Player Discussion The Bad Granlund Phenomenon Part 4 (mod warning post #393)

[y2kcanucks]

They all have A's in there name!

A little more to it than that...

 

[MS]

Granlund is what he is.

A small, soft winger whose cheap contract makes him temporarily somewhat useful on this awful, skill-deprived team. The sort of player who might score 20 goals this one time on a bad team but is quickly replaced and moved down the lineup as the team improves. And if this team ever turns a corner, he won't be here.

He's not anything to be 'thrilled' about, not a major feather in the cap of this GM, and not a player who should have merited an expansion draft protection slot.

The glut of similar soft/smallish wingers who are weak defensively means that a couple guys will already be the odd men out this year and are going to be 'disappointing'. No way to get icetime and PP time to all of Granlund/Baertschi/Boeser/Goldobin.

 

[CanaFan]

Pretty much this. If Granlund was a home grown talent I think the reaction would have been different. Since being drafted in the 2nd round, Granlund had been tracking well. He kept producing at the AHL level and showed flashes at the NHL level and it's not like he has consistently been considered a poor defensive player. He finally breaks out offensively this past season. Most of us would be thrilled at the progress.

I dunno. Nik Jensen was the same draft as Granlund, so let's use him as your example of a home-grown talent who finally "emerged" to the tune of 19 goals and 32 points after 5 years of waiting and being disappointed with his slow progress. Finally he gets given a top 6 role out of pre-season and shows a bit of success, though more relative to what you've seen from him in the past rather than anything that impressive in it's own right. He scores a couple points, then goes quiet for 4-5 games before reaching the scoresheet again. His overall game is fairly underwhelming - he doesn't hit, doesn't forecheck overly well, doesn't create opportunities for his linemates but does a decent job of finishing some chances - but his coach seems to give him the same minutes night in and night out regardless.

I dunno, maybe some would be on this board beating the drum for Nik Jensen's "break out season" and being thankful we kept the faith for 5 long years. Personally I don't think we'd be any more wowed or encouraged if it was Jensen instead of Granlund because at the end of the day, he's still struggled just to become a marginal middle 6 scorer with no other great facets to his game. Could be wrong but that's how I see it.

 

[MS]

I dunno. Nik Jensen was the same draft as Granlund, so let's use him as your example of a home-grown talent who finally "emerged" to the tune of 19 goals and 32 points after 5 years of waiting and being disappointed with his slow progress. Finally he gets given a top 6 role out of pre-season and shows a bit of success, though more relative to what you've seen from him in the past rather than anything that impressive in it's own right. He scores a couple points, then goes quiet for 4-5 games before reaching the scoresheet again. His overall game is fairly underwhelming - he doesn't hit, doesn't forecheck overly well, doesn't create opportunities for his linemates but does a decent job of finishing some chances - but his coach seems to give him the same minutes night in and night out regardless.

I dunno, maybe some would be on this board beating the drum for Nik Jensen's "break out season" and being thankful we kept the faith for 5 long years. Personally I don't think we'd be any more wowed or encouraged if it was Jensen instead of Granlund because at the end of the day, he's still struggled just to become a marginal middle 6 scorer with no other great facets to his game. Could be wrong but that's how I see it.

People would be excited in that scenario because people are always SUPER EXCITED about rookies and only see the positives. If he had nearly 200 career games like Granlund and was still at that level after the better part of 3 seasons on the roster ... not so much.

 

[VanJack]

Granlund is what he is.

A small, soft winger whose cheap contract makes him temporarily somewhat useful on this awful, skill-deprived team. The sort of player who might score 20 goals this one time on a bad team but is quickly replaced and moved down the lineup as the team improves. And if this team ever turns a corner, he won't be here.

He's not anything to be 'thrilled' about, not a major feather in the cap of this GM, and not a player who should have merited an expansion draft protection slot.

The glut of similar soft/smallish wingers who are weak defensively means that a couple guys will already be the odd men out this year and are going to be 'disappointing'. No way to get icetime and PP time to all of Granlund/Baertschi/Boeser/Goldobin.

Hmm....he's listed at 6 feet and close to 190, and gutted it out with a serious wrist injury and still scored 19 goals in his first full season in the NHL on a terrible hockey team....also proved he can play up and down the roster, even finding quality time with the Sedins on the first line.

But I guess he'll never get any respect in VanCity.....either by the analytics crowd or the posters who hate every Benning trade....but if he'd been exposed in the Expansion Draft, Vegas would have snapped him up in a heartbeat.

 

[y2kcanucks]

Hmm....he's listed at 6 feet and close to 190, and gutted it out with a serious wrist injury and still scored 19 goals in his first full season in the NHL on a terrible hockey team....also proved he can play up and down the roster, even finding quality time with the Sedins on the first line.

But I guess he'll never get any respect in VanCity.....either by the analytics crowd or the posters who hate every Benning trade....but if he'd been exposed in the Expansion Draft, Vegas would have snapped him up in a heartbeat.

You do understand that analytics aren't just made up out of thin air, right? Analytics are a quantification of events that occur on the ice. Therefore, if his analytics aren't that good that suggests he hasn't been very good.

 

[Huggy]

Hmm....he's listed at 6 feet and close to 190, and gutted it out with a serious wrist injury and still scored 19 goals in his first full season in the NHL on a terrible hockey team....also proved he can play up and down the roster, even finding quality time with the Sedins on the first line.

But I guess he'll never get any respect in VanCity.....either by the analytics crowd or the posters who hate every Benning trade....but if he'd been exposed in the Expansion Draft, Vegas would have snapped him up in a heartbeat.

Can't wait for this season.

ommelettes on so many ****ing faces if the rag tag bunch of 23 year olds dig in and listen to cpatain Bowie

Go Canucks Go

 

[MS]

Hmm....he's listed at 6 feet and close to 190, and gutted it out with a serious wrist injury and still scored 19 goals in his first full season in the NHL on a terrible hockey team....also proved he can play up and down the roster, even finding quality time with the Sedins on the first line.

But I guess he'll never get any respect in VanCity.....either by the analytics crowd or the posters who hate every Benning trade....but if he'd been exposed in the Expansion Draft, Vegas would have snapped him up in a heartbeat.

6'0 185 is small for a winger in 2017.

And yeah, he might have gutted out a wrist injury, but his battle level in the trenches, in particular in terms of puck battles along the side boards in his own zone, is way below average. He's a softish, weak defensive player.

 

[CanaFan]

Hmm....he's listed at 6 feet and close to 190, and gutted it out with a serious wrist injury and still scored 19 goals in his first full season in the NHL on a terrible hockey team....also proved he can play up and down the roster, even finding quality time with the Sedins on the first line.

I love how people can fluff up a list to look impressive by using so many meaningless fluff words.

"Gutted it out"

"First full season"

"On a terrible team"

"Up and down the roster"

"Even with the Sedins"


None of that means anything. Every player "guts out injuries". Its his "first full season" ... at 24 years old ... because he was never good enough to play a full season despite being in the NHL since 2013-14. "On a terrible team" is why he got so many minutes in the first place. You think he gets 17 minutes a game in Pittsburgh or Anaheim? "Up and down the line up" just means he never found a great fit. "Even with the Sedins" ... like Klatt, Carter, Samuelsson, Vrbata, and Burrows.

So much fluffing up an unimpressive resume.

 

[Huggy]

I love how people can fluff up a list to look impressive by using so many meaningless fluff words.

"Gutted it out"

"First full season"

"On a terrible team"

"Up and down the roster"

"Even with the Sedins"


None of that means anything. Every player "guts out injuries". Its his "first full season" ... at 24 years old ... because he was never good enough to play a full season despite being in the NHL since 2013-14. "On a terrible team" is why he got so many minutes in the first place. You think he gets 17 minutes a game in Pittsburgh or Anaheim? "Up and down the line up" just means he never found a great fit. "Even with the Sedins" ... like Klatt, Carter, Samuelsson, Vrbata, and Burrows.

So much fluffing up an unimpressive resume.

Not really no matter how you cut it a 24 year old 20 goal scorer is insane.

Softish definsively is as fluffy, especially with such a bad NHL coach, guy deployed him like a moron.

Add in the fact our defense was a bunch of rookies and meh.


The fact is Shinkaruk busted and we acquired a good asset.

 

[Horrorshow]

Truly the Kip Miller of this generation.

 

[y2kcanucks]

Amazing how some people on here don't know the name Brandon Pirri.

 

[CanaFan]

Not really no matter how you cut it a 24 year old 20 goal scorer is insane.

Softish definsively is as fluffy, especially with such a bad NHL coach, guy deployed him like a moron.

Add in the fact our defense was a bunch of rookies and meh.


The fact is Shinkaruk busted and we acquired a good asset.

lol

Is this what happens when your expectations are reduced to virtually zero?

 

[Hit the post]

Not really no matter how you cut it a 24 year old 20 goal scorer is insane.

Granlund scored 20 goals? Better tell NHL.com to correct their stats Bowie.

 

[CanaFan]

Granlund scored 20 goals? Better tell NHL.com to correct their stats Bowie.

But then it would be officially "insane".

 

[Verviticus]

ehhhh

 

[Mr. Canucklehead]

Granlund is what he is.

A small, soft winger whose cheap contract makes him temporarily somewhat useful on this awful, skill-deprived team. The sort of player who might score 20 goals this one time on a bad team but is quickly replaced and moved down the lineup as the team improves. And if this team ever turns a corner, he won't be here.

He's not anything to be 'thrilled' about, not a major feather in the cap of this GM, and not a player who should have merited an expansion draft protection slot.

The glut of similar soft/smallish wingers who are weak defensively means that a couple guys will already be the odd men out this year and are going to be 'disappointing'. No way to get icetime and PP time to all of Granlund/Baertschi/Boeser/Goldobin.

Pretty much how I feel. I'm surprised he gets as much airplay on these boards as he does - be it for "he sucks" or "he's great". He's a middling player on an awful team. We have bigger fish to fry when it comes to our issues, and players more deserving of praise when it comes to bright spots.

 

[Gunner Stahl]

Pretty much how I feel. I'm surprised he gets as much airplay on these boards as he does - be it for "he sucks" or "he's great". He's a middling player on an awful team. We have bigger fish to fry when it comes to our issues, and players more deserving of praise when it comes to bright spots.

I think the only reason why these Granlund threads are so long is because it's not really about Granlund.

It's a analytics vs non-analytics debate.

Granlund is just caught in the middle because his stats/play can be used as a good example depending on the side of the coin you fall on. Neither side wants to give in, hence this thread just goes in circles over and over again.

The thread should just named "Analytics vs non-analytics debate". That way at least we'd discuss some other players in this regard (and possiblly this in depth) and potential targets that the Canucks should try to acquire based on stats or the good ol eye test.

 

[MS]

I think the only reason why these Granlund threads are so long is because it's not really about Granlund.

It's a analytics vs non-analytics debate.

Granlund is just caught in the middle because his stats/play can be used as a good example depending on the side of the coin you fall on. Neither side wants to give in, hence this thread just goes in circles over and over again.

The thread should just named "Analytics vs non-analytics debate". That way at least we'd discuss some other players in this regard (and possiblly this in depth) and potential targets that the Canucks should try to acquire based on numbers or the good ol eye test.

I think it's even more that the pro-Benning crowd needed something to latch onto to distract attention away from the Eriksson/Gudbranson disasters and have chosen this to hype as a BIG WIN for Benning, when in reality it's a nothing transaction.

This has ended up being an ok-ish transaction for a serviceable cheap short-term filler player that I don't have terrible strong opinions about in and of itself, but I end up discussing it a lot because I so virulently disagree that this is a huge feather in Benning's cap.

 

[Horrorshow]

Granlund is the Clinton emails of canucks hockey

 

[Shareefruck]

I can see the reasoning behind an argument like "Analytics should not be considered because the game has so many intangible variables that any conclusions drawn will be flawed due to a lack of context"..... however, it's completely moronic and baffling to me when people make the argument that "Analytics don't mean a damn thing, but 20 goals is good no matter what."

I mean, that's just insanely broken logic.

 

[Rotting Corpse*]

Except that granlund had good analytics last year for the most part.

 

[LeftCoast]

Except that granlund had good analytics last year for the most part.

Shhh. The emperor is fully dressed.

 

[Shareefruck]

I was referring to this post:

I think the only reason why these Granlund threads are so long is because it's not really about Granlund.

It's a analytics vs non-analytics debate.

Granlund is just caught in the middle because his stats/play can be used as a good example depending on the side of the coin you fall on. Neither side wants to give in, hence this thread just goes in circles over and over again.

The thread should just named "Analytics vs non-analytics debate". That way at least we'd discuss some other players in this regard (and possiblly this in depth) and potential targets that the Canucks should try to acquire based on stats or the good ol eye test.

Personally, I prefer using the eye-test, as I'm not well versed on how to read analytics-- However, that doesn't change the fact that people who argue against the validity of advanced stats while simultaneously arguing the certainty of basic counting stats aren't making any sense. The latter, by definition, takes even less context into consideration.

 

[Rotting Corpse*]

There is an impressive amount of overlap between the stop reading stats crowd and the count the goals crowd, that is for sure.