[Speculation/Rumor] Canucks on the twins future and Gudbranson

[kenhodgejr]

Id be happy getting a 2nd for Gudbranson at this years draft and a second for Vanek. I think thats fair value for both. 

[86Viking]

Sounds like we are leaning more towards trading him with recent comments.

 

I am still hopeful that we make a trade with the NYI, they got 4 selections in the first 2 rounds. Some interesting underperforming or unmotivated prospects as well. Maybe we could pry a pick and prospect from them. They dont have the young rhd they would be willing to give up that I would like to get back but they have some interesting pieces.

 

 

[aGENT]

10 hours ago, Provost said:

Lots of 3rd pairing guys average 19 minutes a game.  This year he is 17:44 per game

 

It is because of exactly what I was saying with covering for injuries and playing up the depth chart when needed.  He is a 3rd pairing guy who can temporarily move up as needed... and we have had a lot of guys who have been hurt during his tenure.

 

Two 16 Minute games and then one 25 Minute game when covering an inured Tanev = 19 Minute average.

 

Add in some OT games and the average gets higher.

 

 

 

On 1/31/2018 at 8:59 AM, aGENT said:

Also '18+ minutes' isn't '3rd' pairing minutes'. That's 2nd pair territory. 1st pair is generally/roughly 22-28 minutes, 2nd is 16-22, 3rd is 16 and under. You also can't simply look at his ATOI as he's had a few games due to penalty, injury etc where he played very few minutes that is skewing a rather small sample size.

 

9 hours ago, oldnews said:

Problem there being Gudbranson hasn't played a single 25 minute game, no 24 minute games either - 23 minutes only twice this year.  And likewise the perceived swing between doesn't exist - the bulk of Gudbranson's games being from 17 to 23 minutes. with a 1 minute night, and another 9 minute game - in which he left to injuries - skewing his ice time totals downward actually, while the spike to 25 due to Tanev absences is non-existant. 

 

[PhillipBlunt]

11 hours ago, oldnews said:

No point, let alone correlation.    A team metric - set at giving up 4 goals, of which there were 21 games - and you expect that Gudbranson should have reduced this number, in the 12 of those games he played, by more than 4.5%?   Sorry, your metric is meaningless, and a micro-sample,

 

I welcome you to attempt to factor in "difficulty and matchups" if you want, but it wouldn't change the fact that Gud is #2 RHD, while Tanev is #1RHD.   If you want to try to adjust Tanev's 2.5 on ice goals against per 60 based on quality of competition and zone starts, it still wouldn't qualify your claim that the team isn't any better defensively with Gudbranson in the lineup.  Ironically, his dificulty and matchups would only further evidence the point that he's #2 and not #3.

 

Edller Tanev

Del Zotto Gudbranson

Hutton Stecher

Pouliot Biega

 

That is how the blueline breaks down, when healthy.

 

It is actually the absence of players like Edler, Tanev and Gudbranson which has inflated the numbers of players like Hutton or Pouliot,  Stecher and Biega.

 

Gudbranson plays more minutes than Stecher regardless 

And when Gudbranson is healthy, it is Hutton (or Pouliot) or Biega that sit - with LHD sometimes stepping into minutes on the right side.  Hutton and/or Pouliot have had 1,2 3 D positions above them open up at times this year of the lineup this year - Gudbranson had Tanev minutes to fill that have not really influenced his ice time anywhere near as significantly.

 

The poster above hypothesizes about a non-existant field - the one in which Gudbranson plays 25 minute games in the absence of Tanev, to dip back to 16 minutes when Tanev is in the lineup.

Problem there being Gudbranson hasn't played a single 25 minute game, no 24 minute games either - 23 minutes only twice this year.  And likewise the perceived swing between doesn't exist - the bulk of Gudbranson's games being from 17 to 23 minutes. with a 1 minute night, and another 9 minute game - in which he left to injuries - skewing his ice time totals downward actually, while the spike to 25 due to Tanev absences is non-existant.  Gudbranson, when he's healthy and in the lineup - plays a clear and consistent shutdown role -  the #2 RHD shutdown role - in other words top 6 - with Tanev at 1RHD.   Nothing relative from going from 3 or 4LHD ie press box, moving up into top 6 minutes in the absensce of Edler, Tanev, and/or Gudbranson....

 

#3 RHD - Stecher - if you want to attempt to claim "difficulty and matchups" influence on-ice goals per 60, Stecher with 53% offensive zone starts and 2.5 on ice 5on5 g per 60 is both higher than Gudranson's 44% and 1,8 on ice even strength goals against.   One ice goals for is a narrow 1.8 to 1.6 margin - in other words, despite their deployment, the goal differential is a half goal a game in Gudbranson's favour over Stecher.

 

Not sure how to make that any more obvious, but Gudbranson plays the harder minutes, with the stronger goal for/against metrics.  Good luck explaining that away.

 

Both indications of the fact he's the top 4, not Stecher, that the team is better defensively with him on the ice (what you're denying in the first place) - and his time on ice also confirms it. 

 

Something else people like yourself don't seem to realize, is that Gudbranson makes life easier for Tanev, reduces the weight that Tanev has to carry additionally in the absence of Gudbranson.  You take Gudbranson out of the equation, and the wear and tear and heavy matchups only fall that much more to Tanev - as is the case if you take a Sutter, or Horvat out - the effect is clear - or both out of the lineup - and its multiplied.

Simply - the team is harder to play against - bettter defensively - with Gudbranson in the lineup.

 

[Provost]

10 hours ago, oldnews said:

 

 

The poster above hypothesizes about a non-existant field - the one in which Gudbranson plays 25 minute games in the absence of Tanev, to dip back to 16 minutes when Tanev is in the lineup.

Problem there being Gudbranson hasn't played a single 25 minute game, no 24 minute games either - 23 minutes only twice this year.  And likewise the perceived swing between doesn't exist - the bulk of Gudbranson's games being from 17 to 23 minutes. with a 1 minute night, and another 9 minute game - in which he left to injuries - skewing his ice time totals downward actually, while the spike to 25 due to Tanev absences is non-existant.  Gudbranson, when he's healthy and in the lineup - plays a clear and consistent shutdown role -  the #2 RHD shutdown role - in other words top 6 - with Tanev at 1RHD.   Nothing relative from going from 3 or 4LHD ie press box, moving up into top 6 minutes in the absensce of Edler, Tanev, and/or Gudbranson....

 

I would say you are the "master" of cherry picking data to suit your own purposes.... but you are actually terrible at it.

I used those numbers as an example of how an average is worked out.  You are somehow trying to find data to pretend that the guy who is 6th in average ice time this season on a team with a really crappy defence is "in reality" the 4th guy on the depth chart... and that also means he is really a legitimate 2nd pairing D on any team and should be paid like it.

Gudbranson has plenty of nights in the 12-17 minute ranges this season (14 of his 32 games are under 18 minutes per night), and not just the two injury games you are suggesting are somehow dramatically skewing a large sample size.  I never said he was a guy that went from the press box into the 3rd pairing

Also, the idea from Agent above suggesting 17-18 minutes isn't 3rd pairing is nonsense in the context of our team.  SOME team have top D that play 25-30 minutes a night regularly, which mean that the 3rd pairing ends up with 15-16 minutes per game tops.  On OUR team no such thing occurs and the minutes are spread out much more evenly.  The top D is Edler at 23:35 per game and the only other guy above 20 minutes is Del Zotto, and that was mostly based on having to cover early season injuries and a stretch of huge minute games.

Only Stecher and Biega average less ice time than Gudbranson out of the 8 D we have played regularly this season. Gudbranson is just buried when you consider possession stats, so it is really tough to argue he is a shutdown guy.

You keep putting up straw man arguments about how folks think Gudbranson is just a knuckle dragger or that he is the worst D around.  The real argument that adults are having is how much is what he brings worth.  If he wasn't 6'5" and able to answer the bell, the answer would be not much as his numbers just make him a below replacement level guy even considering the opposition he faces.  The fact he IS 6'5" AND able to bring a physical element on a team that sorely lacks means you pay a higher premium than otherwise... but that doesn't mean you throw a big contract with long term at him.

[oldnews]

1 minute ago, Provost said:

I would say you are the "master" of cherry picking data to suit your own purposes.... but you are actually terrible at it.

I used those numbers as an example of how an average is worked out. 

sorry, not going to bother - your example was fictional in any event - to which I added actual irl context and evidence.

 

but probably best not to engage with each other.

 

cheers.

[Provost]

Just now, oldnews said:

sorry, not going to bother - your example was fictional in any event - to which I added actual irl context and evidence.

 

but probably best not to engage with each other.

 

cheers.

Then you shouldn't keep trying.

Starting crap as always, then dismissing or disappearing when you are proven wrong.

Utter lameness.

[oldnews]

 

5 minutes ago, Provost said:

 adults

ironic

 

Just now, Provost said:

Starting crap as always, then dismissing or disappearing when you are proven wrong.

Utter lameness.

sorry if the evidence contradicted your imaginary hypothesis.

 

going around and around in circles with you or guntrix though - as you apparently hope to - with no new substantive points/posts - not worthwhile.

 

cheers.

[oldnews]

2 hours ago, aGENT said:

 

 

 

A good illustration of the confusion some people have on the matter is the stated opinion of a number of posters on these boards that Ben Hutton "is a top pairing defenseman".

 

The reality, however, is that he has been competing for the 3LHD position, and when the blueline is healthy, has been up and down from 3 to 4 between himself and Pouliot, who was outperforming him for a stretch.  When it's not healthy, he's eaten injury replacement minutes - on both left and right sides - that significantly influence his ice time.   We can look at a Megna from last year and come to some significant misunderstandings about his spot on the depth chart by misreading his inflated replacement minutes, based on the type of role he's filling in the absence of other forwards - while falsely assuming he jumps over other bottom six forwards on the depth chart, based on a higher average minutes/game.   That doesn't change the fact he was and is about 16/17 on the depth chart of a healthy Canucks forward group.

Hutton responded well to the challenge this year imo - I like Hutton - but he has struggled the majority of the season, and was also cast into situations (as has Del Zotto) that probably aren't ideal due to injuries above him.  Recently when threatened by Pouliot to wind up in the press box regularly, Hutton has stepped up nicely imo.

 

I recall the poll question / thread asking who was going to sit when Gudbranson is healthy.  A few people were under the impression that would be Gudbranson, imo not understanding his role or positiion on this team.  About the same time people were mistaking Hutton for a top pairing D - to be brought back to reality when he was scratched when the blueline became healthy, and had to compete with Pouliot to earn his way back into the lineup.  Biega also factors in here, as a player that has earned minutes at times in favour of one or both of those two.

 

I think there is a series of misunderstandings that 'inform' the idea that Gudbranson isn't in fact the 2RHD on this team - ie:

 

- that a player's out of context corsi has more significance than it does to a coach in the real world

- that a player's replacement ice time is indicative of their role on a healthy blueline

- that a player's relative health - compared to a player returning from injuries - whose role is obviously limited in the circumstances (ie Gudbranson's wrist has clearly limited and effected the risks he takes - a does a player's game-fitness also effect ice time when they are out for stints of time and returning (particularly, big, physical players who have to work harder to maintain endurance).

 

Could Hutton, or Stecher, or Pouliot become top 4 defensemen?  Of course that is a possibility - in fact almost all of us would hope they do - but in the present, they are the respective 3LHD and 3RHD spots on this team.   Gudbranson, when he's healthy effects all of their minutes - whereas the converse it simply not the case - healthy Gudbranson actually forced Hutton out of the lineup. something that was fairly predictable if a person looks at the realistic makeup of the blueline and isn't attempting to contrive arguments that Hutton, or whomever, are something (in the present) that they are not.

[aGENT]

@oldnews

 

It seems to be an issue these days not limited to hockey. Ideology trumps rational discussion and turning a blind eye to actual context and understanding.

 

Sutter and Gudbranson are terrible, overpaid NHL players and Jordan Peterson is a misogynistic bigot  

[guntrix]

12 hours ago, oldnews said:

No point, let alone correlation.    A team metric - set at giving up 4 goals, of which there were 21 games - and you expect that Gudbranson should have reduced this number, in the 12 of those games he played, by more than 4.5%?   Sorry, your metric is meaningless, and a micro-sample,

 

I welcome you to attempt to factor in "difficulty and matchups" if you want, but it wouldn't change the fact that Gud is #2 RHD, while Tanev is #1RHD.   If you want to try to adjust Tanev's 2.5 on ice goals against per 60 based on quality of competition and zone starts, it still wouldn't qualify your claim that the team isn't any better defensively with Gudbranson in the lineup.  Ironically, his dificulty and matchups would only further evidence the point that he's #2 and not #3.

 

Edller Tanev

Del Zotto Gudbranson

Hutton Stecher

Pouliot Biega

 

That is how the blueline breaks down, when healthy.

 

It is actually the absence of players like Edler, Tanev and Gudbranson which has inflated the numbers of players like Hutton or Pouliot,  Stecher and Biega.

 

Gudbranson plays more minutes than Stecher regardless 

And when Gudbranson is healthy, it is Hutton (or Pouliot) or Biega that sit - with LHD sometimes stepping into minutes on the right side.  Hutton and/or Pouliot have had 1,2 3 D positions above them in the lineup open up at times this year - Gudbranson had Tanev minutes to fill that have not really influenced his ice time anywhere near as significantly.

 

The poster above hypothesizes about a non-existant field - the one in which Gudbranson plays 25 minute games in the absence of Tanev, to dip back to 16 minutes when Tanev is in the lineup.

Problem there being Gudbranson hasn't played a single 25 minute game, no 24 minute games either - 23 minutes only twice this year.  And likewise the perceived swing between doesn't exist - the bulk of Gudbranson's games being from 17 to 23 minutes. with a 1 minute night, and another 9 minute game - in which he left to injuries - skewing his ice time totals downward actually, while the spike to 25 due to Tanev absences is non-existant.  Gudbranson, when he's healthy and in the lineup - plays a clear and consistent shutdown role -  the #2 RHD shutdown role - in other words top 6 - with Tanev at 1RHD.   Nothing relative to going from 3 or 4LHD (ie press box), to moving up into top 6 minutes in the absensce of Edler, Tanev, and/or Gudbranson....

 

#3 RHD - Stecher - if you want to attempt to claim "difficulty and matchups" influence upon on-ice goals per 60, Stecher with 53% offensive zone starts and 2.5 on ice 5on5 g per 60 is both higher than Gudranson's 44% and 1,8  on ice even strength goals against.   One ice goals for is a narrow 1.8 to 1.6 margin - in other words, despite their deployment, the goal differential is a half goal a game in Gudbranson's favour over Stecher.

 

Not sure how to make that any more obvious, but Gudbranson plays the harder minutes, with the stronger goal for/against metrics.  Good luck explaining that away.

 

Both indications of the fact he's the top 4, not Stecher, that the team is better defensively with him on the ice (what you're denying in the first place) - and his time on ice also confirms it. 

 

Something else people like yourself don't seem to realize, is that Gudbranson makes life easier for Tanev, reduces the weight that Tanev has to carry additionally in the absence of Gudbranson.  You take Gudbranson out of the equation, and the wear and tear and heavy matchups only fall that much more to Tanev - as is the case if you take a Sutter, or Horvat out - the effect is clear - or both out of the lineup - and its multiplied.

Simply - the team is harder to play against - bettter defensively - with Gudbranson in the lineup.

You're overcomplicating the matter. Maybe I misunderstood your statement, here's what you said:

 

Quote

Gudbranson is not unlike Bieksa imo.  The team was simply better with Juice in the lineup - no real question about it - the results  and the eye test were clear - in spite of the fact he wasn't perfect.

These individual stats are flashy but they don't prove your initial statement on a team level... I've yet to see how the team would have fared better with Gudbranon in the lineup results-wise. In fact, there's a .2 difference of goals conceded with/without Gudbranson. This is too small a number too small to derive a correlation from, especially considering factors such as quality of competition played, overlapping injuries, etc, which would take way too long to quantify. If your point is that Erik has been a top-4 in a terrible Canucks D, you've got an argument, but I asked you to prove a different point. I'd like to think that he has the Bieksa effect, but the results (a term you used) don't indicate that. this is probably why you can't see the point of the 4-goal metric which was used to illustrate just how bad the team has been with and without him.

 

Also, telling me that Gudbranson's inclusion makes life easier for Tanev is logical given our terrible depth this season. It's for the same reason this team tanked when Tanev got injured. That's more an indication of just how injury-prone our right side has been this season, something that's been further exacerbated with Stetcher's injury problems. 

[oldnews]

13 minutes ago, guntrix said:

You're overcomplicating the matter. Maybe I misunderstood your statement, here's what you said:

 

These individual stats are flashy but they don't prove your initial statement on a team level... I've yet to see how the team would have fared better with Gudbranon in the lineup results-wise. In fact, there's a .2 difference of goals conceded with/without Gudbranson. This is too small a number too small to derive a correlation from, especially considering factors such as quality of competition played, overlapping injuries, etc, which would take way too long to quantify. If your point is that Erik has been playing top-4 minutes with the Canucks, you've got an argument, but I asked you to prove a different point. I'd like to think that he has the Bieksa effect, but the results (a term you used) don't indicate that. this is probably why you can't see the point of the 4-goal metric which was used to illustrate just how bad the team has been with and without him.

 

Also, telling me that Gudbranson's inclusion makes life easier for Tanev is logical given our terrible depth this season. It's for the same reason this team tanked when Tanev got injured. That's more an indication of just how injury-prone our right side has been this season, something that's been further exacerbated with Stetcher's injury problems. 

Your point in isolation, is valid enough - that the presence of Gudbranson alone, relative to his absence, doesn't create more than a 4.5% difference in 4 goal games.

I don't judge the 'results' quite the same - in the sense of expecting the team to win games and give up that many fewer goals, based on the presence of Gudbranson alone.  It's simply a team game with 20  players on the ice - so by that standard - ie the percentage of the roster that he represents - 5% - a 4.5% reduction in 4 goal games is almost an absolute contribution.  So within the 'team' metric you've chosen, which tells us next to nothing in the end, the metric you chose indicates a 4.5% difference from a single 5% contribution in the small sample you selected.

I'd argue that your chosen metric and the objective outcomes actually undermine the point you were attempting to make.

 

If we look in context at this season - the team has tanked in the absence of Sutter and Horvat combined.

 

I simply don't expect any defenseman - Tanev included - to produce remarkable game changing different results simply by their presence in the lineup.

 

So when I talk about the results being different - I'm talking about something from a far larger sample, wth a far more relevent relative component - and I give you as evidence an on-ice goals against per 60 minutes - of 1.8 for Gudbranson - in other words - the best on the team.   And if we're adjusting for 'difficulty' - then the only defensemen that are adjusted postiively with respect to Gudbranso would be the few D that are actually above him on the depth chart - none of whom relatively exclude him from being a top 4 defenseman.  For example, relative to the rest of the blueline, only Tanev has lower offensive zone starts than Gudbranson. 

 

I'm looking at your claim that the team isn't any better defensively with him in the lineup - and I cut straight to the chase - of the clearest and simplest goals against metric -and relative to his team-mates and the rest of the blueline - he, along with an outstanding young defensive forward in Gaunce - are simply the best on the team this year.

 

You apparently expect Gudbranson to prevent the team as a whole from giving up 4 goals on x amount of occassions - I don't think you have a realistic expectation - nor a worthwhile metric - to start with.

[PhillipBlunt]

31 minutes ago, aGENT said:

@oldnews

 

It seems to be an issue these days not limited to hockey. Ideology trumps rational discussion and turning a blind eye to actual context and understanding.

 

Sutter and Gudbranson are terrible, overpaid NHL players and Jordan Peterson is a misogynistic bigot  

Peterson's interview with that empty-headed Cathy Newman was excellent. Newman would fit right in with the idiots on 1040 and 650. All style and no substance.

[Rush17]

If Gudbranson hits the ice tonight and does a great job. I think we should be open to offering him a 4 year deal at 4.2 million.   He just started feeling comfortable playing in his last game and we saw some real positives.  We should give him some games and see if he can be the force he was believed to be when we drafted him. if he flops trade him. If he lives up to expectations ink him for a 4.2 cap hit and let him help lead this next generation of canucks players.

 

Anything over 4.2 million imo is an over payment.  Anything under is a low ball offer.  If he turns into willie mitchell that contract will be a huge contributor to our teams success. We will get 1 or 2 playoff runs with him at that cap hit to see how useful he is long term.  Then we talk another 4 or 5 year deal at that time.  I don't believe anyone should be given a contract longer then 5 years unless they are coming off an ELC contract and are a future part of your core.

[SilentSam]

-Re-sign Gudbranson.

-Trade Tanev At TDL for a                

   late1st, or good prospect.

-Trade the Sedins at TDL for a

   1st or top prospect.

- Sign E Kane as UFA.

- make an offer to RFA Adam

  Lowry WPG.

- make a strong effort to bring

   back Nikita Tryamkin at the  

   end of his season this year.

- Let the Sedins try-out for spots next season.

[guntrix]

22 minutes ago, oldnews said:

Your point in isolation, is valid enough - that the presence of Gudbranson alone, relative to his absence, doesn't create more than a 4.5% difference in 4 goal games.

I don't judge the 'results' quite the same - in the sense of expecting the team to win games and give up that many fewer goals, based on the presence of Gudbranson alone.  It's simply a team game with 20  players on the ice - so by that standard - ie the percentage of the roster that he represents - 5% - a 4.5% reduction in 4 goal games is almost an absolute contribution.

 

If we look in context at this season - the team has tanked in the absence of Sutter and Horvat combined.

 

I simply don't expect any defenseman - Tanev included - to produce remarkable game changing different results simply by their presence in the lineup.

 

So when I talk about the results being different - I'm talking about something from a far larger sample, wth a far more relevent relative component - and I give you as evidence an on-ice goals against per 60 minutes - of 1.8 for Gudbranson - in other words - the best on the team

 

I'm looking at your claim that the team isn't any better defensively with him in the lineup - and I cut straight to the chase - of the clearest and simplest goals against metric -and relative to his team-mates and the rest of the blueline - he, along with an outstanding young defensive forward in Gaunce - are simply the best on the team this year.

 

You apparently expect Gudbranson to prevent the team as a whole from giving up 4 goals on x amount of occassions - I don't think you have a realistic expectation - nor a worthwhile metric - to start with.

The problem with solely looking at individual on-ice goals/60 mins is that it shields you from analyzing team-based stats and results. When you infer that he has the Bieksa effect, you're insinuating that the team plays better with Gudbranson on the ice, and that the results are there to back this up. Thing is, the results don't; at least nothing solid enough to make me think that the Canucks would have fared better results-wise, as you put it. When you say that you don't expect any defenseman, including Tanev, to produce remarkable game changing results, you're hyperbolizing. Chris isn't superman but the results seem to indicate that the team is noticeably worse without him in the lineup, something that cannot be proven for Gudbranson. If anything, you're arguing that Erik is faring better than his direct competition on the right side in Stetcher, who is admittedly having a rough year with injuries and inconsistency. 

[Gaudette Celly]

20 hours ago, Silky mitts said:

Also if guddy is only being signed for toughness , than is his salary that he will get really be worth it? You can sign toughness for 800k

So apparently it was Ray Ferraro who put this out there, then Shorthouse said the same thing this morning, that Gudbranson can be "replaced for cheaper".  If one thinks that Gudbranson is nothing but a face-punching goon, then that makes sense.  But I have to ask -- please list all these NHL-level regular-shift dmen out there who have his total skillset and are making that kind of money, and that easy to sign or otherwise available?  It's fine to make such an assertion, but I have yet to see one example, whether a pending UFA or otherwise.  Not even one.

 

As I said elsewhere, if Gudbranson could be "easily replaced" with minimum-salary goons or otherwise bottom-end toughness, then why all the interest from other teams, knowing that they're going to have to ante up not only assets as a rental but his level of salary if they intend for him to be anything more than that?  It simply doesn't correlate.

[oldnews]

nvmd

[oldnews]

57 minutes ago, guntrix said:

The problem with solely looking at individual on-ice goals/60 mins is that it shields you from analyzing team-based stats and results. When you infer that he has the Bieksa effect, you're insinuating that the team plays better with Gudbranson on the ice, and that the results are there to back this up. Thing is, the results don't; at least nothing solid enough to make me think that the Canucks would have fared better results-wise, as you put it. When you say that you don't expect any defenseman, including Tanev, to produce remarkable game changing results, you're hyperbolizing. Chris isn't superman but the results seem to indicate that the team is noticeably worse without him in the lineup, something that cannot be proven for Gudbranson. If anything, you're arguing that Erik is faring better than his direct competition on the right side in Stetcher, who is admittedly having a rough year with injuries and inconsistency. 

I think it's pretty clear that you're bright enough to understand that the "Bieksa effect" refers to more than 4 goal game team results - cannot be reduced to that simple implication alone, particularly when you're wise enough to note that Tanev isn't "superman" -  I'm not sure Bieksa was either, despite the proficiency with the superman punch.  The point about Bieksa wasn't simply limited to or reducible to the team's record with him in the lineup - the points weren't  that simple.

 

And regardless, Gudbranson's goals against metrics - are clear and irrefutable results - which indicate that the team's defensive performance has been better with him on the ice, despite the difficulty of his minutes - being those of a top 4 shutdown defenseman. 1.8 g per 60 5 on 5.  I can see why you don't attempt to address those head on, instead attempting to divert with smaller sample, unattributable team results.

 

You really can't finesse your way around the goals against results - and you haven't successfully done so.  You asked for qualification that the team has been better defensively with Gudbranson in the lineup - the goals against metric this year is not something you've managed to answer in any substantive way.  The Bieksa effect is about a lot of things - irreducible to the amount of 4 goal games with him in the lineup.

The point of the 'effect' was relatively clearly - tougher and harder to play against.

[Gaudette Celly]

8 minutes ago, oldnews said:

And regardless, Gudbranson's goals against metrics - are clear and irrefutable results - which indicate that the team's defensive performance has been better with him on the ice, despite the difficulty of his minutes - being those of a top 4 shutdown defenseman. 1.8 g per 60 5 on 5.  I can see why you don't attempt to address those head on, instead attempting to divert with smaller sample, unattributable team results.

So suffice to say, Gudbranson yields more shot attempts, but less goals?  If so, there's definitely an interesting correlation there, and one that must make a very definite statement.