Damien Brunner

[Vankiller Whale]

Gee....so a team which went to the finals twice in 3 years has high scoring forwards in the playoffs? Thanks. Very surprising information there.

The point wasn't that they score more than us. The point is that the difference between their top-6 players and ours is much greater than the difference between their bottom-6 players and ours.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Of course it matters. Comparing our bottom-6 scoring when we had Malhotra injured and Higgins/Hansen often playing in the top-6 to our bottom-6 scoring that(if healthy) have Higgins/Hansen set in the bottom-6, and even if they move up they will be replaced with a similar calibre player(e.g. Jagr replacing Seguin during the Bruins playoff run) is very misleading.

If the point is simply that when we have injuries to key players then we have trouble scoring then I won't disagree. My issue is that even when healthy our top-6(the 2nd line specifically) does not produce enough, and adding a scoring threat like Brunner would do a lot more to address that then adding another 3C to compete with Schroeder/Gaunce/Horvat/Richardson for a spot.

Haha. So Higgins has top6 pedigree, played in the top6 in the 2011 run, but is considered a bottom-6 because...? Sammy wasn't involved in _any_ of the last 3 runs. Malhotra was out from the start of 2011. So the sample has them out of the equation. Why are they even in consideration? Is the assumption here that they would have scored at the same rate while Higgins and Hansen had maintained theirs?

Opendoor already highlights Higgins's and Hansen's point totals outside of help from top6 forwards. 7 goals in 25 games for the entire bottom6.

Next, over _3_ playoff runs, the bottom6 has produced 10 goals over 34 games. Now, I'm assuming he excluded Higgins and Hansen's point totals with same top6 players here because he does the same for Bickell and Shaw. So the bottom6 production itself is isolated.

Why then are injuries still a factor if the production is isolated?

Gee....so a team which went to the finals twice in 3 years has high scoring forwards in the playoffs? Thanks. Very surprising information there.

Riveting stuff I know. I especially enjoyed the part where two of the top6 forwards listed had nothing to do with their runs. That one hit out of the park for me.

 

[Vankiller Whale]

Haha. So Higgins has top6 pedigree, played in the top6 in the 2011 run, but is considered a bottom-6 because...?

He's playing in our bottom-6 right now. Just because in 2011 he was often playing in our top-6 when our bottom-6 failed to produce doesn't mean that our bottom-6 is lousy right now, with him playing on our 3rd line.

Sammy wasn't involved in _any_ of the last 3 runs. Malhotra was out from the start of 2011. So the sample has them out of the equation. Why are they even in consideration? Is the assumption here that they would have scored at the same rate while Higgins and Hansen had maintained theirs?

I'm mentioning them because them being injured means that even though our bottom-6 might have been solid when healthy, when injuries take their toll our bottom-6 will produce a lot worse seeing as the solid bottom-6 players move up and they get replaced with borderline NHLers.

Opendoor already highlights Higgins's and Hansen's point totals outside of help from top6 forwards. 7 goals in 25 games for the entire bottom6.

I'm not sure if you understand. 7 goals in 25 games was from a bottom-6 that was missing Malhotra and had Higgins/Hansen out for extended periods of time. Of course the production was bad. But if we have a roster with 2 of Higgins/Hansen/Booth in our bottom-6 then that looks a whole lot better.

Next, over _3_ playoff runs, the bottom6 has produced 10 goals over 34 games. Now, I'm assuming he excluded Higgins and Hansen's point totals with same top6 players here because he does the same for Bickell and Shaw. So the bottom6 production itself is isolated.

Why then are injuries still a factor if the production is isolated?

Because the Hawks didn't have any major injuries. When Bickell moved up, Saad went down, thus maintaining the overall quality of their bottom-6. However when Samuelsson went down and we jumbled our roster around, we had no one to replace Higgins/Hansen in the bottom-6. And when Malhotra went down we also had no one to replace him.

But when fully healthy our bottom-6 was fine.

 

[Yammer]

From a Canucks POV, Brunner's defensive liabilities shouldn't even matter. We need some players that are strictly offensively minded.

Offense is crucial. In the playoffs, offensive puck protection is enhanced by the ability of teams to take advantage of the undesirability of penalty calls in the pose season. Teams that thrive in the playoffs have a bullying dimension, a killer instinct, like the Kings and presumably the Penguins.

Perhaps the key to unlocking the offense is to have players who have the size and strength game to dominate physically.

In that light, the signing of Kellan Lain is significant. Lain is a 6'6" centerman. The defensive reach aspect of his game is, literally and figuratively, huge. If he has the game to go with the frame, then he could be Vancouver's own version of Joel Otto at long last: the formidable, painfully competent bullying centerman who takes players off their games.

 

[Eddy Punch Clock]

On his way to try out for the Devils.

 

[Bleach Clean]

He's playing in our bottom-6 right now. Just because in 2011 he was often playing in our top-6 when our bottom-6 failed to produce doesn't mean that our bottom-6 is lousy right now, with him playing on our 3rd line.

I'm mentioning them because them being injured means that even though our bottom-6 might have been solid when healthy, when injuries take their toll our bottom-6 will produce a lot worse seeing as the solid bottom-6 players move up and they get replaced with borderline NHLers.

I'm not sure if you understand. 7 goals in 25 games was from a bottom-6 that was missing Malhotra and had Higgins/Hansen out for extended periods of time. Of course the production was bad. But if we have a roster with 2 of Higgins/Hansen/Booth in our bottom-6 then that looks a whole lot better

Because the Hawks didn't have any major injuries. When Bickell moved up, Saad went down, thus maintaining the overall quality of their bottom-6. However when Samuelsson went down and we jumbled our roster around, we had no one to replace Higgins/Hansen in the bottom-6. And when Malhotra went down we also had no one to replace him.

But when fully healthy our bottom-6 was fine.

Based on what? Do you have the numbers for a fully healthy bottom6 during those playoff runs?

If you get another 3C, then you still have another player to cover for injuries as Higgins and Hansen move up. What's the difference?

I don't think you understand what the 7/25 number signifies. It takes into account Higgins and Hansen's contribution to the bottom6. It isolates their production to top6/bottom6 whenever they played there. They didn't play much there, but whatever they contributed, is recorded for them.

Opendoor's analysis is about what has occured. In black and white. Not about what could occur should the team be healthy enough to keep Higgins and Hansen both in the bottom6 permanently. That's what he's tracking, not hypotheticals based on an injury free roster. And you also intimated little faith in Booth+Kassian, so what makes you so sure that Higgins and Hansen will remain the bottom6 even with a healthy roster? In fact, based on record, why are Booth+Kassian seen as official top6 to you at all? I think the key for me at least is to not be drawn into hypothetical subjective arguments here, and just deal with what opendoor tracked: hard data. You are free to do so however, and I hope people recognize the difference.

 

[Bleach Clean]

On his way to try out for the Devils.

Sounds about right. They can definitely pay him more than VAN can.

 

[Vankiller Whale]

Based on what? Do you have the numbers for a fully healthy bottom6 during those playoff runs?

If you get another 3C, then you still have another player to cover for injuries as Higgins and Hansen move up. What's the difference?

I don't think you understand what the 7/25 number signifies. It takes into account Higgins and Hansen's contribution to the bottom6. It isolates their production to top6/bottom6 whenever they played there. They didn't play much there, but whatever they contributed, is recorded for them.

Opendoor's analysis is about what has occured. In black and white. Not about what could occur should the team be healthy enough to keep Higgins and Hansen both in the bottom6 permanently. That's what he's tracking, not hypotheticals based on an injury free roster. And you also intimated little faith in Booth+Kassian, so what makes you so sure that Higgins and Hansen will remain the bottom6 even with a healthy roster? In fact, based on record, why are Booth+Kassian seen as official top6 to you at all? I think the key for me at least is to not be drawn into hypothetical subjective arguments here, and just deal with what opendoor tracked: hard data. You are free to do so however, and I hope people recognize the difference.

The "hard data" being used does not apply to us. The bottom-6 during the cup run is not the same as the bottom-6 now, and neither is the top-6. The stats from that sample size are skewed due to injuries.(i.e. our solid 3rd line players being moved into the top-6 and being replaced with guys like Oreskovich)

If we have a bottom-6 of

Booth-Schroeder-Hansen
Higgins-Richardson-Weise

That looks great to me, and miles better than our bottom-6 during the cup run after factoring in injuries.

 

[Bleach Clean]

The "hard data" being used does not apply to us. The bottom-6 during the cup run is not the same as the bottom-6 now, and neither is the top-6. The stats from that sample size are skewed due to injuries.(i.e. our solid 3rd line players being moved into the top-6 and being replaced with guys like Oreskovich)

If we have a bottom-6 of

Booth-Schroeder-Hansen
Higgins-Richardson-Weise

That looks great to me, and miles better than our bottom-6 during the cup run after factoring in injuries.

OMG. The hard data doesn't apply to us? What has occurred with this team over the past three years, in actual reality, does not apply to us? Oh man.

Guess what, that's what happened. Injuries or not. Skewed for three years? Ok, well then let's throw the entire playoff performance of the last 3 years out the window because the team wasn't perfectly healthy. Sounds reasonable.

I'm only talking about what was, which is what opendoor's stats covered, not what you think will occur given optimum circumstances. Opendoor's stats did not cover what could happen. They covered what did happen. Injuries are a part of the game.

 

[Vankiller Whale]

OMG. The hard data doesn't apply to us? What has occurred with this team over the past three years, in actual reality, does not apply to us? Oh man.

Guess what, that's what happened. Injuries or not. Skewed for three years? Ok, well then let's throw the entire playoff performance of the last 3 years out the window because the team wasn't perfectly healthy. Sounds reasonable.

I'm only talking about what was, which is what opendoor's stats covered, not what you think will occur given optimum circumstances. Opendoor's stats did not cover what could happen. They covered what did happen. Injuries are a part of the game.

Stats that show our bottom-6 was outproduced three years ago while hit with numerous injuries does not mean that right now our bottom-6 is inadequate.

Injuries are indeed a part of the game, but luck in staying healthy is a big factor in winning the cup. I'd rather focus on making sure that our team is a contender even when fully healthy before we start adding redundancies to help mitigate the risk of injuries.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

On his way to try out for the Devils.

Sounds about right. They can definitely pay him more than VAN can.

seems like if the rumours are true and his people had talks with the canucks brass, it was a dumb move not to go the anson carter route and take a low-ish one year to cash in on a longterm deal next year, when the cap will rise. i guess the variables are whether canucks brass promised him an honest shot with the sedins, and whether new jersey is dangling a multi-year or $3+ million per.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Stats that show our bottom-6 was outproduced three years ago while hit with numerous injuries does not mean that right now our bottom-6 is inadequate.

Injuries are indeed a part of the game, but luck in staying healthy is a big factor in winning the cup. I'd rather focus on making sure that our team is a contender even when fully healthy before we start adding redundancies to help mitigate the risk of injuries.

The bottom6 was outproduced for 3 years, not just 3 years ago. 10 goals in 34 total playoff games. Just sticking to the data, no hypotheticals.

If you want to throw injuries out, throw everything out.

 

[Vankiller Whale]

The bottom6 was outproduced for 3 years, not just 3 years ago. 10 goals in 34 total playoff games.

Yeah, well 2011 carries about 3 times as much weight as the other 2 years combined.

In 2012 our bottom-6 produced 2 goals in 5 games and in 2013 they produced 1 goal in 4.

2 goals in 5 games from the bottom-6 seems reasonable, especially against a red-hot Quick and the Kings defense. 1 goal in 4 is not so great, but the sample size(for both) is far too small to draw any conclusions.

If you want to throw injuries out, throw everything out.

Not sure what you mean by that.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Yeah, well 2011 carries about 3 times as much weight as the other 2 years combined.

In 2012 our bottom-6 produced 2 goals in 5 games and in 2013 they produced 1 goal in 4.

2 goals in 5 games from the bottom-6 seems reasonable, especially against a red-hot Quick and the Kings defense. 1 goal in 4 is not so great, but the sample size(for both) is far too small to draw any conclusions.



Not sure what you mean by that.

Weighting doesn't matter. Higgins and Hansen still saw top6 ice in 2012 and 2013. It's also treating every game as a game, not short samples like you are doing. That's why he states 34 games in total.

I think if you have a statistical argument as thorough, make it. This supposition stuff does not refute the hard data provided by opendoor.

Edit: And I say this by knowing you won't be able to. Any sample you choose will be less than what opendoor uses, and so more prone to error. This is why I say opendoor's analysis is very thorough, and cannot be refuted with hard data in return. He isolates the point production too, which is a key factor as well.

 

[Vankiller Whale]

Weighting doesn't matter. Higgins and Hansen still saw top6 ice in 2012 and 2013. It's also treating every game as a game, not short samples like you are doing. That's why he states 34 games in total.

I think if you have a statistical argument as thorough, make it. This supposition stuff does not refute the hard data provided by opendoor.

If you had come forward after the 2011 cup run, after we had retained all our current players, and said "We need more bottom-6 players to help mitigate the risk of injuries" I would have been all for it.

But "hard data" which is based on a bottom-6 that is very different from our own current bottom-6 is "hard data" taken completely out of context, and has little to no merit in a discussion about the current needs of the roster. When 25 out of the 34 games were played 3 years ago, then yes, weighting does matter quite a bit.

 

[Bleach Clean]

If you had come forward after the 2011 cup run, after we had retained all our current players, and said "We need more bottom-6 players to help mitigate the risk of injuries" I would have been all for it.

But "hard data" which is based on a bottom-6 that is very different from our own current bottom-6 is "hard data" taken completely out of context, and has little to no merit in a discussion about the current needs of the roster. When 25 out of the 34 games were played 3 years ago, then yes, weighting does matter quite a bit.

No merit? Sorry opendoor. Great work, but VKW has dismissed your statistical analysis. As he has a habit of doing. If the roster is not in optimal condition, it matters not what the team did as a whole, statistically, because VKW deems it such. Out of context indeed. I suppose it's much better rehashing subjective narratives, yup those have merit. Not what actually happened, just what could have happened in a fantasy land. Stats bearers beware...

 

[Betamax*]

The spot you have Brunner occupying ... I'd prefer someone like Jensen provided he shows enough during the pre-season that he gets a shot a a top six/nine role. How many smallish hockey players can the Canucks have on the their top 9 that aren't game changers?

Yeah, and Shinkaruk is another potential candidate that fits the profile of a player that is similarly skilled (albeit less experienced) than a Brunner but with much higher growth potential. The Canucks talked about giving their young players a legitimate shot at making the team this season, so to sign an older player to occupy a valuable roster spot without giving their younger players a shot to prove their ready this season would be going back on their word, IMO.

 

[Vankiller Whale]

Yeah, and Shinkaruk is another potential candidate that fits the profile of a player that is similarly skilled (albeit less experienced) than a Brunner but with much higher growth potential. The Canucks talked about giving their young players a legitimate shot at making the team this season, so to sign an older player to occupy a valuable roster spot without giving their younger players a shot to prove their ready this season would be going back on their word, IMO.

Jensen will probably return to the AHL and while Shinkaruk had a great start, he's still more than likely to go back to junior.

Unless either of them blow us away over the course of the reseason, I'd still prefer we sign a guy like Prospal on a 1 year deal to help ensure we are still focused on being competitive this year.

 

[Betamax*]

Jensen will probably return to the AHL and while Shinkaruk had a great start, he's still more than likely to go back to junior.

Unless either of them blow us away over the course of the reseason, I'd still prefer we sign a guy like Prospal on a 1 year deal to help ensure we are still focused on being competitive this year.

Yeah ... but if they did sign a Brunner *right now*, then essentially the opportunity for either/or to push for a spot would be tacitly gone. If neither show to be close to NHL ready, then the Canucks should of course look to fill the roster spot via an unsigned UFA, waiver wire pick up OR trade.