Player Discussion Erik Gudbranson

[alternate]

Why is it so hard for you to accept that Gudbranson is not a good player?
Replace Gudbranson with Biega and not only do you save money but you also get better. Biega has more hits per game then Gudbranson, besides if we have a player solely in the lineup for "toughness" then why not get a goon. If that's Gudbranson's role as a player, a goon surely would do it better.

What is this "surprises every year", you mean when there is an unsustainable team every year that comes right back down to reality the next year? Isn't that proof that to be a sustaining good hockey team you need good underlying analytics?

I don't find it hard at all to accept Gudbranson is not a good player. I see Gudbranson regularly take routine plays and turn them into adventures. I've said many times I'm not a fan of EG, hated the trade, and didn't want him re-signed. I will put in the caveat that his play this year has been better, and I don't think the advanced stats are really indicative of his play so far this season. So yes, he's not a good player relatively speaking, but he is a legit NHLer, even if just a bottom pairing guy.

Now, why is it so hard for you to accept that words have actual meanings? Someone says it's an "indisputable fact" that removing Gudbranson makes us better. That's just not a fact that cannot be contested. Say you think, or wouldn't be surprised if, or any other phrase that doesn't declare an opinion a fact, and you would get no push back from me. Heck, I might agree. But there are dozens, if not hundreds, of variables besides shot generation that goes into the effect an individual player has on a team. To take this to the absurd, it's not an "indisputable fact" that adding Connor McDavid to our team makes us better (although it is almost certainly the case). I have no objection to you thinking we would be better without RealGud. It's more about Puck Munchkin and your unprovable assertions trying to be stated as fact that I disagree with.

Aaaaannd that's already too many words wasted on this semantic circle jerk.

 

[WTG]

I don't find it hard at all to accept Gudbranson is not a good player. I see Gudbranson regularly take routine plays and turn them into adventures. I've said many times I'm not a fan of EG, hated the trade, and didn't want him re-signed. I will put in the caveat that his play this year has been better, and I don't think the advanced stats are really indicative of his play so far this season. So yes, he's not a good player relatively speaking, but he is a legit NHLer, even if just a bottom pairing guy.

Now, why is it so hard for you to accept that words have actual meanings? Someone says it's an "indisputable fact" that removing Gudbranson makes us better. That's just not a fact that cannot be contested. Say you think, or wouldn't be surprised if, or any other phrase that doesn't declare an opinion a fact, and you would get no push back from me. Heck, I might agree. But there are dozens, if not hundreds, of variables besides shot generation that goes into the effect an individual player has on a team. To take this to the absurd, it's not an "indisputable fact" that adding Connor McDavid to our team makes us better (although it is almost certainly the case). I have no objection to you thinking we would be better without RealGud. It's more about Puck Munchkin and your unprovable assertions trying to be stated as fact that I disagree with.

Aaaaannd that's already too many words wasted on this semantic circle jerk.

We are never going to agree here. Funnily enough, I think the exact opposite.
People sometimes use words that don't mean things that that exact word actually means. I struggle with this mightily because I have a tendency to use words based on what I think they mean rather what they actually mean. Probably has something to do with me being ESL and just kind of throwing sentences together hoping I get it right. I've gotten better at it but I still completely guess where commas are supposed to go in sentences.

To me, sometimes people use the wrong words to make their argument. But in general it's more about the core of the argument rather than the occasional wrong words usage.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Ridiculous logic. Who takes Gudbrandon's roster spot? Are you sure he will be less of a liability? Indisputably sure? And who then provides even the modest amount of toughness that RealGud brings? And what impact does he have in the dressing room?

It's not inconceivable that we improve by simply removing EG from the roster. But to act like it's an "indisputable fact" or necessarily follows is just wrong. You don't get this, but hockey is played on the ice, not on a spread sheet, and not everything comes down to analytics. If that isn't the case, why are there surprises every year?

Not everything has to come down to the spreadsheet. The main things seem to, and by and large, they are the stats that are the most predictive of team strength. Why ignore them?

Probability was never meant to be wholly conclusive. These are percentages at the margins. Meaning, if a team's strength predicts them to have a 65%/35% chance to win any game they enter, if they lose, it just means that they fell on the 35% part of the marker. It does not upset the ratio. That's why there are "surprises every year". Those surprises are built into the structure of probability.

What Gudbranson does is drag the team down to a lower predictive win/loss percentage in every game. That's his effect as a bottom pairing defensemen. If the team had a top4 to replace him, _indisputably_, they would have an increased win/loss ratio as a result.

 

[Hit the post]

Our D is soft without him.

Matters little if he’s out of the lineup due to injuries almost as much as Tanev. We don’t have a dynamic offensive defenseman to help babysit Guds like he was in Florida when he had top 4 minutes.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

You just don't get it do you? The Canucks need the toughness , man. They need all the physicality they can get. Everyone blames him for any dirty hits that happen against us, imagine how many if we didn't have a few players that can give it back.

Its not real. His toughness isnt real. Watch him play some and you notice he doesnt do anything "gritty" or "tough" and he never comes to the aid of anyone on the team.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

You and your "undisputable facts." Not sure if it's an English as a second language thing, but you seem to struggle with what "fact" actually means.

Well yes english is my second language.

Do you dispute timbers ridicilious flame baits as vehemently?

I just thougt I would try the discussion at his level and see where it goes.
I do honestly believe we would be better if he retired but I guess it is debateable. Would be interesting to hear what the other side of the argument is. Maybe we need him as depth if someone gets injured.

 

[Motte and Bailey]

Gudbranson is tough. Now THAT'S an indisputable fact.

I see a lot of people expecting him to play like an old school enforcer. The game has changed. He's smart about applying physical pressure to the opponent so as to minimize taking penalties. The game is called very tight now. He does throw hard hits and he's a very big, very strong player who can drop the gloves and mess up anyone's face in the league.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

Our D is soft without him. In the new Nhl Guddy is not built for high usage. However he is still useful as he provides a counter balance to other teams using size and aggressiveness. This will be more important as the games become more competitive. Watching in person he quite active away from the puck.

Pst he doesnt actually do that.
Its just a reputation that wont go away.

 

[Tim Calhoun]

 

[timbermen]

YES

 

[PG Canuck]

Our D is soft without him. In the new Nhl Guddy is not built for high usage. However he is still useful as he provides a counter balance to other teams using size and aggressiveness. This will be more important as the games become more competitive. Watching in person he quite active away from the puck.

Our defence is soft with him in the lineup lol. How many times have we seen him get beat in front of the net and get scored on? He’s not tough in front of his net and he’s not tough on his stick. Always chasing the play means he can’t dictate when he can be tough on players. He’s always looking behind him or digging the puck out of the net

 

[timw33]

Our defence is soft with him in the lineup lol. How many times have we seen him get beat in front of the net and get scored on? He’s not tough in front of his net and he’s not tough on his stick. Always chasing the play means he can’t dictate when he can be tough on players. He’s always looking behind him or digging the puck out of the net

Had a chuckle at Bortuzzo getting a $1.375MM deal for the same 5/6 role, but actually provides toughness to the role.

 

[Hit the post]

It's probable that Benning would just throw that $4+ million in cap space on another junk NHLer. Better with the devil we know vs one or more Pouliot's on the blueline. Based on the pro scouting thus far with this regime, we would be replacing one Guds with another. At least the former is injured all the time so his "influence" on the ice in mitigated.

 

[LordBacon]

Best signing in the jb era, great cap hit for a no.1 defenseman. Not to mention he has great wheels and excellent vision, will fit our rebuild for years to come. Florida really shot themselves in the foot trading him.
And for those of you who think I’m serious, I’m not. I’m just messing around.

 

[alternate]

Not everything has to come down to the spreadsheet. The main things seem to, and by and large, they are the stats that are the most predictive of team strength. Why ignore them?

Probability was never meant to be wholly conclusive. These are percentages at the margins. Meaning, if a team's strength predicts them to have a 65%/35% chance to win any game they enter, if they lose, it just means that they fell on the 35% part of the marker. It does not upset the ratio. That's why there are "surprises every year". Those surprises are built into the structure of probability.

This is basically what I'm saying. The data isn't conclusive, isn't intended to be conclusive, so making definitive statements based on it is wrong.

What Gudbranson does is drag the team down to a lower predictive win/loss percentage in every game. That's his effect as a bottom pairing defensemen. If the team had a top4 to replace him, _indisputably_, they would have an increased win/loss ratio as a result.

So if we replaced Gudbranson with a better player, we'd be a better team? Hot take!

 

[timbermen]

Best signing in the jb era, great cap hit for a no.1 defenseman. Not to mention he has great wheels and excellent vision, will fit our rebuild for years to come. Florida really shot themselves in the foot trading him.
And for those of you who think I’m serious, I’m not. I’m just messing around.

5 warning points for you, mister.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

[MOD]

So if we replaced Gudbranson with a better player, we'd be a better team? Hot take!

A player like Biega.

 

[Bleach Clean]

This is basically what I'm saying. The data isn't conclusive, isn't intended to be conclusive, so making definitive statements based on it is wrong.

So if we replaced Gudbranson with a better player, we'd be a better team? Hot take!

It's the failure to recognize that weaker player as being weaker that remains the issue.

Probability is not conclusive, yes, but this is by no means evidence that probability does not exist. You are incorrectly attempting to throw away the model because it is not conclusive. Does that seem reasonable to you?

Where we have to start is the agreement that shot share correlates to a team's ability to win a given game. If that's not there, then I understand why you don't put much stock into advanced stats. However, there's a swath of data out there that says you're wrong. Study after study. If you somehow agree that shot shares are predictive of team wins, as a percentage of probability, then that is the first agreement that eventually leads to recognizing Gudbranson as a weak player _in_this_regard_.

You can go on about intangibles, politics in the room, toughness etc... But until you come to the agreement that shot shares have an impact on winning hockey games, there will be a gulf between what you regularly accept as having meaning in hockey and what others do.

 

[LordBacon]

5 warning points for you, mister.

I’m sorry
Have some bacon my friend

 

[Cogburn]

We hated Bieksa while he was here, we hated Sbisa, now we hate Gudbranson. I'm sure if Foote or Blake or Stevens were Canucks and this forum was around we'd have hated them too.

The guys is far from perfect, and honestly should be bottom pairing, andnis over paid for that role. I'd trust him more then any one but Tanev, Edler or Hutton out of our D to defend though. Gudbranson is not the problem with our D, it's how high he is on our depth chart that is the problem. We need another top four RHD to put Gud in his proper place on this team.

 

[Fire Benning]

If Don Cherry says Gudbranson is worth his weight in gold then it's a good indication that the opposite is true.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

We hated Bieksa while he was here, we hated Sbisa, now we hate Gudbranson. I'm sure if Foote or Blake or Stevens were Canucks and this forum was around we'd have hated them too.

The guys is far from perfect, and honestly should be bottom pairing, andnis over paid for that role. I'd trust him more then any one but Tanev, Edler or Hutton out of our D to defend though. Gudbranson is not the problem with our D, it's how high he is on our depth chart that is the problem. We need another top four RHD to put Gud in his proper place on this team.

I didnt hate Bieksa when he was good. I still respected him when he was not as good.
Sbisa was never good. I would definitely have him over Gudbranson on the team tho.

Gudbranson is garbage at hockey and gets paid 4 million because he fights twice a year and throws a useless big hit every 5 games.

Seriously frustrating.

 

[Duodenum]

We hated Bieksa while he was here, we hated Sbisa, now we hate Gudbranson. I'm sure if Foote or Blake or Stevens were Canucks and this forum was around we'd have hated them too.
.

Kind of an odd take comparing three defensemen who had glaring defensive issues with 2 hall of famers and Foote.

 

[Cogburn]

I didnt hate Bieksa when he was good. I still respected him when he was not as good.
Sbisa was never good. I would definitely have him over Gudbranson on the team tho.

Gudbranson is garbage at hockey and gets paid 4 million because he fights twice a year and throws a useless big hit every 5 games.

Seriously frustrating.

You are a good one then, PM, but this forum seemed to have half it's regular posters hating on Bieksa every thread.

I'll grant you the cap hit is trouble, but you'd honestly take Sbisa over Gudbranson at the same cap hit?

As for the useless hit and exactly 2 fights a year, we have no one that does that much any more, and people are saying he's either not doing enough of that, and the next day he shouldn't do any of it. If the bar is spinning around like a marching band leaders' baton, no one can compete with that.

 

[Diamonddog01]

Really wish the team had targeted Petrovic instead of this slug.