He boxes out better than some of our D that are bigger than him. He dispossesses forwards in the corner more often than some of our D that are bigger than him. If he was a truly horrible defensively, he would be horrible defensively at any size. I find him adequate defensively.
Traded Erik Brännström - D - Part III
- Thread starter AchtzehnBaby
- Start date
Really impressed with his game last night. We are so lucky both Sanderson an Branny are panning out.
They could easily be struggling right now - and if they were combined with Chabot playing like a 3rd pairing D… yikes.
bert
Registered User
Being bigger undoubtedly helps a player defend as long as they are mobile enough to get around its not even a discussion. Doesnt mean a small player cant defend but its incredibly important to seperate the man from the puck and control the gap.
The post I replied to implied (IMO) that he was bad defensively and if he was bigger he was be good. I disagree. A bad defender is a bad defender regardless of size.
I believe what I beleive.
DaveMatthew
Bring in Peter
They can't trade Brannstrom for an upcoming UFA considering Zub is also un-signed.
aragorn
Do The Right Thing
- Aug 8, 2004
- 29,286
- 9,994
Why not? PD signed all kinds of guys over the summer why wouldn't he be able to re-sign these two? I expect that at least a couple of UFAs will likely not be back & replaced with cheaper players.
DaveMatthew
Bring in Peter
Because maybe they won't want to be here? Maybe they will, who knows, but you can't trade a controlled asset for another upcoming UFA considering this team will be very hard-pressed to make the playoffs.
I'd rather give up prospects and picks to try and acquire Mayfield. Not a player like Brannstrom who is finally taking a big step in his development. Plus we can extend him for cheaper then whatever we'd pay Mayfield. I love Mayfield and want him here, but not sure if trading Brann for him is a good idea. If a 3rd round pick got us Hamonic, it should be enough for Mayfield
Xspyrit
DJ Dorion
I guess I'll bump this thread this way (@L'Aveuglette you might find this interesting)
Brannstrom among the 219 D-men who have at least played 100 ES minutes :
- 22nd in CF/60
- 25th in CF%
- 21st in SF/60
- 22nd in SF%
- 7th in xGF/60
- 21st in xGF%
- 22nd in SCF/60
- 15th in SCF%
- 16th in HDCF/60
- 47th in HDCF%
Chabot, Sanderson and Hamonic also have great analytics (let's be honest, Hamonic is directly linked to the fact that he's playing with Jake)
Brannstrom among the 219 D-men who have at least played 100 ES minutes :
- 22nd in CF/60
- 25th in CF%
- 21st in SF/60
- 22nd in SF%
- 7th in xGF/60
- 21st in xGF%
- 22nd in SCF/60
- 15th in SCF%
- 16th in HDCF/60
- 47th in HDCF%
Chabot, Sanderson and Hamonic also have great analytics (let's be honest, Hamonic is directly linked to the fact that he's playing with Jake)
Last edited:
Adele Dazeem
Registered User
Mark Stones Spleen
Trouba's elbow
Have brought up his stats many times relative to Senators but this is nice to see within the entire league.
Advanced stats aren't the entire story but they can't be completely dismissed either.
We have a puck moving D who just can't buy a goal or generate many points but who is heavily on the right side of scoring chances.
Also on a great contract. Really underrated player.
- Feb 5, 2010
- 20,984
- 9,880
I won't say they mean nothing but as far as individuals go, those posted stats are heavily influenced by team play and role. It's very difficult to throw everyone in the same basket and draw a conclusion. Everyone on last seasons team and this years team has seen a drastic jump in these categories, this team has no issues generating chances and thats reflected in the analytics of every player on this team who isn't primarily playing a defensive role.
It's how some went down the path of being a Chris Wideman fan.
Bran was very good last year too.
I am not some super fan but this guy has been blamed and shit on since he has played for the Senators and as of last season it doesn't make sense. He is a net positive almost all the time yet you would think he was the reason we were trash.
He is far better than many on here believe. The narrow view for evaluating him doesn't allow for his positive traits to come through.
- Feb 5, 2010
- 20,984
- 9,880
By the same metrics? He was average to below average last season. They don't paint a pretty picture, especially when you consider deployment. The team as a whole was a bottom third team last year in those metrics, compared to being a top third team this season. I believe team play and role heavily influence those stats among individuals so it's not that surprising to me to see such an improvement there.
At times Brannstrom does receive more criticism than he deserves. It seems like he has been around longer than he has but with just 136 games under his belt, he doesn't have much NHL experience. He has shown he can be a very good player at times, consistency is an issue for me. That's not a surprise given his inexperience. Playing behind Chabot and Sanderson it is going to make it more difficult to display that consistency though.
I do think caution needs to be exercised when using those metrics to evaluate a player, especially one in the mold of Brannstrom. We've seen way too many sheltered puck moving D come through this team and have good analytics put struggle to become full time NHL players.
Golden_Jet
Registered User
- Sep 21, 2005
- 26,422
- 13,708
Great , you showed his offensive stats, now show his defensive equivalents for those 10 stats for comparison and context.
Micklebot
Moderator
- Apr 27, 2010
- 57,136
- 34,884
He provided the % for each so you can infer it, but here you go,
CA/60 54th
Sa/60 60th
xGA/60 90th
SCA/60 36th
HDCA/60 132nd
Nothing stands out as poor, though he's clearly seeing a lot of the chances he does allow being high quality. That ratio is among the worst of the group at 204th, which seems like an aha moment, but when you look at some other guys in the same area you get a mix of good and bad players, McAvoy, Ekblad, Provorov, Byram, Power, Heiskanen, Toews, Makar, Carlson all in the 170-218 rank range. On the flip side, the top 50 in that same ratio metric presents fewer notable players, Pietrangelo, Sieder, Marino are the notable guys I saw
So when the analytics said the team was better than their record the analytics mean nothing because the only important stat was the standings.
When the analytics support your opinion of a player who produces next to nothing then they matter.
Gotcha
Micklebot
Moderator
- Apr 27, 2010
- 57,136
- 34,884
If there's an advance stat that speaks to Brannstrom's struggles, it's HDGA
Over 18% of the high danger chances allowed with him on the ice end up in the back of the net. The league average is around 11%. Ottawa's average not including Brannstrom is just shy of 12%. Maybe it's puck luck and will even out over the year but that's what people are seeing with the eye test, quality chances ending up in the back of the net
Worth noting, Brannstrom's career average for HDGA/HDCA is about 13%, 12% if you don't count this year. I think he's probably been at least a bit unlucky in that regard.
Over 18% of the high danger chances allowed with him on the ice end up in the back of the net. The league average is around 11%. Ottawa's average not including Brannstrom is just shy of 12%. Maybe it's puck luck and will even out over the year but that's what people are seeing with the eye test, quality chances ending up in the back of the net
Worth noting, Brannstrom's career average for HDGA/HDCA is about 13%, 12% if you don't count this year. I think he's probably been at least a bit unlucky in that regard.
Early this season Brannstrom was providing enough puck moving to offset his defensive shortcomings but that seems like it was long ago.
No that's your black and white analysis.
I am using a mix of stats and eye test to say he isn't the dumpster fire you think he is. He has warts like most of our D, but not nearly as bad to deserve the abuse he gets.
