Hit the post
I have your gold medal Zippy!
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'.
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.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.
this is incorrect.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.
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.
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.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.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.
If he wasn't then his ice time would reflect it.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.
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.
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 competitivenessHe 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.
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.
Except for that "Novelty" as you describe it has a long entrenched history in the gameThe 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.
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.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.
So then we agree that Gudbranson on a 3rd pair could be a part of a contending team.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.
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.
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.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.So then we agree that Gudbranson on a 3rd pair could be a part of a contending team.
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?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.
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.
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.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.