason, he never scored.

I would be pleased if you would counter with evidence that he does in fact play more in games when he scores more and he doesn't simply score more often when given more opportunities. Remember, I am trying to find evidence of your argument, and giving you as much benefit of the doubt as I can.

Finally, relating it back to Gaunce, it is much the same story. Gaunce did score 1 early goal, and did get a lot of ice time in that game, so that helps your case a little bit, but he only received 8 games all season where he played 16+ minutes, and guess what? He rewarded the coach by scoring 3 goals in those 8 games. Twice in the 2nd and once in the 3rd.

This was an absolutely clinical analytical takedown.

I appreciate you trying to suss out the direction of causality.

A+
 
  • Like
Reactions: geebaan

F A N

Registered User
Aug 12, 2005
18,630
5,893
I think it might not be a coincidence that near all the forwards with 60% dZS are playing less than 14 mins.

I think that is a function of more teams deploying their 4th line that way instead of what would be considered the 3rd line.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->