Player Discussion Erik Brännström - D - Part III

[Micklebot]

combination of things.

but mostly looking at ability to win battles and move the puck in pressure and how willing they are to engage in the first place. those are the basics for tough d even before blocked shots or hits.

those other d save Sanderson and Zub do not stack up favourably there. so they are soft.

hamonic was constantly hearing footsteps and flubbing easy passes passes because he was scared of pressure. the softest of the bunch.

Ok, so Hamonic flubs passes equally with and without pressure, he's just unskilled, but in terms of willingness to engage, there is no shortage there. Just on that player alone, I'm questioning your ability to judge these players by your own standards.

Oddly, to your point about flubbing passes, Brannstrom is 2nd worst behind Chychrun in givaways/60 5v5, which isn't a perfect proxy for flubbing passes, but is notable none the less. Chabot and Zub have the best giveaway/60, followed by JBD.

Ability to win battles, Sanderson seemingly wins almost every battle, but not because of he is tough, that's not to say he's soft, but the point is you're using a metric that isn't measuring what you are claiming it measures.

To me, Chabot, JBD, and Brannstrom are all willing to take hits to make plays, that's an indication of being tough in my mind, but none of them engage physically to win battles as a primary tool (well, JBD does a bit but he's got to get stronger for it to be effective), they use their other skills like skating, body positioning and stick to win battles,

On the flip side, Zub and Hamonic are more likely to use their physicality to win battles, and make life tough (from an physical perspective) on the opposition. using their strength to outmuscle the opposition, or through in a slash or crosscheck.

Chychrun is a guy I would probably call soft though maybe that's because of how much more effective he could be with his physical tools if he used them, to me, he often avoids using his body and favours using stickwork, isn't getting infront of


Anyways, TLDR, I don't agree with your analysis, or how you've chosen to define toughness, and if we aren't on common grounds for the basics of what is soft/tough then we likely won't accomplish much here.

 

[BondraTime]

Has anyone delved into the stats to see what the team's record is when he gets more than 18 minutes a night? Or 20 minutes a night?

8-12-1 over 18 minutes this year

7-12 over 18 last year

13-24-1 over 18 in 2021-22

5-4 over 18 in 2020-21

1-1-2 over 18 in 2019-20

34-51-4 total

Not sure you can read much into it, we have been garbage the whole tenure

 

[Micklebot]

Has anyone delved into the stats to see what the team's record is when he gets more than 18 minutes a night? Or 20 minutes a night?

I took a quick look, 4W 4L with 20+ mins. 8W 13L 18+ mins. 26W 29L with <18 mins

the 20+ mins is probably too small of a sample to read much into, overall I don't see much of a pattern tbh.

 

[Agent Zub]

Ok, so Hamonic flubs passes equally with and without pressure, he's just unskilled, but in terms of willingness to engage, there is no shortage there. Just on that player alone, I'm questioning your ability to judge these players by your own standards.

Oddly, to your point about flubbing passes, Brannstrom is 2nd worst behind Chychrun in givaways/60 5v5, which isn't a perfect proxy for flubbing passes, but is notable none the less. Chabot and Zub have the best giveaway/60, followed by JBD.

Ability to win battles, Sanderson seemingly wins almost every battle, but not because of he is tough, that's not to say he's soft, but the point is you're using a metric that isn't measuring what you are claiming it measures.

To me, Chabot, JBD, and Brannstrom are all willing to take hits to make plays, that's an indication of being tough in my mind, but none of them engage physically to win battles as a primary tool (well, JBD does a bit but he's got to get stronger for it to be effective), they use their other skills like skating, body positioning and stick to win battles,

On the flip side, Zub and Hamonic are more likely to use their physicality to win battles, and make life tough (from an physical perspective) on the opposition. using their strength to outmuscle the opposition, or through in a slash or crosscheck.

Chychrun is a guy I would probably call soft though maybe that's because of how much more effective he could be with his physical tools if he used them, to me, he often avoids using his body and favours using stickwork, isn't getting infront of


Anyways, TLDR, I don't agree with your analysis, or how you've chosen to define toughness, and if we aren't on common grounds for the basics of what is soft/tough then we likely won't accomplish much here.

you didn't see hamonic starting to shy away from contact and stop battling to get to the puck first?

why do you think he was basically scratched on a team that so badly needs size and defensive toughness.

he's not the most skilled but the reason he was flubbing easy passes was because he plays scared.

sure he will crosscheck a player but when he has to go in first and risk getting hit or cross-checked? he is scared and will make a scared play. soft and not willing to engage in the battle.

he can handle being the aggressor but put any physical pressure on him and he folds.

a defenseman can have amazing physical presence but if they are scared to take hits or don't handle physical pressure well than that is a soft d because he will hurt you where it matters most.

the opposite is sanderson he doesn't have much of a physical pressure but he is not scared of battling to be first on the puck, taking hits, and makes plays with pressure. he is not soft.

 

[Golden_Jet]

you didn't see hamonic starting to shy away from contact and stop battling to get to the puck first?

why do you think he was basically scratched on a team that so badly needs size and defensive toughness.

he's not the most skilled but the reason he was flubbing easy passes was because he plays scared.

sure he will crosscheck a player but when he has to go in first and risk getting hit or cross-checked? he is scared and will make a scared play. soft and not willing to engage in the battle.

he can handle being the aggressor but put any physical pressure on him and he folds.

lol he doesn’t play scared, that’s in your head, he just isn’t that skilled with the puck, zero to do with being scared, thanks for the laugh though, appreciated.

Just like you think JBD is softer than Branny.

 

[Agent Zub]

lol he doesn’t play scared, that’s in your head, he just isn’t that skilled with the puck, zero to do with being scared, thanks for the laugh though, appreciated.

Just like you think JBD is softer than Branny.

funny that i was calling hamonic a healthy scratch and a non nhler last year and he had a ton of defenders including you.

and now as soon as we got a real head coach we pay him to sit in the stands.

 

[Golden_Jet]

funny that i was calling hamonic a healthy scratch and a non nhler last year and he had a ton of defenders including you.

and now as soon as we got a real head coach we pay him to sit in the stands.

Great, nothing to do with what I said though,

 

[BankStreetParade]

Not sure why you're telling me all that when I said "In Ottawa, he's stuck behind some more important guys"... right from the start, your post is on the wrong tangent, which makes it very hard to have a rational discussion, like I was talking about. Not really interested in discussing non-rational things here

No, the point you made doesn't make sense. If a guy is good enough to "help make a team better", why would 2 different coaching staffs not give him minutes that are more in line with the best defensemen on the team? The whole premise of your point doesn't make sense. You say "he has proven he could do really well in a bigger role" and yet 2 coaching staffs disagree with you.

I get that you like to write out these novellas for your own amusement but you're not actually presenting a real argument for the guy. Advanced stats missing context doesn't mean anything. The results are as such: he's a bottom pairing guy closer in minutes to what the AHL guys get than the top 4 guys get. It's been demonstrated over multiple seasons and, now, with multiple coaching staffs.

 

[OD99]

No, the point you made doesn't make sense. If a guy is good enough to "help make a team better", why would 2 different coaching staffs not give him minutes that are more in line with the best defensemen on the team? The whole premise of your point doesn't make sense. You say "he has proven he could do really well in a bigger role" and yet 2 coaching staffs disagree with you.

I get that you like to write out these novellas for your own amusement but you're not actually presenting a real argument for the guy. Advanced stats missing context doesn't mean anything. The results are as such: he's a bottom pairing guy closer in minutes to what the AHL guys get than the top 4 guys get. It's been demonstrated over multiple seasons and, now, with multiple coaching staffs.

You are being ridiculous.

Nobody is arguing he should have been top 4 with this roster. Clearly those guys are better. He did well in his minutes though, what more do you want?

The stats were laid out for you, but you want to make some nonsense about him playing more than Sanderson to show he is good?

He could improve some other teams bottom pair, while giving an option to take some top 4 when needed.

 

[BondraTime]

He's not going to get a better shake on other teams than he has here, unless those other teams are in the same/worse position the Sens are

 

[BankStreetParade]

You are being ridiculous.

Nobody is arguing he should have been top 4 with this roster. Clearly those guys are better. He did well in his minutes though, what more do you want?

The stats were laid out for you, but you want to make some nonsense about him playing more than Sanderson to show he is good?

He could improve some other teams bottom pair, while giving an option to take some top 4 when needed.

"he has proven he could do really well in a bigger role"...that's someone making the argument that this bottom-pairing guy can play in the top 4. What exactly does "do really well in a bigger role" mean in this case? You guys love to argue down to the letter, like I'm the one who said it.

Again, the stats are not laid out, they're presented without context. All of those numbers are meaningless without support. Who was his competition? If that person is going to say they "make a team better" and "do really well in a bigger role", I would expect it's totally fair to ask about the profile of player they've most commonly played against. No? Isn't that how we assess players? We take their advanced stats and add context like quality of competition and actual results?

You wanna really know how meaningless those numbers are? Brannstrom has 55.3 CA/60 while Sanderson has 57.36 CA/60. So, should I take it to mean that Brannstrom is better at preventing chances against than Sanderson? It gets even better: Pietrangelo 66.96, Seider 63.89, Dobson 63.27, Trouba 61, Hedman 60.07, Rielly 60, Josi 59.82, McAvoy 58.92. Wow, it's crazy how this guy is better defensively than many of the league's Norris trophy candidates.

I mean you wanna talk about being ridiculous...why did he pick 500mins as the cut-off considering Brannstrom has played over 2100 minutes at even strength since 2022-23? Wouldn't 2000mins make a lot more sense and give us a better frame of reference? Or even 1500 minutes? Doesn't matter anyway without context of competition and other factors but it's a more accurate reflection.

 

[BoardsofCanada]

From twitter.

It doesn't matter who he's paired with, he is a 50%+ xGoal player.

 

[Golden_Jet]

From twitter.

It doesn't matter who he's paired with, he is a 50%+ xGoal player.

View attachment 859573

That’s just the expected value of a shot attempt, Hamonic is 50%. At least dig up some meaningful stats.

 

[JD1]

"he has proven he could do really well in a bigger role"...that's someone making the argument that this bottom-pairing guy can play in the top 4. What exactly does "do really well in a bigger role" mean in this case? You guys love to argue down to the letter, like I'm the one who said it.

Again, the stats are not laid out, they're presented without context. All of those numbers are meaningless without support. Who was his competition? If that person is going to say they "make a team better" and "do really well in a bigger role", I would expect it's totally fair to ask about the profile of player they've most commonly played against. No? Isn't that how we assess players? We take their advanced stats and add context like quality of competition and actual results?

You wanna really know how meaningless those numbers are? Brannstrom has 55.3 CA/60 while Sanderson has 57.36 CA/60. So, should I take it to mean that Brannstrom is better at preventing chances against than Sanderson? It gets even better: Pietrangelo 66.96, Seider 63.89, Dobson 63.27, Trouba 61, Hedman 60.07, Rielly 60, Josi 59.82, McAvoy 58.92. Wow, it's crazy how this guy is better defensively than many of the league's Norris trophy candidates.

I mean you wanna talk about being ridiculous...why did he pick 500mins as the cut-off considering Brannstrom has played over 2100 minutes at even strength since 2022-23? Wouldn't 2000mins make a lot more sense and give us a better frame of reference? Or even 1500 minutes? Doesn't matter anyway without context of competition and other factors but it's a more accurate reflection.

Sometimes we get into these silly stat discussions.

Let's look at Pietrangelo and Brannstrom as extremes. 67/60 and 55/60. That's a difference of 12 /60. Or 1/5. Or phrased another way, about every 6 shifts for each, an additional shot is directed at the Pietrangelo's net. Can you really defend an argument on that?

It seems kinda silly to me.

 

[BankStreetParade]

Sometimes we get into these silly stat discussions.

Let's look at Pietrangelo and Brannstrom as extremes. 67/60 and 55/60. That's a difference of 12 /60. Or 1/5. Or phrased another way, about every 6 shifts for each, an additional shot is directed at the Pietrangelo's net. Can you really defend an argument on that?

It seems kinda silly to me.

Still without context. Who does Pietrangelo put those stats up against? Who does Brannstrom? What would happen to Brannstrom's numbers if he played as many minutes per game, at even strength, as Pietrangelo? We're talking 14.19 minutes per game for Brannstrom vs. 18.87 for Pietrangelo. Those are vastly different numbers.

This is why those numbers, presented without all of this additional context, are completely worthless. They don't really say anything.

 

[JD1]

Still without context. Who does Pietrangelo put those stats up against? Who does Brannstrom? What would happen to Brannstrom's numbers if he played as many minutes per game, at even strength, as Pietrangelo? We're talking 14.19 minutes per game for Brannstrom vs. 18.87 for Pietrangelo. Those are vastly different numbers.

This is why those numbers, presented without all of this additional context, are completely worthless. They don't really say anything.

My apologies if you understood from my post that I was critiquing you as that wasn't my intent.

My intent was to underscore the insignificance of the difference between the best and worst performer of those you mentioned yet we see never ending debates using these kinds of numbers. Even with all the context you're asking about, you'd still need to watch the game with a stop watch on shift clocks to know that an additional shot is directed at the net every 6 shifts. Between the best and the worst on your list.

 

[dumbdick]

I have no idea what you guys are talking about, but welcome this opportunity to shit on advanced stats.

 

[OD99]

"he has proven he could do really well in a bigger role"...that's someone making the argument that this bottom-pairing guy can play in the top 4. What exactly does "do really well in a bigger role" mean in this case? You guys love to argue down to the letter, like I'm the one who said it.

Again, the stats are not laid out, they're presented without context. All of those numbers are meaningless without support. Who was his competition? If that person is going to say they "make a team better" and "do really well in a bigger role", I would expect it's totally fair to ask about the profile of player they've most commonly played against. No? Isn't that how we assess players? We take their advanced stats and add context like quality of competition and actual results?

You wanna really know how meaningless those numbers are? Brannstrom has 55.3 CA/60 while Sanderson has 57.36 CA/60. So, should I take it to mean that Brannstrom is better at preventing chances against than Sanderson? It gets even better: Pietrangelo 66.96, Seider 63.89, Dobson 63.27, Trouba 61, Hedman 60.07, Rielly 60, Josi 59.82, McAvoy 58.92. Wow, it's crazy how this guy is better defensively than many of the league's Norris trophy candidates.

I mean you wanna talk about being ridiculous...why did he pick 500mins as the cut-off considering Brannstrom has played over 2100 minutes at even strength since 2022-23? Wouldn't 2000mins make a lot more sense and give us a better frame of reference? Or even 1500 minutes? Doesn't matter anyway without context of competition and other factors but it's a more accurate reflection.

I know that I understand the context of those stats and expect most here do. You seem unable to separate them, or more likely, unwilling.

All good, I rarely care to "win" an internet discussion, so we can just skip this and move on to other things.

 

[Icelevel]

Kleven is better in every way. Jbd or guenette can fill the right side for now if they’re looking at upgrading. Branny is bye bye.

 

[Agent Zub]

lol he doesn’t play scared, that’s in your head, he just isn’t that skilled with the puck, zero to do with being scared, thanks for the laugh though, appreciated.

Just like you think JBD is softer than Branny.

why do you think Marner is considered soft? because he has elite skill level but when the game is tougher and there is more pressure in the playoffs his skillset considerably diminishes. his elite puck skills and passing diminish. that is what makes Marner soft.

it is the same with Hamonic, when the game is tougher and more physical his low skill set considerably diminishes further because he is playing scared, he can't handle pressure anymore. that is why he is soft, and is a healthy scratch.

Marner plays scared in the playoffs same way that Hamonic plays scared all the time.

 

[L'Aveuglette]

Kleven is better in every way. Jbd or guenette can fill the right side for now if they’re looking at upgrading. Branny is bye bye.

Kleven hasn't played in the NHL so uh, what?

JBD sucks and Guenette doesn't do anything better than Branny.

Try again.

 

[Icelevel]

Kleven hasn't played in the NHL so uh, what?

JBD sucks and Guenette doesn't do anything better than Branny.

Try again.

kleven has played in the nhl. not watching?
jbd is as good overall and guenette within a few weeks can be as good or better than branny. branny don't fit, he go away.

 

[The Devilish Buffoon]

Kleven hasn't played in the NHL so uh, what?

JBD sucks and Guenette doesn't do anything better than Branny.

Try again.

Uh, Kleven sure has.

More importantly, those three guys will make about as much combined as Branny will next year.

If we decide we will be a cap team next year, Brannstrom will be tough to fit and if we decide to wait a year for more flexibility before pushing our chips in, Brannstrom will be a deadman walking anyways and we will focus on development.

Not saying there is no path back for him but I doubt it is one that makes sense for him.

 

[sennysensen]

I'd like to keep Brannstrom for a few reasons...

He's our 2nd best RD, and is the only LD that can play the right side (I'm sure Sanderson can, but he needs to play #1 LD). He also was a better partner for Chabot than anyone except Zub.

He has weaknesses, like being unable to box out anyone with strength, but is a useful player.

Kleven-Brannstrom could complement each other, Kleven around net front whenever possible, Brannstrom chases to 1 side or the other.

He's definitely better than JBD, who I don't mind as our 7th d-man, as he has improved, although very slowly.

 

[aragorn]

Kleven should replace Brannstrom for next season & Ostapchuk should also be in Ott for next season, I doubt Ott retains Brann. IMO JBD has already made the team full time. They might buy out Hamonic or let him be the 7th D & mentor Kleven & JBD.