Player Discussion: Erik Gudbranson | Part 4

[Hit the post]

I still think he's an fairly easily replaceable player (only real notable plus in his corner is that he's a right side D) but am willing to give him the rest of this season to 'show me'.

 

[Jyrki21]

I did a thread about this around five years or so ago here and I would still like to see a complete overhaul of the hockey fighting code.

I would like to see it replaced by rock-paper-scissors, since it’s a far more sensible way of “settling disputes” with equal if not better effectiveness.

Fighting is stupid, has always been stupid, and has never, ever been a necessary part of the game, as proven by virtually every single non-Canadian hockey league in the world.

 

[sting101]

A mountain of evidence was presented and the poster basically replied with 'I choose to ignore that because my eye test says big + tough = good.'

Like, I'm not a big advanced stats guy. I understand their value in context but they far too often are taken out of context or in small sample sizes. But the evidence on Gudbranson is *overwhelming* over a period of years. He comes out on the wrong end of literally every advanced stat you can imagine - as well as every traditional one - despite playing soft-ish minutes.

And I have yet to see any sort of argument as to how a defender who contributes zero offence and can't move the puck while consistently bleeding shots and chances is somehow magically a good player.

The guy is a mediocre #6 defender with some PK utility. Period.

this is incorrect.

he's never been used since his teenage years by a number of different coaches as a #6. His icetime suggest factually that you're wrong. i think you greatly overvalue the level of competition/talent between players in the bottom halves of rosters.

Look, i'm not a huge fan of this player and i absolutely detested the trade and rational behind it. The attacks this season are unwarranted to date. He's been solid and adds an element that this team lacks. As a 4/5 with a decent contract he doesn't adversely affect your team and adds some pushback which is nice. Do i wan't him paid like a top4 on a long term deal absolutely not. If JB can get a top4 puck mover PP guy and move Tanev to a shutdown pair and use Gudbranson to do it that's a smart move.

 

[absolute garbage]

To me fighting was always deeply joint with the overall culture around the sport. It was cool when it fit, but with all the social changes, rule changes and advancements in science since 2005 that have changed the game and culture around it in a major way, it just doesn't fit in this sport anymore. I facepalm every time two monkeys start throwing punches at each other on the ice nowadays. It's so out of place.

I think the game was much more entertaining when there was hitting and fighting in it and find myself watching a lot more basketball nowadays, but I can see the reasoning why all that is gone of course. Player healthy and safety and such (in addition to just natural progression of society, we are in general a lot less cavemen than in the 80s). Can't really disagree with that even if it does make the sport a lot less entertaining.

 

[Wo Yorfat]

I would like to see it replaced by rock-paper-scissors, since it’s a far more sensible way of “settling disputes” with equal if not better effectiveness.

Fighting is stupid, has always been stupid, and has never, ever been a necessary part of the game, as proven by virtually every single non-Canadian hockey league in the world.

If fighting is stupid, explain this .... checkmate!

 

[Hit the post]

this is incorrect.

he's never been used since his teenage years by a number of different coaches as a #6. His icetime suggest factually that you're wrong. i think you greatly overvalue the level of competition/talent between players in the bottom halves of rosters.

Look, i'm not a huge fan of this player and i absolutely detested the trade and rational behind it. The attacks this season are unwarranted to date. He's been solid and adds an element that this team lacks. As a 4/5 with a decent contract he doesn't adversely affect your team and adds some pushback which is nice. Do i wan't him paid like a top4 on a long term deal absolutely not. If JB can get a top4 puck mover PP guy and move Tanev to a shutdown pair and use Gudbranson to do it that's a smart move.

I'm not sure he's a #5 guy. To me, such a guy can carry the 3rd pairing. As I said, he's got this season to prove to me that he can at least do that.

 

[Pavel96]

this is incorrect.

he's never been used since his teenage years by a number of different coaches as a #6. His icetime suggest factually that you're wrong. i think you greatly overvalue the level of competition/talent between players in the bottom halves of rosters.

Look, i'm not a huge fan of this player and i absolutely detested the trade and rational behind it. The attacks this season are unwarranted to date. He's been solid and adds an element that this team lacks. As a 4/5 with a decent contract he doesn't adversely affect your team and adds some pushback which is nice. Do i wan't him paid like a top4 on a long term deal absolutely not. If JB can get a top4 puck mover PP guy and move Tanev to a shutdown pair and use Gudbranson to do it that's a smart move.

He just hasn't appeared to be that great defensively. So while he gets more ice time than a # 6 dman, according to statistics and even visually - he performs below average in the role he is in (which has been higher than a #6 dman). I think that's why people say he's a # 6 dman (that big physical #6 that shouldn't get tough assignments, a lot of minutes, or be counted on for points). That's the role he'd likely have the most success in. To be effective otherwise he has to be paired with someone who is better than him defensively (which is why your Tanev idea would be great for him) which just seems like a waste and unusual for a 'defensive dman'. Why does a player with such deficiencies seemingly always deserve to play with a great partner with top minutes.

 

[The Extrapolater]

What the Canucks need to do with Gudbransson is build up his trade value. See if there are any playoff (or wannabe playoff) teams who'll trade for him.
He might be worth a couple pieces coming back to the right GM: eg. Bergevin, Murray, or Tallon.

 

[sting101]

I'm not sure he's a #5 guy. To me, such a guy can carry the 3rd pairing. As I said, he's got this season to prove to me that he can at least do that.

If he wasn't then his ice time would reflect it.

The last 5yrs he's been 5th, 5th, 4th, 4th, and this year he would be 5th if Edler was healthy so he's been a 4

 

[absolute garbage]

He just hasn't appeared to be that great defensively. So while he gets more ice time than a # 6 dman, according to statistics and even visually - he performs below average in the role he is in (which has been higher than a #6 dman). I think that's why people say he's a # 6 dman (that big physical #6 that shouldn't get tough assignments, a lot of minutes, or be counted on for points). That's the role he'd likely have the most success in. To be effective otherwise he has to be paired with someone who is better than him defensively (which is why your Tanev idea would be great for him) which just seems like a waste and unusual for a 'defensive dman'. Why does a player with such deficiencies seemingly always deserve to play with a great partner with top minutes.

He was factually the "3rd pairing defensive guy" for the vast majority of his career in Florida, and those teams were pretty bad. Perfectly reasonable to say he is a #6 with PK minutes in a good NHL team.

 

[Melvin]

The thing with fighting is it is a great novelty act for those who are new to the sport. Every time I go to a hockey game or watch hockey with persons from other countries who are not familiar with the sport, all they know about it is the fighting and it is the main thing they are interested in.

It is a novelty side freakshow that allows other countries to gawk at us.

 

[sting101]

He was factually the "3rd pairing defensive guy" for the vast majority of his career in Florida, and those teams were pretty bad. Perfectly reasonable to say he is a #6 with PK minutes in a good NHL team.

Sure i can agree with this. And it's moves like having Salo on a 3rd pair that can put a team over the top in terms of competitiveness

Just arbitrarily calling him a 6 though when he hasn't been one since being a teenager is a bold faced lie. Details matter when making assertions.

If one is to peruse through the rosters of opposing teams and see the bottom half depth they might be surprised though at how weak most teams are in these regards.

 

[absolute garbage]

Just arbitrarily calling him a 6 though when he hasn't been one since being a teenager is a bold faced lie. Details matter when making assertions.

If one is to peruse through the rosters of opposing teams and see the bottom half depth they might be surprised though at how weak most teams are in these regards.

Yes, bad players play over their capabilities in every bad team (that's how a bad team is formed). I assumed the point here was talking about a good team where players are playing in roles where they should be playing.

 

[sting101]

The thing with fighting is it is a great novelty act for those who are new to the sport. Every time I go to a hockey game or watch hockey with persons from other countries who are not familiar with the sport, all they know about it is the fighting and it is the main thing they are interested in.

It is a novelty side freakshow that allows other countries to gawk at us.

Except for that "Novelty" as you describe it has a long entrenched history in the game

I would like to see it replaced by rock-paper-scissors, since it’s a far more sensible way of “settling disputes” with equal if not better effectiveness.

Fighting is stupid, has always been stupid, and has never, ever been a necessary part of the game, as proven by virtually every single non-Canadian hockey league in the world.

Yes and let's replace hitting with a "Bum Pat" and instead of slashing the stick let's make a "you go first kind sir gesture". Get some low T pills man...believe it or not some guy's like to fight. You don't have to if you don't want it's not the bar scene.

It's part of the game right now and some people actually like it and find it entertaining in the right context.

 

[sting101]

Yes, bad players play over their capabilities in every bad team (that's how a bad team is formed). I assumed the point here was talking about a good team where players are playing in roles where they should be playing.

So then we agree that Gudbranson on a 3rd pair could be a part of a contending team.

 

[absolute garbage]

So then we agree that Gudbranson on a 3rd pair could be a part of a contending team.

Exactly (not "incorrectly") like it was said:

"The guy is a mediocre #6 defender with some PK utility. Period."

 

[y2kcanucks]

It's important to understand roles and responsibilities of players, how it affects their production and how that would also affect their fancy stats. In your desire to see your assertions right you are seeing what you want to see. Or cherry picking stats to support an argument that is false.

Travis Green is deploying him with the 4th highest ice time. That would support his opinion that he see's him as his 4th most valuable defensive asset. I too see EG as the Canucks 4th best defenseman this season and i've watched every game and have a coaching and playing background.......i know you probably don't care about this so i will go on.

You say he isn't matched up against other teams top lines? every game i have watched they have tried to match him up against a top6 line, usually the 1st but not always depending on the opponent's composition and line matching, last change etc.. That's been his role do you have evidence to suggest otherwise?

Corsi is a flawed stat without taking into consideration a player's role, linemates, zone starts, quality of competition. The Sedin's have the best Corsi on the Canucks right now and by my accounts are the 9th and 10th best forwards to date this year. EG is deployed to generally negate the threat of a scoring line, bending but not breaking is his role. Using Corsi to evaluate his game is flawed.

Having a physical component whether you like it or not has value. In a game that players can impose physical will having no push back or answers for mitigating the damage others can do to our best most talented players and your goaltender hurts your team. There is no way to measure this value and mostly it exists in the culture of your team, the pleasure of your Coaches and the fans who get to witness someone who won't stand for knocking over your goalie, slashing your top scorers hand and running a smaller talented player into the boards. These types of plays left unanswered can have a negative cumulative effect on a team. Having a goon that can't play is useless but having a tough player that can is a bonus.

i can touch on the zone exits in the next post.

I'm not seeing what I want to see, nor am I cherry picking anything. I'm seeing reality. I apologize if "zomg what a hit, oh shit they scored though, but what a hit" doesn't get it done for me. Maybe that's good enough for you, but not for me.

That's nice about his deployment. Green is deploying Granlund with the most ice-time among our forwards, does that mean he's our best forward?

A top 6 line isn't the top line. Interesting how you change your tone. I can't find the tweet but I saw one not too long ago that showed the stats of where Gudbranson was matched up against and it was not against the oppositions top line. I'm not going to bother wasting too much time digging it up though because I know you'll just find some way to ignore it, like everything else I've already posted.

The Sedins have been low event players. Their CF ranks 4th and 7th among our forwards, but their CA ranks 2nd and 3rd (ignoring Eriksson due to games played). That's why their Corsi has been so good. Defensively they aren't being lit up. Gudbranson's CF ranks 4th among our D, but his CA ranks 5th (among our top 6 D in terms of games played). He's been lit up defensively while not providing much offensively. Meanwhile his defensive zone starts ranks 3rd behind Tanev and Del Zotto. If what you say about Gudbranson is accurate then how come Tanev has a good CF%? In fact, Gudbranson's offensive/defensive zone start split is 47/53 vs. Tanev who's more extreme at 38.5/62.5. Yet what you use to defend Gudbranson doesn't need to be applied to Tanev because he's actually good at defense.

There is value to being a physical player, but if your only value is being able to hit someone who has the puck, while your controlled zone exits are among the worst on the team and you can't generate puck possession from that, what good is it? Gudbranson cost us the Boston game with his stupid penalty, yet you say that's valuable? That's an interesting take.

 

[WTG]

Are Sutter and Dorsett #1st line forwards because the coach gives them first line minutes?

If the answer is no, then why would Gudbranson be better because the coach used him as a top 4 defenseman

 

[y2kcanucks]

So then we agree that Gudbranson on a 3rd pair could be a part of a contending team.

As much as Andrew Alberts on a 3rd pair I guess. Gudbranson is another Andrew Alberts. Benning grossly overpaid for him in both the trade and his contract. I'm utterly terrified by what his contract extension will be. It's players on contracts like what I suspect he'll get that keep teams at the bottom of the league. But hey, he hits guys and can snarl so wooohoo cup here we come.

 

[Pip]

So then we agree that Gudbranson on a 3rd pair could be a part of a contending team.

I guess? He could also be a third pairing defenseman on a bad team as well. I mean Nashville went to the finals with Yannik Weber on their third pair.

 

[Pavel96]

So then we agree that Gudbranson on a 3rd pair could be a part of a contending team.

But not at the price he will "command" on his next contract. I couldn't see a true contending team having enough cap space/gusto to sign him to 4 years at whatever he is going to demand. If he were a trade deadline acquisition this year, then absolutely he could be part of that team and might be good - great in that role (if everything went perfect) especially in the playoffs.

 

[Pavel96]

As much as Andrew Alberts on a 3rd pair I guess. Gudbranson is another Andrew Alberts. Benning grossly overpaid for him in both the trade and his contract. I'm utterly terrified by what his contract extension will be. It's players on contracts like what I suspect he'll get that keep teams at the bottom of the league. But hey, he hits guys and can snarl so wooohoo cup here we come.

Would you compare the contract you envision him getting to be comparable (in a drag a team down sort of way) as the Eriksson contract is?

 

[WTG]

I guess? He could also be a third pairing defenseman on a bad team as well. I mean Nashville went to the finals with Yannik Weber on their third pair.

So can we all agree Gudbranson = Yannik Weber?

 

[Pip]

So can we all agree Gudbranson = Yannik Weber?

Well I wouldn't say that, they've very different players. I was just confused by the post asking if gud could be a third pairing defenseman on a contender, implying that would make him better than a third pairing defenseman on a bad team which I don't necessarily agree with. Similarly, you can have bad fourth liners on a contender or really good ones on a bad one.

I'm of the opinion personally, that most of the bottom of the roster guys for most teams are largely interchangeable and therefore it's foolish to give up a lot of assets for them or sign them to any significant contracts.

 

[WTG]

Well I wouldn't say that, they've very different players. I was just confused by the post asking if gud could be a third pairing defenseman on a contender, implying that would make him better than a third pairing defenseman on a bad team which I don't necessarily agree with. Similarly, you can have bad fourth liners on a contender or really good ones on a bad one.

I'm of the opinion personally, that most of the bottom of the roster guys for most teams are largely interchangeable and therefore it's foolish to give up a lot of assets for them or sign them to any significant contracts.

Just making a little joke.

But yeah, overall I agree with you. The notion that somehow Gudbranson is good because coaches play him a bunch is a logical fallacy anyway, It's a complete appeal to authority and doesn't have a foundation as an argument. If your argument main premise is an appeal to authority the argument sucks.