Player Discussion: Erik Gudbranson | Part 4

[Hit the post]

So can we all agree Gudbranson = Yannik Weber?

Yannik Weber is a #7 - I think most here would agree that Gudbranson is at least a #6 (if not higher).

 

[WTG]

Tanev and Hutton are tied for allowing 69 scoring chances against, both have played ~153 minutes. Hutton has allowed 23 High danger shot attempts against, Tanev has allowed 22.

Hutton is playing worse competition, 2nd pair defenseman based on ice time, and Pouliot and Stecher are getting sheltered. Everyone agrees there.


Gudbranson has played ~123 minute of even strength this season and allowed 73 scoring chances against and 25 high danger shot attempts against.

20 minute difference between Hutton/Tanev and Gudbranson has racked up more scoring chances against and more HDCA.



Hutton constantly gets roasted for being "bad defensively", but on the ice he seems to be allowing less scoring chances/high danger scoring chances against then Gudbranson. Why is this? Is it maybe that Gudbranson is not good at preventing scoring chances and isn't good in front of the net. You tell me.

 

[WTG]

Yannik Weber is a #7 - I think most here would agree that Gudbranson is at least a #6 (if not higher).

The difference between a #7 and a #6 isn't that much TBH.

 

[krutovsdonut]

do gudbranson's stats track the fact he is clearly playing better lately?

because he's clearly playing better lately. so if the stats don't show that, they're not telling the whole story.

my own view on this guy is that he's technically shown a bottom 6 dman game ever since he got here, with recent slight improvement, but he's still a number 4 dman. you watch him play and he is a very good skater and toolsy but making mistakes at a high rate and seemingly lacking in hockey iq. until recently he also seemed only capable of playing a very conventional back in and keep'em outside and chip the puck out game. however, he's a guy who you want in there more than he should be on straight merit because he is big and physical, and able to provide a little police work, and also because he is a fast skater and talented and you hope he will get better by playing him a lot. keenan would play this guy 30 minutes a game until he broke him or turned him into a #1d.

don cherry's perspective on the sport of hockey is not completely wrong. you may argue weighting of that perspective, but gudbranson brings something to the table other than stats. it's not just individual transactional events you can record and track like a fight, nasty hits, or a clean hit, or clearing the net. it's the effect of the guy on your lineup and on the other lineup.

so the issue is, how do you weight that?

well we can start with this:

anyone who discounts the intangible part completely is wrong.

anyone who discounts the stat reflected weaknesses in his game completely is wrong.

to me if either side wants to make the case he's useless or great they have to make a credible analysis of both issues and show why their pet issue overrides the other. i don't see many posters doing that. there's a lot of ridiculous posts here from both sides of the aisle that don't pass the eye test.

 

[Pip]

Yannik Weber is a #7 - I think most here would agree that Gudbranson is at least a #6 (if not higher).

Why is Weber a #7 as opposed to a #6?

 

[WTG]

Tanev and Hutton are tied for allowing 69 scoring chances against, both have played ~153 minutes. Hutton has allowed 23 High danger shot attempts against, Tanev has allowed 22.

Hutton is playing worse competition, 2nd pair defenseman based on ice time, and Pouliot and Stecher are getting sheltered. Everyone agrees there.


Gudbranson has played ~123 minute of even strength this season and allowed 73 scoring chances against and 25 high danger shot attempts against.

20 minute difference between Hutton/Tanev and Gudbranson has racked up more scoring chances against and more HDCA.



Hutton constantly gets roasted for being "bad defensively", but on the ice he seems to be allowing less scoring chances/high danger scoring chances against then Gudbranson. Why is this? Is it maybe that Gudbranson is not good at preventing scoring chances and isn't good in front of the net. You tell me.

Now, you can say "hey, 10 games, not enough data. Alright fine."

Hutton had 1216 minutes of icetime last year, allowed 565 scoring chances against, Gudbranson had 518 minutes of icetime last year and allowed 249

1369 minutes of icetime for Hutton and allowing 634 scoring chances against = 27.8 SCA/60
641 minutes of icetime for Gudbranson and allowing 322 scoring chances against = 30.1 SCA/60

1369 minutes of icetime for Hutton and allowing 278 high danger shot attempts against = 12.2 HDCA/60
641 minutes of ice time for Gudbranson and allowing 135 high danger shot attempts against = 12.6 HDCA/60

So judging Gudbransons 39 games from this year and last year, he's worse then Hutton is at preventing High danger scoring chances and worse at preventing scoring chances in general. But it's Hutton everyone wants to trade because he's a "disaster". If Gudbranon is such a good defensive defenseman why does he have worse scoring chance against stats then Hutton, who has struggled according to some defensively.

People evaluate these 2 completely differently, and have much higher standards when evaluating Hutton then when they do Gudbranson. Whether this is subconscious eye test bias or conscious eye test biased I do not know. But I can tell you now, that Gudbranson is not a very good defensive defenseman based off the statistics and my personal eye test.

 

[Hit the post]

Why is Weber a #7 as opposed to a #6?

Awful 5 on 5 unless sheltered (ie., a Hamhuis that wasn't past his prime). Was always a #7 in his career (my opinion).

 

[Pip]

Awful 5 on 5 unless sheltered (ie., a Hamhuis that wasn't past his prime). Was always a #7 in his career (my opinion).

Aren't bottom pairing defensemen typically sheltered?

 

[y2kcanucks]

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?

I wouldn't be surprised to see Gudbranson gifted a $5M contract. Not sure how long though. At this point I think Canuck fans only hope is that there is a lockout upcoming and that we get 2 compliance buyouts.

 

[moog35]

Gudbrandson is the biggest beauty

 

[sting101]

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.

It's always nice when someone blows up their credibility of evaluating players like this.

 

[y2kcanucks]

It's always nice when someone blows up their credibility of evaluating players like this.

Except I'm not wrong. And all you have to go against that is "the coach gives him minutes." It's meaningless.

 

[sting101]

So can we all agree Gudbranson = Yannik Weber?

Yep exactly the same.

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.

Yes you're right it makes more sense to believe a fancy stat argument from a guy that posts on the internet than 4 different NHL Coaches.

 

[y2kcanucks]

Yep exactly the same.

Yes you're right it makes more sense to believe a fancy stat argument from a guy that posts on the internet than 4 different NHL Coaches.

Lol. Okay then, let's do it your way. We'll ignore the stats and just go based on the ice-time a player gets.

I guess Rasmus Ristolainen is the best defenseman in the NHL. Best player in the NHL actually.

MDZ is clearly a 1D based on his ice-time, leading the Canucks.

Granlund must be a first line forward. Nevermind he's not scoring, his ice time says he's a first line forward. Same with Sutter.

Hmm Alex Ovechkin is a 2nd liner now, according to your method. Wowie.

Oh, and let's nevermind the fact that Gudbranson ranks 4th among Canucks D probably due to injury. Edler was getting more ice-time before he went down. The 2 D who come in with less are Troy Stecher and Derrick Pouliot. I mean...that Pouliot guy should definitely be ahead of Gudbranson, right?

 

[WTG]

Yep exactly the same.

Yes you're right it makes more sense to believe a fancy stat argument from a guy that posts on the internet than 4 different NHL Coaches.

It's an appeal to authority. It in its nature as an argument is weak sauce.

 

[sting101]

Except I'm not wrong. And all you have to go against that is "the coach gives him minutes." It's meaningless.

You didn't even respond to the context of an entire game I posted.

You called him a 6. He's never been a 6 since being a teenager. You just want a go in circles and make up fallacies when the reality is he's been a 4 and a 5. 4 different Coaches thought the same yet you discount it as an appeal to authority. You say he's a 6 yet he's never in recent history been a 6.

Had you said it would be nice if our defense was good enough he could be a 6. Or not dug deeper and used a Andrew Alberts comp then i wouldn't have gave a shit. But, here you are again trying to marginalize one of our players based on not liking him and It's disengenous.

The weird thing is I'm not even a big fan of this player and would have been pretty happy with Demers.

It's pretty frustrating when I take the time to show the inaccuracies of perception and stats and you just blow it off and Don't even give it the time of day yet take a shot at me about ignoring your fancy stat context. Ironic

 

[sting101]

Lol. Okay then, let's do it your way. We'll ignore the stats and just go based on the ice-time a player gets.

I guess Rasmus Ristolainen is the best defenseman in the NHL. Best player in the NHL actually.

MDZ is clearly a 1D based on his ice-time, leading the Canucks.

Granlund must be a first line forward. Nevermind he's not scoring, his ice time says he's a first line forward. Same with Sutter.

Hmm Alex Ovechkin is a 2nd liner now, according to your method. Wowie.

Oh, and let's nevermind the fact that Gudbranson ranks 4th among Canucks D probably due to injury. Edler was getting more ice-time before he went down. The 2 D who come in with less are Troy Stecher and Derrick Pouliot. I mean...that Pouliot guy should definitely be ahead of Gudbranson, right?

Use 5 yrs worth of data then we can dispute this.

 

[y2kcanucks]

You didn't even respond to the context of an entire game I posted.

You called him a 6. He's never been a 6 since being a teenager. You just want a go in circles and make up fallacies when the reality is he's been a 4 and a 5. 4 different Coaches thought the same yet you discount it as an appeal to authority. You say he's a 6 yet he's never in recent history been a 6.

Had you said it would be nice if our defense was good enough he could be a 6. Or not dug deeper and used a Andrew Alberts comp then i wouldn't have gave a ****. But, here you are again trying to marginalize one of our players based on not liking him and It's disengenous.

The weird thing is I'm not even a big fan of this player and would have been pretty happy with Demers.

It's pretty frustrating when I take the time to show the inaccuracies of perception and stats and you just blow it off and Don't even give it the time of day yet take a shot at me about ignoring your fancy stat context. Ironic

He's a 6 based on the calibre of player he is. I'm not using an appeal to authority to judge what type of player he is, I'm using his actual performance...something you seemingly have decided to completely ignore.

This has nothing to do with me not liking him. If he were a good player I would like him. This has everything to do with me judging him based on his skill level. You choose to judge him based on the ice-time he gets and completely disregard how he performs in that ice-time.

You didn't show inaccuracies of perception and stats at all. All those have been addressed, which YOU conveniently ignored.

 

[sting101]

It's an appeal to authority. It in its nature as an argument is weak sauce.

Except the entire argument before you went off in a fancy stat tirade was about him being a # on a depth chart. These numbers are not arbitrary they pretty much are decided by Coaches.

 

[y2kcanucks]

Use 5 yrs worth of data then we can dispute this.

Based on that Ryan Suter is the best defenseman in the NHL, and Ryan Kesler is the 4th best forward in the league. Wow...Benning sure screwed that trade up.

Mikko Koivu is an unquestioned 1C, and elite player.

Travis Zajac...DAMN. That guy is better than Evgeni Malkin. Wowwwie.

Hey I wonder if we can get Jonathan Huberdeau cheap from Florida? He's not as good as Jussi Jokinen based on time on ice, and they just let Jokinen go for nothing.

Based on 5 years of data Nikita Kucherov isn't even a top 6 forward.

yup....solid method to judge players. You stick with that, I'll stick with judging their actual performance.

 

[Melvin]

He is quite obviously really bad at contributing to offense and very bad at preventing goals. I have y

Based on that Ryan Suter is the best defenseman in the NHL, and Ryan Kesler is the 4th best forward in the league. Wow...Benning sure screwed that trade up.

Mikko Koivu is an unquestioned 1C, and elite player.

Travis Zajac...DAMN. That guy is better than Evgeni Malkin. Wowwwie.

Hey I wonder if we can get Jonathan Huberdeau cheap from Florida? He's not as good as Jussi Jokinen based on time on ice, and they just let Jokinen go for nothing.

Based on 5 years of data Nikita Kucherov isn't even a top 6 forward.

yup....solid method to judge players. You stick with that, I'll stick with judging their actual performance.

He is making a dumb argument but this is an even dumber counter. You can defeat his argument really easily without resorting to sarcastic hyperbole which completely misrepresents his weak position.

He is obviously not saying that the more ice time a player gets, the better he is. You are doing him a service by making such a silly counter to his easily refuted position.

 

[WTG]

Except the entire argument before you went off in a fancy stat tirade was about him being a # on a depth chart. These numbers are not arbitrary they pretty much are decided by Coaches.

But your entire argument hinges on the authority of the coaches. Making it an argument based on the authority of others.

 

[sting101]

He's a 6 based on the calibre of player he is. I'm not using an appeal to authority to judge what type of player he is, I'm using his actual performance...something you seemingly have decided to completely ignore.

This has nothing to do with me not liking him. If he were a good player I would like him. This has everything to do with me judging him based on his skill level. You choose to judge him based on the ice-time he gets and completely disregard how he performs in that ice-time.

You didn't show inaccuracies of perception and stats at all. All those have been addressed, which YOU conveniently ignored.

And YOU ignored the details I posted?

I have watched and reviewed every game this year. Erik Gudbranson has been good and he's contributed to a winning team. You disagree...oh well.

 

[y2kcanucks]

And YOU ignored the details I posted?

I have watched and reviewed every game this year. Erik Gudbranson has been good and he's contributed to a winning team. You disagree...oh well.

Good for you. Like I said, some of you are impressed by "zomg big hit against the boards." Someone in this thread used the Boston game as an example of something Gudbranson does that this team apparently needs. Doesn't mean what he does contributes to wins.

You apparently think a one dimensional defensive defenseman who doesn't suppress shot attempts or scoring chances against, who can't get the puck out of his own zone is good. I expect better. Difference in values I guess.

 

[WTG]

Good for you. Like I said, some of you are impressed by "zomg big hit against the boards." Someone in this thread used the Boston game as an example of something Gudbranson does that this team apparently needs. Doesn't mean what he does contributes to wins.

You apparently think a one dimensional defensive defenseman who doesn't suppress shot attempts or scoring chances against, who can't get the puck out of his own zone is good. I expect better. Difference in values I guess.

But wait, can Gudbranson even be described as a defensive defenseman.

If he's one dimensional his only dimension where he is good at is him hitting things and arguably receiving pucks. Thinking about it, a better descriptor of Gudbranson would be a utility defenseman, much like Weber was a PP specialist, Sestito is a goon, Gudbranson is a physical specialist. Much like those other 2 mentioned, they were all getting put in situations where he isn't good at and getting exposed.