MMC
Global Moderator
Thoughts on him and how’s he fit with the team? Seems like a player who would fit well here, just in a much more reduced role.
Certain people = Vancouver fans, it's very strange their obsession with himHe's not as bad as certain people on HFBoards said he is.
Certain people = Vancouver fans, it's very Strang their obsession with him
Ding ding dingHe’s a solid third pairing Dman that can play higher up with a complementary partner. Hopefully Lindholm gets healthy and can continue to be the right fit.
He's not as bad as certain people on HFBoards said he is.
Certain people = Vancouver fans, it's very strange their obsession with him
Not just Vancouver fans, this entire Hockey Twitter community is kind of obsessed with him. I saw guys trying to dunk on his dad on there lol.
I like your comment about being a playoff performer. Solid start so far but Hampus will make a lot of players look good.Panthers and Gudbranson fan coming in peace.
There is hardly another player like Guds who managed (and still manages) to devide our fanbase.
Most are mad that we drafted him at 3rd overall, advertised as the big hulking shutdown Dman. In the end, they say he is a type of player of a dying breed. Plus he makes way too much money for what a Dman at his salary is SUPPOSED to bring to the table. Every little mistake was surgically dissected to bash him.
Many still see/saw the intangibles he brings plus of course his physicality, decent first pass, good leader and lockerroom presence, great fighter (although not fighting that much anymore).
Bottom points are:
- he needs a good partner. He will never be able to carry the load of his pairing, always be a complementary guy (this is why it could work well with Lindholm)
- he is ideally somewhere between a number 4 to 7 but can occasionally cover some big minutes
- playoff performer - he excels when the games get tighter and more physical (or it shadows his weaknesses more)
Vancouver fans are just more mad than us because he played on really bad team that exposed him even more.
I like your comment about being a playoff performer. Solid start so far but Hampus will make a lot of players look good.
Give it time. I'm trying to do the same with Myers who is still in the honeymoon phase of his tenure with the team. Generally where there's smoke with multiple teams, there's multiple bonfires.
Certain people = Vancouver fans, it's very strange their obsession with him
This is kind of tangential but I think the connection to Gudbranson is clear.
I remember hanging out on analytics-savvy baseball forums in the late 90s and early 00s. At the time, OPS+ was about the state of the art, as people had learned that on-base percentage and slugging percentage were far more effective at measuring offense than batting average and RBIs.
We spent a lot of time frothing about how awful these GMs were for employing certain guys who were near the bottom by this metric. How awful the average baseball executive was for not seeing how they were dragging down the team.
Eventually popular baseball metrics matured, got a lot better at measuring defense and valuing it relative to offense, and when you look back at those guys, it turns out they were mostly perfectly adequate players. Not great, but usually at least replacement level.
I get the impression of popular hockey metrics that they are still young enough and early enough in the development curve to have similar blind spots. That when we're trying to measure the total value of a player, the size of the blind spots is big enough that we should be really, really careful drawing anything more than the most broad of conclusions.
I'm not particularly worried that the current state of popular hockey metrics says Gudbranson is awful. He looks fine to me.
Very well saidThis is kind of tangential but I think the connection to Gudbranson is clear.
I remember hanging out on analytics-savvy baseball forums in the late 90s and early 00s. At the time, OPS+ was about the state of the art, as people had learned that on-base percentage and slugging percentage were far more effective at measuring offense than batting average and RBIs.
We spent a lot of time frothing about how awful these GMs were for employing certain guys who were near the bottom by this metric. How awful the average baseball executive was for not seeing how they were dragging down the team.
Eventually popular baseball metrics matured, got a lot better at measuring defense and valuing it relative to offense, and when you look back at those guys, it turns out they were mostly perfectly adequate players. Not great, but usually at least replacement level.
I get the impression of popular hockey metrics that they are still young enough and early enough in the development curve to have similar blind spots. That when we're trying to measure the total value of a player, the size of the blind spots is big enough that we should be really, really careful drawing anything more than the most broad of conclusions.
I'm not particularly worried that the current state of popular hockey metrics says Gudbranson is awful. He looks fine to me.
This is a very good point. Most hockey metrics center on possession and shots, not a bad thing on the surface. But the goal of any metric is to eliminate the "noise" or other factors which contribute to said metric. The noise which affects hockey possession/shot metrics are things like quality of opposition and quality of teammates on the ice, zone start rates, time and score of the game, coach/team system and philosophy. Gudbranson could be a guy whose possession/shot rates look bad because some of the noise doesn't work in his favor. It's more nuanced IMO than just "this guys stinks because his possession/shot metrics aren't good."This is kind of tangential but I think the connection to Gudbranson is clear.
I remember hanging out on analytics-savvy baseball forums in the late 90s and early 00s. At the time, OPS+ was about the state of the art, as people had learned that on-base percentage and slugging percentage were far more effective at measuring offense than batting average and RBIs.
We spent a lot of time frothing about how awful these GMs were for employing certain guys who were near the bottom by this metric. How awful the average baseball executive was for not seeing how they were dragging down the team.
Eventually popular baseball metrics matured, got a lot better at measuring defense and valuing it relative to offense, and when you look back at those guys, it turns out they were mostly perfectly adequate players. Not great, but usually at least replacement level.
I get the impression of popular hockey metrics that they are still young enough and early enough in the development curve to have similar blind spots. That when we're trying to measure the total value of a player, the size of the blind spots is big enough that we should be really, really careful drawing anything more than the most broad of conclusions.
I'm not particularly worried that the current state of popular hockey metrics says Gudbranson is awful. He looks fine to me.
We said the same thing as you did .... but I digress.
This is a very good point. Most hockey metrics center on possession and shots, not a bad thing on the surface. But the goal of any metric is to eliminate the "noise" or other factors which contribute to said metric. The noise which affects hockey possession/shot metrics are things like quality of opposition and quality of teammates on the ice, zone start rates, time and score of the game, coach/team system and philosophy. Gudbranson could be a guy whose possession/shot rates look bad because some of the noise doesn't work in his favor. It's more nuanced IMO than just "this guys stinks because his possession/shot metrics aren't good."
Ed Willes: Today’s game is too fast for Erik Gudbranson, but just right for Quinn Hughes
Fluff piece on how good Quinn Hughes has been for us, and how the game has left Erik behind. Pretty fair I think. And if you want a second opinion
go ask some Pen's fans how they feel he did during the playoffs last year.
We said the same thing as you did .... but I digress.