Traded Erik Brännström - D - Part III

[Micklebot]

Early this season Brannstrom was providing enough puck moving to offset his defensive shortcomings but that seems like it was long ago.

His usage has changed a bit but he's got the highest xGF/60 and highest SCF/60 over the last 10 games for all D on the team. Meanwhile his GA/60 is way down, his xGA/60 is down, his SCA/60 is down, heck, all his defensive metrics have been better

In fact, he's seen an improvement in pretty much every metric when comparing 1st ten to last ten aside from goals for. Part of that is quality of competition and usage in general I suspect, but if the claim is he did enough offensively to overcome his defensive deficiencies early, the metrics don't seem to bear that out.

​	First 10​	Last 10​
TOI​	128.73​	137.32​
CF/60​	62.45​	67.73​
CA/60​	54.53​	51.56​
SF/60​	34.96​	37.14​
SA/60​	31.69​	24.91​
GF/60​	4.19​	1.75​
GA/60​	4.66​	1.31​
xGF/60​	3.07​	3.63​
xGA/60​	2.64​	2.32​
SCF/60​	29.83​	38.01​
SCA/60​	25.17​	24.03​
HDCF/60​	13.98​	15.29​
HDCA/60​	13.52​	10.92​
HDGF/60​	2.33​	1.31​
HDGA/60​	3.73​	0.87​

 

[Golden_Jet]

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

For defenseman only on natural stattrick for xGA/60 I found

for 5 on 5 he is 116th
For even strength he is 144th
For all strengths, he is, 113th

His usage has changed a bit but he's got the highest xGF/60 and highest SCF/60 over the last 10 games for all D on the team. Meanwhile his GA/60 is way down, his xGA/60 is down, his SCA/60 is down, heck, all his defensive metrics have been better

In fact, he's seen an improvement in pretty much every metric when comparing 1st ten to last ten aside from goals for. Part of that is quality of competition and usage in general I suspect, but if the claim is he did enough offensively to overcome his defensive deficiencies early, the metrics don't seem to bear that out.

​	First 10​	Last 10​
TOI​	128.73​	137.32​
CF/60​	62.45​	67.73​
CA/60​	54.53​	51.56​
SF/60​	34.96​	37.14​
SA/60​	31.69​	24.91​
GF/60​	4.19​	1.75​
GA/60​	4.66​	1.31​
xGF/60​	3.07​	3.63​
xGA/60​	2.64​	2.32​
SCF/60​	29.83​	38.01​
SCA/60​	25.17​	24.03​
HDCF/60​	13.98​	15.29​
HDCA/60​	13.52​	10.92​
HDGF/60​	2.33​	1.31​
HDGA/60​	3.73​	0.87​

You should state what that’s for
All strengths, even strengths, 5 on 5,

 

[Micklebot]

For defenseman only on natural stattrick for xGA/60 I found

for 5 on 5 he is 116th
For even strength he is 144th
For all strengths, he is, 113th


You should state what that’s for
All strengths, even strengths, 5 on 5,

All of the stats I posted were from natural statrick, all of it was 5v5, and all of it was D with min 100 mins TOI as originally set out by @Xspyrit. The only difference being I missed that he used ES vice 5v5, but that shouldn't change anything too drastically. You've removed the 100 mins played criteria, hence the vastly different result.

All strengths isn't useful since not all Dmen get the same ratio of special teams to 5v5 time, there's no reason to ever look at that for on ice stats imo. If it's not stated, you should probably just assume 5v5 since that's how most of the game is played and typically what people look at with on ice stats. .

 

[Xspyrit]

Whilst playing with Zaitsev

Only 1/10 of his ES shifts though, so hockey gods had mercy on Brannwagon

25.2% with Holden
23.5% with Chabot
14.4% with JBD
13.4% with Zub
9.8% with Zaitsev

Let's remember that Brannstrom played a lot with Erik Gudbranson then Josh Brown the last 2 seasons... His path to become a NHL regular has not been the easiest, being on a rebuilding team too

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.

He's not "there yet" in terms of his offense creation resulting in goals but the process is there. If there's one thing he needs to do is be able to convert on shots or create more rebounds that end up in goals as well

I know people think our D-men are pretty bad but it's so much better than what it has been the last few years... It doesn't look that way because our "team defense" is still a mess (coaching) but with Chabot, Sanderson, Zub and now Brannstrom, there's no reason we can't have a good defense outside of coaching. Hamonic, JBD and Holden are also decent if they are 5/6/7

 

[Golden_Jet]

All of the stats I posted were from natural statrick, all of it was 5v5, and all of it was D with min 100 mins TOI as originally set out by @Xspyrit. The only difference being I missed that he used ES vice 5v5, but that shouldn't change anything too drastically. You've removed the 100 mins played criteria, hence the vastly different result.

All strengths isn't useful since not all Dmen get the same ratio of special teams to 5v5 time, there's no reason to ever look at that for on ice stats imo. If it's not stated, you should probably just assume 5v5 since that's how most of the game is played and typically what people look at with on ice stats. .

I agree with last point, thanks didn’t notice the 100 minute part., I find when I dig deeper, a lot of users use all strengths, when they don’t mention it.
I tend to look at even strengths as well, which is 5 on 5 , 4 on 4 and 3 on 3,
Not sure if even strengths vs 5 on 5 , which one is better,

 

[Micklebot]

I agree with last point, thanks didn’t notice the 100 minute part., I find when I dig deeper, a lot of users use all strengths, when they don’t mention it.
I tend to look at even strengths as well, which is 5 on 5 , 4 on 4 and 3 on 3,
Not sure if even strengths vs 5 on 5 , which one is better,

my problem with ES is it will benefit certain styles of teams, teams with high skill typically thrive in the open ice and is much higher event hockey, so a small sample of 3v3 can have an outsized impact especially in smaller over data sets like 10 games where one team might have seen limited 4v4 and 3v3 while another might have seen a fair bit.

 

[robsenz]

Brannstrom will always have more to give and will constantly fall short (no pun intended) of his full potential. Such a shame.

 

[Ice-Tray]

No matter what side of the fence people fall on, Bran has to find a way to put up some points if he is going to stick around the league in the role he currently plays.

 

[Xspyrit]

He’s not very good. The analytics mean nothing.

The eye test reveals that Brannstrom has been progressing. Sure, he still plays on a team with a mess of a "team defense" (coaching) but the advanced stats are here to tell us if what we see is a mirage or not. Sure, he's partially sheltered and starts more of his shifts in the OZ but we can still clearly a progress in his case. Let's remember that he turned 23 y/o in September

Nobody is saying he is a 1st pairing D-man but he's also far from the bust some have been going on about. A problem with him is the ridiculous expectations some had because he was the main piece for Mark Stone.

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

Thanks for doing the job! I was like "shit here goes away 5 minutes". I could have provided those in my initial post but thought the stats% would cut it short

All of the stats I posted were from natural statrick, all of it was 5v5, and all of it was D with min 100 mins TOI as originally set out by @Xspyrit. The only difference being I missed that he used ES vice 5v5, but that shouldn't change anything too drastically. You've removed the 100 mins played criteria, hence the vastly different result.

All strengths isn't useful since not all Dmen get the same ratio of special teams to 5v5 time, there's no reason to ever look at that for on ice stats imo. If it's not stated, you should probably just assume 5v5 since that's how most of the game is played and typically what people look at with on ice stats. .

Yeah I always look at ES instead of 5v5, it's not a big difference but don't want to analyze 4v4 separately as there's already enough various game situations to go through lol

PP and PK should absolutely be analyzed separately

Finally, the 100 mins criteria was chosen to not have all the very small sample sizes of guys who played just a few games, which tends to skew the results. 100 mins = 219 D-men / 32 teams = 6.84 D-men per team. Makes sense

 

[Burrowsaurus]

He’s been good.

 

[Burrowsaurus]

No matter what side of the fence people fall on, Bran has to find a way to put up some points if he is going to stick around the league in the role he currently plays.

This is the truth in this business.

 

[Golden_Jet]

He’s been good.

Useless graph , no indication what columns are, what colours mean, what a z-score is,

 

[Burrowsaurus]

Useless graph , no indication what columns are, what colours mean, what a z-score is,

You’ll have to make it bigger.

 

[Micklebot]

Useless graph , no indication what columns are, what colours mean, what a z-score is,

Just click on it, when you click through you'll get a view with the ledgers.

Also, Z-score is a statistical term, in a nutshell, it's the number of standard deviations a data point is away from the mean

 

[Big Muddy]

Brannstrom often looks good when he carries the puck, either out of our zone, or over the blueline into the o-zone. He maneuvers nicely and makes some good looking plays. When he takes a shot though, he usually misses and often doesn't even get in on net. That's an area where he could improve.

 

[aragorn]

Brannstrom is an AHL player playing on a defensively weak NHL team because we don't have anyone better. JBD is better & should eventually be given more of a role as he gains more NHL experience & minutes, but he too has to stay healthy. They need to acquire at least two new defencemen, maybe one at the TDL & another over the summer.

 

[NB613]

Brannstrom often looks good when he carries the puck, either out of our zone, or over the blueline into the o-zone. He maneuvers nicely and makes some good looking plays. When he takes a shot though, he usually misses and often doesn't even get in on net. That's an area where he could improve.

The stuff he does well are very difficult to teach. The shots are very teachable/improve with experience.

 

[HSF]

he is awesome

just get a coach that will use him properly

 

[Big Muddy]

The stuff he does well are very difficult to teach. The shots are very teachable/improve with experience.

Yes, improving his shot seems like something that is feasible. It would be good if he can. Brannstrom is a player that doesn't have all of the elements to be a good defender, but he has some. I think some just can't get past the "he is small, and can get hit by a bigger player" stigma though. He's definitely a polarizing player in here.

 

[Bileur]

Yes, improving his shot seems like something that is feasible. It would be good if he can. Brannstrom is a player that doesn't have all of the elements to be a good defender, but he has some. I think some just can't get past the "he is small, and can get hit by a bigger player" stigma though. He's definitely a polarizing player in here.

Improving the shot would be great but even just being more assertive and shooting more often would really help. He often has open shooting lanes and chooses to pass, he needs to use the creativity but sometimes the simple play is the right one. Just get the puck on net and good things will happen.

 

[playasRus]

We thinking Branny get's another 1 year extension this summer? A 2M prove-more-of-it contract?

 

[bicboi64]

We thinking Branny get's another 1 year extension this summer? A 2M prove-more-of-it contract?

Shouldn't be a penny over $1.2-1.5 million. He's making progress, but is still a project

 

[OD99]

Brannstrom is an AHL player.

Credibility lost.

There are a lot of good players under 6', too bad you won't ever get to see them with those blinders on.

 

[Hale The Villain]

He's been surprisingly good defensively and surprisingly ineffective offensively.

Brannstrom is basically a better version of Victor Mete at this point. Performing well in a bottom pairing role.

 

[Burrowsaurus]

Brannstrom is an AHL player playing on a defensively weak NHL team because we don't have anyone better. JBD is better & should eventually be given more of a role as he gains more NHL experience & minutes, but he too has to stay healthy. They need to acquire at least two new defencemen, maybe one at the TDL & another over the summer.

Jbd is no way better than brannstrom right now.