Player Discussion: Erik Gudbranson | Part 4

[Wo Yorfat]

Hockey bad, toughness good. What's that worth? I don't know. I would think that if I were an NHLer (not looking great at this point), especially one breaking into the league, I would like having some guys on the team that can f*** somebody up. I offer no data to back this up and don't imagine anyone can.

 

[Siludin]

Hockey bad, toughness good. What's that worth? I don't know. I would think that if I were an NHLer (not looking great at this point), especially one breaking into the league, I would like having some guys on the team that can **** somebody up. I offer no data to back this up and don't imagine anyone can.

yeah I can confirm that having a friend who can beat up people who want to beat you up is good

 

[Wo Yorfat]

yeah I can confirm that having a friend who can beat up people who want to beat you up is good

You laugh, but I found a clip of Boeser and Baertschi reaching out to 44

 

[WeegarUnderwood]

Thanks for the insights guys. I love Guddy and hope he gets better for you guys in other aspects of his game like transition. Cheers

 

[Pavel96]

Thanks for the insights guys. I love Guddy and hope he gets better for you guys in other aspects of his game like transition. Cheers

Why do you love him?

 

[WeegarUnderwood]

Why do you love him?

He's a really nice and standup guy. I'm a fan of his physicality as well. Just a good all around fella. Been a fan since the Frontenacs. Like the aspect he brings

 

[Sawchuk]

Like I said before, the guy can't move the puck out of our zone to save his life and is a liability to his partner especially if the other teams have proper scouting and review the games. He will make if harder for his partner who should theoretically be double teamed and will also have all the responsibility to move the puck out of the zone.

From a purely transitional standpoint, Gudbranson is a complete and total disaster.

But in a different school of thought in hockey is the retrieving the puck in the corners and his physicality. So people will defend him because he is good at retrieving pucks and being tough in corners. These two schools of thought have massively different ways of viewing a player like Gudbranson. There is overlap here, that being good in corners and retrieving pucks can lead to an increase in zone transition stats. I would say Tanev transcends these 2 schools of thought by just being a beast at retrieving pucks and transitioning.

However, Gudbranson doesn't. In-fact I'd consider him a complete liability defensively. Because he puts too much pressure on his partner to move the puck up the ice and if teams were better at scouting that weakness he will get abused. Eventually teams will key into this at the end of the season and he will look worse. And with the amount of data and coaching that has evolved over the years these sorts of weaknesses are easier and easier to spot and abuse. It would be a smart way to get rid of this type of player, because the road will only get harder for him.

You make a good point about him being good at retrieving pucks. Just the sort of skill that needs an advanced stat invented for it so that we the new advanced stats gurus have something to track...

You also make a good point insofar as suggesting indirectly that his skillset is more nuanced than some. For example, in this CA article, Jeremy Davis outlines some stat he calls gains/60: https://canucksarmy.com/2017/10/26/...-is-unless-you-already-think-hes-really-good/
This stat details how many times a player "gains possession of the puck for his team, be it by recovering loose pucks, intercepting passes, or stealing it from opponents". Gudbranson is by far the lowest on the team with about 20/60. Now, this struck me as odd since when watching the game, is see Gudbranson gain the Canucks the puck at as great a rate as any other defenseman. The rub here is that Gudbranson likes to tie up the man and leave the puck for his D partner. He does all the work, but it is crucially his partner who "gains" the puck and thus gets credited in the advanced stats.

Likewise, Gudbranson often defers to his partner by passing cross-ice rather than attempting to exit the zone himself. This makes his advanced stats look bad, but to me actually shows a good understanding of his own skillset.

We have to look at more than just the surface with a player like Gudbranson, but what you have just outlined is only half the story.

To go on a bit of a tangent here, player analysis seems to work like this: We take a part of the game that we deem important (ie: times on the ice for goals for and against) and we devise a stat to fit an explanation of how that part of the game works. This works most of the time. Then some smart alec comes along and explains how we are not delving deeply enough into this aspect of game play and invents an even more nuanced stat like Corsi. Later, another stat savant comes along and decides that Corsi still doesn't tell the whole story, and so we get something like Fenwick. Then maybe we say "oh, I can make assumptions about the whole story because my stats are so nuanced". Not to say that this will continue ad absurdum, but hockey is just not easily analyzed in this way. Hockey is not baseball where plays can be parsed into short, discrete chunks where 99% of the time the right fielder has nothing to do with the play at third base.

It is precisely for this reason that a player (like Sutter or Gudbranson) can have bad stats or advanced stats or both and still be a decidedly positive contributor. The cliched intangibles still exist and still make up the majority of (un-tracked) game events.

I am not trying to pick on what you are saying (it is largely informative), but I do truly want to caution the hockey watcher at large to actually watch the game rather than rely on some preconceived notions of vague aspects of a player's game. This is precisely what the advanced stats wave has been trying to get away from in the first place.

 

[DL44]

Like I said before, the guy can't move the puck out of our zone to save his life and is a liability to his partner especially if the other teams have proper scouting and review the games. He will make if harder for his partner who should theoretically be double teamed and will also have all the responsibility to move the puck out of the zone.

From a purely transitional standpoint, Gudbranson is a complete and total disaster.

But in a different school of thought in hockey is the retrieving the puck in the corners and his physicality. So people will defend him because he is good at retrieving pucks and being tough in corners. These two schools of thought have massively different ways of viewing a player like Gudbranson. There is overlap here, that being good in corners and retrieving pucks can lead to an increase in zone transition stats. I would say Tanev transcends these 2 schools of thought by just being a beast at retrieving pucks and transitioning.

However, Gudbranson doesn't. In-fact I'd consider him a complete liability defensively. Because he puts too much pressure on his partner to move the puck up the ice and if teams were better at scouting that weakness he will get abused. Eventually teams will key into this at the end of the season and he will look worse. And with the amount of data and coaching that has evolved over the years these sorts of weaknesses are easier and easier to spot and abuse. It would be a smart way to get rid of this type of player, because the road will only get harder for him.

Your hyperbole rivals MS.

Why do you guys do that?
You're trying to emphatically state a point.
But completely swing and miss making one when you sink to these depths.

You should actually watch him play a game. And yes im stating you fail at comprehending what your visualizing.

I did that shift by shift breakdown of Pouliot v DRW... and Gudbranson was his partner that game.. if you actually focused on what he was doing on his shifts, you'd actually see for yourself how he does transition, pass, skate the puck, pinch and picks his spot to get offensively aggressive.

Your swooping generalizing non-specific statements of his suckiness is kinda wreaking of desperate sensationalism.

He's been good this year.
Its like you dont even know others are watching the game as well.

 

[Ryan Miller*]

He's a really nice and standup guy. I'm a fan of his physicality as well. Just a good all around fella. Been a fan since the Frontenacs. Like the aspect he brings

Nice to have posts like this once in awhile. Unfortunately you won't find much love for our own players on this forum; we prefer to call them garbage and trash, and only support them when it's convenient to our own argumentative agenda. It's sad and dehumanizing treatment that's only acceptable on the Internet.

 

[Chairman Maouth]

Nice to have posts like this once in awhile. Unfortunately you won't find much love for our own players on this forum; we prefer to call them garbage and trash, and only support them when it's convenient to our own argumentative agenda. It's sad and dehumanizing treatment that's only acceptable on the Internet.

A little too much generalizing for my liking.

 

[Ryan Miller*]

A little too much generalizing for my liking.

Well, it's a general problem. We can't even get game reports on one of our top prospects from a Finnish fan because:

Funny how I failed to report Olli's play against Ilves (the game before Jukurit), because he didn't do all that well. Sure, he was quite okay - no glaring mistakes but neither was he being a Miro Heiskanen over here - but to think about the negativity that usually spawns from every post about him just irks me too much to waste my time. I didn't bother posting about that game.

There's so much acceptable vitriol here surrounding a bloody teenager—and many of our other players—that the quality of discussion is weakened across all threads.

 

[Nuckles]

It's weird how fans are unhappy with players performing poorly and happy with players performing well. Negativity shouldn't be allowed, we should be complacent with bad results.

 

[sting101]

I would say he's been our worst defender. Still offers nothing offensively, and defensively his controlled zone exits are among the worst on the team. His CF% is by far the worst among our defense. He's such a useless player who doesn't really do anything that leads to wins well, but because he's big and he'll fight some people will love him.

Wrong. He's been our 4th best defenseman so far this year.

He's hit 4 posts. Mainly gets used in a shutdown role against other teams top lines and provides the biggest deterrent we have to big physical players having their way with the front of our net and taking liberties. Ask Tkachuk Connolly Wilson and Vatrano how much they like playing against him.

Lets see how this goes before making shit up to try and discredit him from a nice start to the year. He's been solid and better than last year

 

[Pavel96]

It's weird how fans are unhappy with players performing poorly and happy with players performing well. Negativity shouldn't be allowed, we should be complacent with bad results.

Exactly. I wonder if this style of reporting will make its way to the weather network. If its going to rain, the channel will just cut to stock video footage of a meadow on a nice day? If the weather looks bad - just don't report it as it will disappoint too many people and then people will post about it.

Well, it's a general problem. We can't even get game reports on one of our top prospects from a Finnish fan because:



There's so much acceptable vitriol here surrounding a bloody teenager—and many of our other players—that the quality of discussion is weakened across all threads.

An example of people making excuses and putting victim cards on other people. The vitriol is acceptable because it is mainly directed at the management staff that chose this player with an incredibly high and valuable pick. This hockey player (or teenager- as you try to play a sympathy angle) is simply not as good as players that were picked directly after him. Because fans want the best product possible they are angry and expressing it as it is frustrating watching and hearing about assets you could have easily had - significantly outperforming the player your team chose. In this case its following a similar situation to what happened with virtanen. Obviously the more something negative happens the more vitriol will be generated.

This teenager we are talking about also came right out and said multiple times that he was the best dman available in the draft.



Now I am not saying that people should target him directly and send his twitter personal messages etc - but if he can proclaim himself to be the top dman in the draft (and he puts that out there to the media himself) why can't fans at home write about why they don't feel that he is? It's pretty obvious that with certain jobs you throw yourself into the media spotlight - why do we have to feel bad and make excuses for someone who just isn't as good as they (and management) thought they were? When managment and theplayer himself can't stop telling you how great he is and how hes the best - and then you see people outperform that player - it sort of generates more vitriol then say if Boeser hadn't had worked out or even if Petterson doesn't (Petterson was projected as high risk high reward - not simply the best, better than all the rest)

 

[VancouverJagger]

Wrong. He's been our 4th best defenseman so far this year.

He's hit 4 posts. Mainly gets used in a shutdown role against other teams top lines and provides the biggest deterrent we have to big physical players having their way with the front of our net and taking liberties. Ask Tkachuk Connolly Wilson and Vatrano how much they like playing against him.

Lets see how this goes before making **** up to try and discredit him from a nice start to the year. He's been solid and better than last year

Yeah I know it's impossible to quantify but there is definite value there in having a tough SOB like him on the team that prevents other teams from taking liberties on the rest of the guys.

I was at the Calgary game in Van when Tkachuk was getting uppitty in front of our net. EG gave him a good smack in the face (yes he got 2 minutes for it but we killed the penalty). Next draw I saw Tkachuk line up in our zone against EG he was sure to stay far, far away.........Didn't want anything to do with him and was largely invisible the rest of the game.

So yeah - I think the value he provides from his presence alone is largely understated - especially on a team like ours that doesn't necessarily have a ton of toughness.

 

[Pip]

Nice to have posts like this once in awhile. Unfortunately you won't find much love for our own players on this forum; we prefer to call them garbage and trash, and only support them when it's convenient to our own argumentative agenda. It's sad and dehumanizing treatment that's only acceptable on the Internet.

Some of us like good players that are doing well and will criticize bad players playing poorly. Crazy, I know. Probably makes me less of a fan.

 

[Pavel96]

Some of us like good players that are doing well and will criticize bad players playing poorly. Crazy, I know. Probably makes me less of a fan.

Definitely are less of a fan. You have to blindly support millionaires playing a game for entertainment - because they are wearing the jersey with the name of the city you reside. Regardless of how they individually perform. And even if our beloved Guddy is praised for 'smacking' another human being in the face and scaring him for the rest of the game and heralded and cherished as a 'monster' we as fans paying these millionares must display the utmost civility when describing their play as well - no matter how unsuccessful it is. This cherished "monster" can not be described as a "garbage player" or even "trash". No - that is just taking it too far in this horrible world these poor Canuck players live in. Shame on us all, everyone.

 

[I in the Eye]

Well, it's a general problem. We can't even get game reports on one of our top prospects from a Finnish fan because:



There's so much acceptable vitriol here surrounding a bloody teenager—and many of our other players—that the quality of discussion is weakened across all threads.

How does optimism bias improve the quality of discussion? Minimizing or ignoring the negative might make you feel better and be happier... but it doesn't strengthen the quality of discussion.

 

[WTG]

Your hyperbole rivals MS.

Why do you guys do that?
You're trying to emphatically state a point.
But completely swing and miss making one when you sink to these depths.

You should actually watch him play a game. And yes im stating you fail at comprehending what your visualizing.

I did that shift by shift breakdown of Pouliot v DRW... and Gudbranson was his partner that game.. if you actually focused on what he was doing on his shifts, you'd actually see for yourself how he does transition, pass, skate the puck, pinch and picks his spot to get offensively aggressive.

Your swooping generalizing non-specific statements of his suckiness is kinda wreaking of desperate sensationalism.

He's been good this year.
Its like you dont even know others are watching the game as well.

Arguing with people who flat out reject data in favor for subjective eye tests, can be hard. Everything seems hyperbolic when you reject data in favor of subjective eye tests to try prove your narrative.

Transitionally he simply IS a disaster. Data proves this.
Possessionally he is bad. Data proves this.

Yeah that can seem hyperbolic when you rather reject the data and think that Gudbranson is a good defenseman.


There is little actual data suggesting he's even been average let alone good. So yeah, in your eyes I am being hyperbolic. But in my eyes you are rejecting data because it doesn't fit your narrative.

 

[bossram]

Wrong. He's been our 4th best defenseman so far this year.

He's hit 4 posts. Mainly gets used in a shutdown role against other teams top lines and provides the biggest deterrent we have to big physical players having their way with the front of our net and taking liberties. Ask Tkachuk Connolly Wilson and Vatrano how much they like playing against him.

Lets see how this goes before making **** up to try and discredit him from a nice start to the year. He's been solid and better than last year

You accuse someone of making false statements, and then makes some yourself?

Gudbranson has unequivocally not been used in a shutdown role. It's quite clear that has been Tanev's role, and it is borne out in the evidence. Tanev is first in both CF% QoC and TOI% QoC. Gudbranson is 4th in both.

And for his all his vaunted crease-clearing ability, Gudbranson doesn't seem to be preventing chances from scoring areas. His xGF% is lowest on the team, and his xGA/60 is only ahead of Pouliot, indicating other teams are getting quality chances while he's on the ice.

And the recent Canucks Army piece that outlined some of his transitional woes are now well known.

He really hasn't been better than last year, thus far. He's been what he is, and what we should have expected.

 

[rune74]

Arguing with people who flat out reject data in favor for subjective eye tests, can be hard. Everything seems hyperbolic when you reject data in favor of subjective eye tests to try prove your narrative.

Transitionally he simply IS a disaster. Data proves this.
Possessionally he is bad. Data proves this.

Yeah that can seem hyperbolic when you rather reject the data and think that Gudbranson is a good defenseman.


There is little actual data suggesting he's even been average let alone good. So yeah, in your eyes I am being hyperbolic. But in my eyes you are rejecting data because it doesn't fit your narrative.

Hold on now, lost in all the measuring the last few points was a good point made and something I noticed.

He tends to pass to his partner who moves the puck out of the zone....it seems to me that he does this a lot. How is that stat measured? Does it look like he had anything to do with leaving the zone?

The argument about narrative should be dropped, unless you are willing to accept that others here have a narrative as well. Which seems to be taboo with a few of you.

 

[MS]

It's weird how fans are unhappy with players performing poorly and happy with players performing well. Negativity shouldn't be allowed, we should be complacent with bad results.

No, you have that wrong.

There should be maximum negativity about any player not associated with Jim Benning and maximum negativity directed toward any fans who say a bad team is bad.

Then there must be nothing but sunshine and lollipops directed toward any player or anything associated with our Lord and Saviour Benning.

 

[WTG]

Hold on now, lost in all the measuring the last few points was a good point made and something I noticed.

He tends to pass to his partner who moves the puck out of the zone....it seems to me that he does this a lot. How is that stat measured? Does it look like he had anything to do with leaving the zone?

The argument about narrative should be dropped, unless you are willing to accept that others here have a narrative as well. Which seems to be taboo with a few of you.

Alright, interesting point.

If he did pass it more to his partner to transition it out of his zone it would probably lead to more defensive zone passes. HOWEVER, he doesn't seem to have drastically more defensive zone passes. When Gudbranson does clear he makes uncontrolled exits, off the board/off the glass and out. Gudbranson's inability to actually have clean transitions could explain the fact he's an awful possession defenseman, which he is.

There's a great guy who manually painstakingly records zone transitions. He has a great site, that if you are interested in zone transitions you should really check out.

http://dissecttheblueline.weebly.com/canucks.html

Here's what he says about Gudbranson

FAIL RATE %
My standards for success are low for Gudbranson when he has the puck. As long as he doesn't give it up or toss a grenade, I'm happy. Let's hope he can build off a strong game last night and inch his way a little closer to the team average...

Also puts into perspective how Del Zotto and Hutton are both having themselves good seasons

 

[Brock Boeser]

http://dissecttheblueline.weebly.com/canucks.html


Also puts into perspective how Del Zotto and Hutton are both having themselves good seasons

Edler hovering around 2% sheesh

 

[WTG]

You make a good point about him being good at retrieving pucks. Just the sort of skill that needs an advanced stat invented for it so that we the new advanced stats gurus have something to track...

You also make a good point insofar as suggesting indirectly that his skillset is more nuanced than some. For example, in this CA article, Jeremy Davis outlines some stat he calls gains/60: https://canucksarmy.com/2017/10/26/...-is-unless-you-already-think-hes-really-good/
This stat details how many times a player "gains possession of the puck for his team, be it by recovering loose pucks, intercepting passes, or stealing it from opponents". Gudbranson is by far the lowest on the team with about 20/60. Now, this struck me as odd since when watching the game, is see Gudbranson gain the Canucks the puck at as great a rate as any other defenseman. The rub here is that Gudbranson likes to tie up the man and leave the puck for his D partner. He does all the work, but it is crucially his partner who "gains" the puck and thus gets credited in the advanced stats.

Likewise, Gudbranson often defers to his partner by passing cross-ice rather than attempting to exit the zone himself. This makes his advanced stats look bad, but to me actually shows a good understanding of his own skillset.

We have to look at more than just the surface with a player like Gudbranson, but what you have just outlined is only half the story.

To go on a bit of a tangent here, player analysis seems to work like this: We take a part of the game that we deem important (ie: times on the ice for goals for and against) and we devise a stat to fit an explanation of how that part of the game works. This works most of the time. Then some smart alec comes along and explains how we are not delving deeply enough into this aspect of game play and invents an even more nuanced stat like Corsi. Later, another stat savant comes along and decides that Corsi still doesn't tell the whole story, and so we get something like Fenwick. Then maybe we say "oh, I can make assumptions about the whole story because my stats are so nuanced". Not to say that this will continue ad absurdum, but hockey is just not easily analyzed in this way. Hockey is not baseball where plays can be parsed into short, discrete chunks where 99% of the time the right fielder has nothing to do with the play at third base.

It is precisely for this reason that a player (like Sutter or Gudbranson) can have bad stats or advanced stats or both and still be a decidedly positive contributor. The cliched intangibles still exist and still make up the majority of (un-tracked) game events.

I am not trying to pick on what you are saying (it is largely informative), but I do truly want to caution the hockey watcher at large to actually watch the game rather than rely on some preconceived notions of vague aspects of a player's game. This is precisely what the advanced stats wave has been trying to get away from in the first place.

You can have bad corsi and still be a contributer, look at Horvat as an example for that. He's been a pretty damn bad possession forward who has absolutely possitively attributed to the team. However, in these cases just looking at Corsi doesn't tell the full picture. There are other stats to be taken into account like Scoring chances per/60, high danger scoring chances per/60. His corsi heat chart is very good. But looking at a player like Gudbranson where there is very little data to actually suggest he is a good player. In-fact almost all of the data collected on Gudbranson suggest that he's a bad player, confirm that with the eye test on how he moves the puck.

Then it paints a relatively accurate assumption of Gudbranson.

Statistics in hockey have been used as a bit of a "moneypuck" stat, trying to find value in players that others don't. And seeing players shortfalls that normal eye tests don't pick up. Gudbranson is a key example that one can use to say that he is overrated in a "moneypuck" type of situation. Advanced stats suggest he simply isn't good. That you get much more value out of other players like Del Zotto then you do out of Gudbranson.

Again, if Gudbranson has had a positive impact in play, there should be at least one if not several statistic that is good. Even if those statistics are good, they don't seem to be impacting the rate at which goals are scored against us, or goals are scored for us. So that statistic is rather useless.