Player Discussion Nikolay Goldobin Pt. II

[Melvin]

I don't get this line if thinking.

Is it because people like to watch "hard work" and get frustrated while watching talented player "not working hard" and "wasting" their talent?

The time of having 2 scoring lines a checking line and a line of goons is history. Obviously our bottom 6 is looks like a museum in this regard. If we didn't have two stone handed players with zero vision as our centers on the bottom 2 lines we could actually ice players like Goldobin in a lesser offensive role on one of the bottom lines.



If by "kills penalties" you mean he is on the ice when the Canucks are shorthanded, then yes.
If by "kills penalties" you mean is actually useful on the ice when the Canucks are shothanded, then most certainly not.

I doubt more than 0.05% of fans have even the slightest bit of awareness of who is effective at killing penalties and who isn't.

 

[strattonius]

I don't get this line if thinking.

Is it because people like to watch "hard work" and get frustrated while watching talented player "not working hard" and "wasting" their talent?

The time of having 2 scoring lines a checking line and a line of goons is history. Obviously our bottom 6 is looks like a museum in this regard. If we didn't have two stone handed players with zero vision as our centers on the bottom 2 lines we could actually ice players like Goldobin in a lesser offensive role on one of the bottom lines.

A lot of assuming on my opinions here.

 

[Melvin]

Granlund hasn't sat as much Goldobin. Neither has Motte. You are attempting to level something that isn't level.

You could have accused myself and fans of style bias had Green clearly not shown Motte and Granlund favour. With their usage and scratch frequency compared to Goldobin, you'll be in tough to do so.

Green introduced the heat that you are somehow propping him up as a stalwart for creating. Weird. Green hasn't sheltered Goldobin from his own criticism. He hasn't sheltered him from his own bias either. Goldobin has been benched for making mistakes on more than one occasion. How mistakes has Granlund made? Motte?

Let me ask you: If Goldobin's production is the issue, why is Green harping on is defense and about playing hard? Why not keep pushing the message about his production instead?

He's missed 7 games. Granlund has missed 2. You're making it out like he's missed dozens of games. I'm not going to quibble about numbers that are in the single-digits.

Yes, Goldobin sits when he makes mistakes, but that's because he's built up basically no goodwill for himself. If he were scoring hat-tricks every night then he'd have a lot more rope when he makes a mistake. When you don't produce anything offensively and don't play on the PK, you don't give yourself a lot of rope when you make a costly mistake. Boeser makes a lot of lazy defensive plays too but nobody cares because he scores a goal every game. It is two sides of the same coin.

Motte, Granlund, etc. all play on the PK and whether or not they are effective there is not relevant to this discussion. Obviously Green likes them in that role and that's why they play. Does Goldy play on the PK? No. He plays on the PP and gives up short-handed goals (6 of them, leads the team,) doesn't score at ES and basically requires a babysitter in Pettersson, so he sits 1 game out of every 8 or so. Whatever.

 

[Bleach Clean]

He's missed 7 games. Granlund has missed 2. You're making it out like he's missed dozens of games. I'm not going to quibble about numbers that are in the single-digits.

The difference matters because when coupled with in-game usage, you have a case for bias. There is a disparity. I don't need Goldobin scratched for 14 games and Granlund scratched for 4 games to recognize that there is bias. It's apparent.

Yes, Goldobin sits when he makes mistakes, but that's because he's built up basically no goodwill for himself. If he were scoring hat-tricks every night then he'd have a lot more rope when he makes a mistake. When you don't produce anything offensively and don't play on the PK, you don't give yourself a lot of rope when you make a costly mistake. Boeser makes a lot of lazy defensive plays too but nobody cares because he scores a goal every game. It is two sides of the same coin.

Motte, Granlund, etc. all play on the PK and whether or not they are effective there is not relevant to this discussion. Obviously Green likes them in that role and that's why they play. Does Goldy play on the PK? No. He plays on the PP and gives up short-handed goals (6 of them, leads the team,) doesn't score at ES and basically requires a babysitter in Pettersson, so he sits 1 game out of every 8 or so. Whatever.

So we've established that Green likes Motte and Granlund in their roles, good. Effectiveness irrelevant, also fine. I'm wondering what kind of good will is built up by simply liking these types on the PK without regard for their effectiveness? A lot? A little?

Goldobin plays on the PP and is 4th in forward scoring there, but we are parking effectiveness for special teams, so I'll just ask: Does Green like Goldobin on the PP? If so, does this garner him good will like the PK garners Motte and Granlund good will? If not, there's the problem. If so, please explain how and what is the effect of that good will?

 

[The Poacher]

Greens putting the heat on him because after over 100 NHL games he’s continued show little to no improvement in the areas he needs to work on most. Intensity, battle level, commitment to the defensive and Neutral zone ect.

I’m sure Green and Goldobin have had many conversation about the areas of concern in his game. He has shown little progression to the point where Green felt the need to take ice time away in the hope that it gets him to address those areas.

Motte, Schaller, Granlund are players who have reached their ceilings. Their low event players, have little skill at the NHL level but are for the most part defensively responsible .

Greens trying to get through to the kid by taking away ice time. Because if he addresses his weaknesses instead of continue to improve his strengths he becomes a much more valuable player.

 

[Melvin]

The difference matters because when coupled with in-game usage, you have a case for bias. There is a disparity. I don't need Goldobin scratched for 14 games and Granlund scratched for 4 games to recognize that there is bias. It's apparent.

So we've established that Green likes Motte and Granlund in their roles, good. Effectiveness irrelevant, also fine. I'm wondering what kind of good will is built up by simply liking these types on the PK without regard for their effectiveness? A lot? A little?

Goldobin plays on the PP and is 4th in forward scoring there, but we are parking effectiveness for special teams, so I'll just ask: Does Green like Goldobin on the PP? If so, does this garner him good will like the PK garners Motte and Granlund good will? If not, there's the problem. If so, please explain how and what is the effect of that good will?

Granlund leads the team in TOI on the PK. The effectiveness is irrelevant because green obviously believes he's effective there, which means that his not getting scratched is due to this perceived effectiveness and not "bias." effectiveness is irrelevant only in this specific context.

I don't know what's changed here. Maybe green has realized finally that he sucks and now he's sitting so that is good. I don't know what green thinks of Goldobin on the PP but 4th among forwards certainly isn't very impressive.

If Goldobin were killing it on the PP I absolutely think that would give him some rope but he's been merely alright.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Granlund leads the team in TOI on the PK. The effectiveness is irrelevant because green obviously believes he's effective there, which means that his not getting scratched is due to this perceived effectiveness and not "bias." effectiveness is irrelevant only in this specific context.

I don't know what's changed here. Maybe green has realized finally that he sucks and now he's sitting so that is good. I don't know what green thinks of Goldobin on the PP but 4th among forwards certainly isn't very impressive.

It's not, I agree, but it's better than the 8 other forwards Green has here...

Look, I'm not a Goldobin fan (I hated that trade). It may seem that way because I've defended his usage here, but this goes above him. What Green is doing seems like bias to me. It seems that way because I can't draw the line between perception and predisposition you have here. I don't know for sure.

Maybe Green likes bottom6 muckers and hates loosey-goosey skill players? Or, maybe he actually discerns that Goldobin is less effective in his role than Granlund is in his role? I don't know. What I suspect is that he's got more time for the bottom6 play style than he does for the top6 or nothing play style... and he wouldn't be the first coach to carry that descriptor.

In the end, if they are all fringe, scratch them all with regular frequency. Let the fans and Goldobin know that he's not being singled out over and above the other fringe players that are also being singled out. That's my view on this.

I'll leave it there.

 

[whoshouse]

He's been playing mostly first line minutes alongside Pettersson. I'm not sure what more fans want when it comes to "usage". First line ES and PP time seems like great "usage" to me.

And complaining about players like Schaller, Granlund and Motte getting better usage isn't an argument. They play on the 3rd or 4th line (when Schaller even plays). Besides, I thought people around here recognized Mottes good play this season..

I'd understand people's issue with Green if he was continually playing Goldobin on the 3rd and 4th line and not giving him ample pp time, but Green is. It's not like Greens sticking a young offensive kid on a line with Beagle every game.

To me, this is more of a bias against Green. People have already made a decision on Green being bad for the young kid prospects and are looking for any reason to call Green out.

 

[Jyrki21]

The main reason I'm on Goldobin's side is because Pettersson has seemed to genuinely benefit from playing with him, so I'd want to keep him there.

And I don't care if he's not the world's greatest checker any more than I care if checkers are the world's greatest scorers. I'm not sure why coaches can't understand that the absolute value of a goal in either direction is 1. I do suspect Goldobin gets railroaded by a bias against skill players who don't look snarly when they're playing, independently of the outcomes they create.

 

[tantalum]

My opinion hasn't really changed. I don't really see him as a core piece moving forward. That said, there is little reason not to play him while you look for an upgrade. But that position isn't at the top of the list when it comes to needed upgrades. My list of the regulars that need to be replaced with something better:

1) Real Gud
2) Pouliot...I'll be honest, if they go the entire season not dealing with these first two it will be a colossal failure of management.
3) Eriksson
4) Sutter/Beagle (I just think there is better use of the cap and that much money tied up in Sutter and Beagle is crazy IMO)
5 ) Then you move to the other wingers like Baertschi, Goldobin, Leivo (at least push him down to the 4th line). To me this doesn't really take priority as the contracts aren't awful.

The top 2 should be dealt with at the deadline if they actually want to make the playoffs and have a chance to win a round if they get there.

 

[VanJack]

Goldy has actually had a couple of decent games since being reinstated into the lineup. But of course it's a moot point now. If Baertschi is gone for a lengthy period of time, then Green won't have much choice but to use him. They're that thin on scoring left wingers.

 

[Bleach Clean]

He's been playing mostly first line minutes alongside Pettersson. I'm not sure what more fans want when it comes to "usage". First line ES and PP time seems like great "usage" to me.

And complaining about players like Schaller, Granlund and Motte getting better usage isn't an argument. They play on the 3rd or 4th line (when Schaller even plays). Besides, I thought people around here recognized Mottes good play this season..

I'd understand people's issue with Green if he was continually playing Goldobin on the 3rd and 4th line and not giving him ample pp time, but Green is. It's not like Greens sticking a young offensive kid on a line with Beagle every game.

To me, this is more of a bias against Green. People have already made a decision on Green being bad for the young kid prospects and are looking for any reason to call Green out.

Yes, clearly this is bias against Green. Forget all the points made. Make it easy on yourself and keep this locked in as a given. It's got to be the truth.

Why argue what is being said, after all?

Usage = benching him when he makes a mistake and not benching others when they make a mistake. It's about a level playing field. Green doesn't need to play Goldobin in the bottom6 for the first point to hold either.

Very clear and direct points have been made. You haven't referenced any of them with the same clarity in turn and your counter points are running on emotion. When you decide to join the discussion let me know.

 

[Horse McHindu]

I highly doubt that Goldobin will get traded.....especially with Baertschi’s questionable health. My prediction - Goldobin is signed to a two year low cost bridge deal. If Dahlen becomes good enough to play top 6 one day, the Canucks will move Baertschi IF Goldobin shows improvement in his game.....otherwise, Goldie will be the one to get the boot.

 

[whoshouse]

Yes, clearly this is bias against Green. Forget all the points made. Make it easy on yourself and keep this locked in as a given. It's got to be the truth.

Why argue what is being said, after all?

Usage = benching him when he makes a mistake and not benching others when they make a mistake. It's about a level playing field. Green doesn't need to play Goldobin in the bottom6 for the first point to hold either.

Very clear and direct points have been made. You haven't referenced any of them with the same clarity in turn and your counter points are running on emotion. When you decide to join the discussion let me know.

That's my opinion. Fans don't want to give Green credit. Prior you said something about Green not utilizing the kids well, but seems like all the kids are playing offensive minutes and are a big part of the teams success.

You can act like I haven't been part of the discussion, but I've already posted about your claim of "usage" or being benched, and then some, if you actually take the time to see what I posted the other day. I'm not going to keep saying the same things over and over again. I've already posted why I think Green benchs Goldobin. Yet you ignore my point by saying, "Green doesn't need to play Goldobin in the bottom 6 for the first point to hold".

It actually seems like this post I'm replying to is running on emotion. I'm just pointing out an opinion of mine and of other posters on this board that think there are posters who don't want to give Green credit. I'm not taking it personally. But this last post you made, it seems like you are taking it personally. I respect your opinions but this opinion of Green having some sort of vendetta against Goldobin is wrong.

So, please don't undermine my posts by saying they run on emotion or that they aren't addressing your points because just because it may feel like I'm calling you out, doesn't mean that haven't.

 

[4Twenty]

It's because you aren't understanding what people mean by usage and short leash.

Goldy without a doubt has the shortest leash on the team.

Now where people complain about the usage is that generally he's a mistake away from not playing in the 3rd periods or getting single digit ice time games. That's the complaint, not that he isn't getting put on a good line. At least that's my gripe.

This isn't that uncommon for coaches though, Willie did the exact same thing with Kassian when he was here while players like Vey could do just about anything and not be disciplined or having minutes cut.

 

[Melvin]

The main reason I'm on Goldobin's side is because Pettersson has seemed to genuinely benefit from playing with him, so I'd want to keep him there.

And I don't care if he's not the world's greatest checker any more than I care if checkers are the world's greatest scorers. I'm not sure why coaches can't understand that the absolute value of a goal in either direction is 1. I do suspect Goldobin gets railroaded by a bias against skill players who don't look snarly when they're playing, independently of the outcomes they create.

8 primary points at ES in 47 games. Three since November.

He's a PP specialist who isn't anything special on the PP, like Sam Gagner who was sent to the minors.

There's no "bias." If you aren't a checker and you can't score you don't have much of a place.

 

[Bleach Clean]

That's my opinion. Fans don't want to give Green credit. Prior you said something about Green not utilizing the kids well, but seems like all the kids are playing offensive minutes and are a big part of the teams success.

You can act like I haven't been part of the discussion, but I've already posted about your claim of "usage" or being benched, and then some, if you actually take the time to see what I posted the other day. I'm not going to keep saying the same things over and over again. I've already posted why I think Green benchs Goldobin. Yet you ignore my point by saying, "Green doesn't need to play Goldobin in the bottom 6 for the first point to hold".

It actually seems like this post I'm replying to is running on emotion. I'm just pointing out an opinion of mine and of other posters on this board that think there are posters who don't want to give Green credit. I'm not taking it personally. But this last post you made, it seems like you are taking it personally. I respect your opinions but this opinion of Green having some sort of vendetta against Goldobin is wrong.

So, please don't undermine my posts by saying they run on emotion or that they aren't addressing your points because just because it may feel like I'm calling you out, doesn't mean that haven't.

Your posts on Goldobin come across as emotional. Here's the tell: The crux of your argument is my perceived bias against Green. That is a pre-existing perception you have of my posts going into this conversation about Goldobin. You confirm this by referencing my earlier posts about Green "not utilizing the kids well". That's your take going in before I have said one word about Goldobin. Fair or unfair?

When in fact, I have shown my methodology as to why Green is wrong here by isolating his method with Goldobin. As in, I am working back from his usage, not forward with bias. You don't see this.

I'll take this a step further: Here were your initial distinct points:

- It's mind numbing some on here cannot see the difference in his play pre and post sitting out.
- It must be hard for people to see things when they're so married to ideas from 2 years ago. (another tell)
- Just blame Goldobin's IQ on Green too. (one more)
- It's not like Green is sticking a young offensive kid on a line with Beagle. (irrelevant point)
- I'm looking for a reason to call Green out...

Have I listed your main points correctly?

Three of those points do not argue in good faith. That's you seeing a perceived slight against Green and jumping to his defense. That's emotion.




On the points themselves:

You don't need to repeat them because I know them (assuming you verify the bullet list I posted). You think that because Green gives Goldobin offensive minutes when he plays him that this is enough to satisfy usage, I don't. I see a coach that jumps to bench Goldobin first, above all others. I see a coach that tries to make an example of Goldobin by scratching him for 4 consecutive games. Schaller has a similar case. Only, one is an offensive producer on a bottom11 GF/GP team, and the other is no-scoring mucker. Both are fringe, but I'm seeing a preference by Green here in terms of style.

What do you think?

 

[Intangibos]

8 primary points at ES in 47 games. Three since November.

But how many puck touches, Glenn?

 

[Melvin]

It's just incredible to me that people continue to go on about the skill of this player and how it doesn't matter that he can't play defense because he is so good offensively and blah blah blah and it's like, the dude has 2 more points than Antoine Roussel at this point. He's 3 up on Jake. And that's mostly because of PP time and also mostly because of secondary assists.

At this point he's practically Markus Granlund in 2016-17 who is getting spoonfed a ton of icetime with the best players and PP time and putting up barely okay offensive numbers, except people are weirdly attached to him for reasons I cannot fathom.

Will he catch up to Granlund's amazing 32 point finish? He has 3 in his last 12 so it should be an exciting finish!

 

[Melvin]

His main problem, as we saw again last night, is that he misses the net on 30% of his shot attempts, despite usually being in prime shooting positions. Only four players in the NHL miss the net more often.

He makes a cute pass every now and again and everyone loses their minds but if he can't hit 30 points or play defense then he doesn't have much use in the NHL.

 

[Jyrki21]

It's just incredible to me that people continue to go on about the skill of this player and how it doesn't matter that he can't play defense because he is so good offensively and blah blah blah and it's like, the dude has 2 more points than Antoine Roussel at this point. He's 3 up on Jake.

But again, doesn’t the data show Pettersson benefiting substantially from playing with him?

And hasn’t his offensive output been dashed by an incredibly low on-ice shooting percentage?

 

[4Twenty]

His main problem, as we saw again last night, is that he misses the net on 30% of his shot attempts, despite usually being in prime shooting positions. Only four players in the NHL miss the net more often.

He makes a cute pass every now and again and everyone loses their minds but if he can't hit 30 points or play defense then he doesn't have much use in the NHL.

Is your missing the net stat just based on this season? How does it compare to previous seasons?

 

[4Twenty]

8 primary points at ES in 47 games. Three since November.

He's a PP specialist who isn't anything special on the PP, like Sam Gagner who was sent to the minors.

There's no "bias." If you aren't a checker and you can't score you don't have much of a place.

You make it sound worse the way you've framed your arguments. 3 since November....he only played 3 games in January.

I think it's ludicrous to dock 2nd assists like they weren't important as well.

He had a 7 point in 10 game stretch in December.

There is a bias, he's held to a different standard, I'm surprised you can't see it when watching....or are you not watching and just looking at the date (not trying to be a dick with this statement, I know you've stated you aren't into the games as much as the data, so I'm wondering if this is the case).

 

[Melvin]

Is your missing the net stat just based on this season? How does it compare to previous seasons?

It's pretty consistent

season	Attempts	Missed	Missed%
20152016	16	6	37.5
20162017	28	9	32.14
20172018	96	29	30.21
20182019	129	39	30.23

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

 

[4Twenty]

It's pretty consistent

season	Attempts	Missed	Missed%
20152016	16	6	37.5
20162017	28	9	32.14
20172018	96	29	30.21
20182019	129	39	30.23

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Thank you for the prompt reply.

He's a flawed player, just like many on this team. When they're good again someday I don't expect anyone other than the current big 3 (EP, BB, BH) will be on this teams top 2 lines.

I actually hope they can run a soft min 3rd line next year with Goldy-Gaudette-JV.