[Trade] Canucks trade Erik Gudbranson to Penguins for Tanner Pearson

[mll]

On 3/14/2019 at 3:16 AM, oldnews said:

Gudbranson has been plain outstanding thus far in Pitt.

 

2.9 on ice goals for per 60

1.0 goals against

= +1.9 per 60  and +5 overall, in hard, shutdown minutes.

20 hits in 7 games.

A leading penalty killer for them....

 

Don't like having let go of him, enjoy watching the guy killing it - and think it may wind up one of the odd moments of weakness for this management group - but it's a done deal and something the team needs to move on from (hopefully can shore up the blueline -and some toughness, in the summer).

At least it looks like they may be gaining some value in draft position....?

Also kind of odd that both McCann and Gud (a deal that I thought was decent enough for both sides) were both dealt at the deadline - I wouldn't have agreed to either of those moves (Pitt sure is sitting pretty after the deadline though).

 

With the Canucks this season

 

2.0 on ice goals for per 60

4.6 goals against

= - 2.6 per 60 and -27 overall

 

132 hits in 57 games (2.3 vs 2.8 in Pittsburgh) 

PK from ~2:45 in October/November to 1:45 in January/February. His last 3 games in Vancouver just over 1min vs 2:30 for Stecher (Tanev was injured)

 

His ice time/responsibilities kept on decreasing as the season went along. Average ice time in October ~19:15 to 15:15 in February.

 

It's understandable that he got traded.  They need to figure out why it didn't work out though to improve their process.   On the coaching front Pittsburgh is obviously more skilled/experienced but Gubdranson's comments suggests that it's not just quality of teammates. 

 

[SilentSam]

1 hour ago, mll said:

 

With the Canucks this season

 

2.0 on ice goals for per 60

4.6 goals against

= - 2.6 per 60 and -27 overall

 

132 hits in 57 games (2.3 vs 2.8 in Pittsburgh) 

PK from ~2:45 in October/November to 1:45 in January/February. His last 3 games in Vancouver just over 1min vs 2:30 for Stecher (Tanev was injured)

 

His ice time/responsibilities kept on decreasing as the season went along. Average ice time in October ~19:15 to 15:15 in February.

 

It's understandable that he got traded.  They need to figure out why it didn't work out though to improve their process.   On the coaching front Pittsburgh is obviously more skilled/experienced but Gubdranson's comments suggests that it's not just quality of teammates. 

 

This is why I can not hold any weight to the truth in Analytics.

The singular personal analytics isn’t based on personal play..   it’s a graph that does not account for Team play, or the cause and effect  of others that effect the singular player on that graph.

Its over hyped.       Gudbranson was singled out when our best D men (?) in Edler and Tanev only play half seasons.

The Team that surrounded Gudbranson isn’t good enough yet.

Yet Analytics will still try to connect rocket science and ping pong.

Gudbranson should still be with this club and Tanev should have left last season ago when he was worth something.

There is a team building here, it’s the old guard that needs to go,  tired of hearing about fan favourites.

Meanwhile it’s an open house on head shots to our higher end talent,.  and no deterrent to answer to.

[oldnews]

2 hours ago, mll said:

 

With the Canucks this season

 

2.0 on ice goals for per 60

4.6 goals against

= - 2.6 per 60 and -27 overall

 

132 hits in 57 games (2.3 vs 2.8 in Pittsburgh) 

PK from ~2:45 in October/November to 1:45 in January/February. His last 3 games in Vancouver just over 1min vs 2:30 for Stecher (Tanev was injured)

 

His ice time/responsibilities kept on decreasing as the season went along. Average ice time in October ~19:15 to 15:15 in February.

 

It's understandable that he got traded.  They need to figure out why it didn't work out though to improve their process.   On the coaching front Pittsburgh is obviously more skilled/experienced but Gubdranson's comments suggests that it's not just quality of teammates. 

 

The problem with this conclusion is that it is based on one metric this season =

 

Last year Gudbranson's goal metrics were....

 

1.5 for / 2.0 on ice goals against per 60 - with 26 Canucks having a higher on ice goals against.

 

That is a single goal metric - essentially it's plus/minus gazing (with the per 60's spelled out).  In isolation it's really not any more sophistocated than traditional, relatively unanalytical assumptions made based on mere plus/minus.  And additionally, Gudbranson's shot metrics/corsi were relatively comparable through those two seasons  - and not particularly unflattering (perhaps that's why you excluded them in that post...when attempting to make the claim that that one-season goal metric indicated the understandability of moving him).

I think that assessment might be significantly off-base - it seemed to me that they were looking fairly intently at moving Edler, Tanev or Gudbranson - I doubt that any of it boils down to simplisitc single-season goal metrics.  Hits have been a consistent part of Gudbranson's game = not terribly relevent.

 

The underlying truth however, is also for whatever reasons - that his ice-time did diminish recently - for whatever reasons...whether that's the intent to see what other players can do as this team clearly taps out of the playoff races, whether it's Green losing trust/belief in Gudbranson, whether it was the intent to move on from one or a few veteran defenseman, or whether it's also a stealth tank in a year the team hosts the draft towards the tail end of their rething....who knows - we'd have to have a fly on the wall in the management and coaching meetings to really know.

 

Why does that particular (goal metric) statistic fluctuate so much?   A range of reasons, but clearly, the player(s) whose task is primarily to attempt to deal with the loss of entire shutdown units - with all of Edler, Tanev, Sutter and Beagle out at times this year, all at once in some instances - are going to take significant hits to particularly their goals against metrics.  Sutter's goal metrics have a comparable significant swing from one season to the next - what it doesn't really tell you is much about Sutter (again, it's plus/minus 'analytics').

Guys like Granlund are in similar situations - 'earn' similar treatments/outcomes when Sutter/Beagle types are out and they become principal shutdown guys (while the rest of the units are trickle-down depleted/shallow).

 

The bottom line, however, is that the attempt to draw a simplified conclusion - ie the player is the 'worst in the NHL' or whatever - or isolating this year's results and asssuming it is 'systems' - doesn't really look at it as an integrated matter.

 

That is why it's a horrible idea to small-sample sandbag these players - as we do not only with Gud, but with players like Beagle, Sutter, etc.  It's also the reason it would have been a bad idea to give up prematurely on a goaltender like Markstrom because he appeared average the past few years.

 

The thing about what Gudbranson is doing in Pittsburgh - it can't simply be attributed to better 'systems' - of course there is a much more experienced forward group there, and years and years of established chemistry - Stanley  Cups - to a certain extent their role in exits (the areas the Canucks are considered to struggle) is the back of their hand at this point - whereas the Canucks feature a revolving door of rookies, injury replacements, new (and injured) veterans, and in general, a state of relatively constant flux that is extremely challenging for a coach, particularly when half his blueline is likewise in that state.  Pittsburgh needs mere tweaks.

 

In any event - the folks around here that sandbagged Gudbranson endlessly might want to look at the fact that his performance in Pittsburgh may be small sample, but don't expect it to drop off as dramatically as their assumptions/ego may hope.  First - he's not playing the minutes he is simply as a result of injuries to Pittsburgh blueliners = that claim has been made and it's not only false, but would only make his objective outcomes there relatively more impressive.  Pitts' #2, 3, 4 - DuMoulin, Schultz, Johnson - are all in their lineup with Gudbranson eating more minutes than them. 

In any event, I think the principal difference is actually personnel - while none of the factors - pairings, lines, goaltending, depth, experience, deployment/role (zone starts, quality of competition), systems, health, etc should be excluded.

 

In other words - the attempt to hang judgements on a single player  - like "Gudbranson is horrible" - is as much a fool's game as then subsequently attempting to likewise oversimplify it and hang it on Green or his 'system'.  These are all essentially unit/team metrics in the end.   In the odd cases where particular players consistently stand out, there might be a case to be made, but that wasn't really the case - and it's something we might actually want to look at ourselves at - ie why do we incessantly dwell on players like Sbisa or Gudbranson - while we give small sample metric passes to other players that don't fit our whipping-boy criteria (not going to name anyone, but there are equally easy targets if people are il-disposed that way).

Edited March 16, 2019 by oldnews

[oldnews]

16 hours ago, Toews said:

Canes fans frequently complained that Ron Hainsey was old and slow. He was Pittsburgh's #2 D when they won a Cup.

 

Trevor Daley was unceremoniously dumped by the Hawks for being atrocious. He got traded for the carcass of Rob Scuderi. Pittsburgh turned him into a useful player.

 

Oilers fans couldn't wait to get rid of Justin Schultz. He played an integral role during their run (top 4 D)

 

This is what the Penguins have been doing for quite some time now. People can say what they want but it's not like Guddy didn't get enough opportunities here. He was also paired with multiple defenseman and somehow dragged down everyone who played with him. He was mediocre in Florida other than one fabled post-season run.

 

Maybe he leaves Pittsburgh with a new perspective but I doubt it. My guess is he reverts back into a pumpkin the moment they let him walk. Maybe we can hire Sergei Gonchar, I would rather the coach that can get marginal defenseman to perform than a marginal defenseman.

You make some good points until you reach this hero-chart stuff - which I'd be interested to see you qualify/substantiate.

[Toews]

Just now, oldnews said:

You make some good points until you reach this hero-chart stuff - which I'd be interested to see you qualify/substantiate.

Who do you think did better with Gudbranson than without? I would say Gudbranson's best play came when he was paired with Edler and even then I would say Edler-Tanev and Edler-Stecher were both better pairings. 

 

I think the numbers will back me up but I honestly don't care to even look. It really isn't worth my time digging through hero& corsi charts to find evidence for you to scoff at. You will tout a player's numbers when they suit your case but when it comes to Gudbranson...

 

[oldnews]

6 minutes ago, Toews said:

I think the numbers will back me up but I honestly don't care to even look.

 

The ironing is delicious.

 

Sorry you don't get the basic point - and are unwilling to look at the evidence that may or may not substantiate/qualify your claim (if you'd know what to look at ).

 

That's all I asked you - whereas the rest - of what  you posted - is a waste of time unfortunately - posturing.

 

 

[Angry Goose]

3 hours ago, khay said:

He has lost my support a bit as well. I still like him but the team play as of late has been really bad. If he can bring back some of that hockey from the beginning of the season, that would win a lot of support back even if we lose every game for the remainder of the season.

 

It's the same hockey, the only difference being the team was fresh out the gates and the other teams have  improved and found THEIR chemistry

 

I for one like the style of hockey Green emphasizes.  Push the pace and win your battles.  The Canucks just need to keep adding horses to the stable

Edited March 16, 2019 by SILLY GOOSE

[Toews]

18 minutes ago, oldnews said:

The ironing is delicious.

 

Sorry you don't get the basic point - and are unwilling to look at the evidence that may or may not substantiate/qualify your claim (if you'd know what to look at ).

 

That's all I asked you - whereas the rest - of what  you posted - is a waste of time unfortunately - posturing.

 

 

I thought you were touting Gudbranson's analytics just a few posts ago. This after telling everyone for months not to look at his numbers. At least I can respect these analytics bloggers as they stay even handed and consistent in their flawed approach. I simply don't believe you do. Gudbranson's stats with the Canucks are objectively atrocious and it is coincides with the eye test. The player even admits he played poorly. And now even management was done hoping for this guy to validate with his play the assets they spent on him.

 

In any case I am just glad that I don't have to watch Gudbranson play regularly. You can continue pining for a guy that was mediocre his entire career until he got to a team which makes mediocrity look competent. 

Edited March 16, 2019 by Toews

[oldnews]

5 hours ago, Toews said:

I thought you were touting Gudbranson's analytics just a few posts ago

You fundamentally miss the point - while prattling a lot and avoiding any actual statistics, btw.  'Gudbranson's numbers are objectively horrible - but I'm unable to look at or engage with them' blah blah.

 

This happens repeatedly around here.

Sbisa is the worst D in the league.

Bonino is a mediocre third line center.

Edler makes everyone, and his team overall, worse.

Gudbranson is blah blah.

 

I'm no particular fan of Gudbranson - any more so than the Canucks team and roster as a whole.

He happened - like Sbisa, Bonino, etc - to shoulder a significantly undue amount of shallow criticism, 'scapegoating', prejudgement,etc around here.

Calling that out with, imo more substantiated counterpoints - is over-reacted to around here, and rarely substantiated - rarely are the actual 'analytics' engaged with.

I'm entirely open to the possbility of Gudbranson not turning out as we hoped - certainly thus far I'd hoped for better results - but that doesn't represent my point in either event.

I've listened to years of people sandbagging players here - and usually/often based on really weak impressions, bias, 'eye-tests', 'analytics'...

I tend to counterpoint when I see that crap.

Where Gudbranson is concerned, it's not surprising at all the fluctuation in his statistics here, or the uptick in a Pittsburgh context.  "Advanced stats" clearly have their limits - with some utility - but this is where I fundamentally disagree with corsi-gazing and any other form of reductive, oversimplified prejudgement.

What I've never claimed is the Gudbranson "is great" - or likewise about Sbisa, Bonino, etc, etc.   I'm not in the practice of undervaluing or underselling the players on this team, however.  I'd have liked to see more of Gud, particularly with the right partner and once this team is better - healthier, more developed, deeper.   Any sample in the current context needs to be taken with a grain of salt and a lot more context/factors - than gazing at a particular metric.

Edited March 17, 2019 by oldnews

[mll]

2 hours ago, oldnews said:

The problem with this conclusion is that it is based on one metric this season =

 

Last year Gudbranson's goal metrics were....

 

1.5 for / 2.0 on ice goals against per 60 - with 26 Canucks having a higher on ice goals against.

 

That is a single goal metric - essentially it's plus/minus gazing (with the per 60's spelled out).  In isolation it's really not any more sophistocated than traditional, relatively unanalytical assumptions made based on mere plus/minus.  And additionally, Gudbranson's shot metrics/corsi were relatively comparable through those two seasons  - and not particularly unflattering (perhaps that's why you excluded them in that post...when attempting to make the claim that that one-season goal metric indicated the understandability of moving him).

I think that assessment might be significantly off-base - it seemed to me that they were looking fairly intently at moving Edler, Tanev or Gudbranson - I doubt that any of it boils down to simplisitc single-season goal metrics.  Hits have been a consistent part of Gudbranson's game = not terribly relevent.

 

The underlying truth however, is also for whatever reasons - that his ice-time did diminish recently - for whatever reasons...whether that's the intent to see what other players can do as this team clearly taps out of the playoff races, whether it's Green losing trust/belief in Gudbranson, whether it was the intent to move on from one or a few veteran defenseman, or whether it's also a stealth tank in a year the team hosts the draft towards the tail end of their rething....who knows - we'd have to have a fly on the wall in the management and coaching meetings to really know.

 

Why does that particular (goal metric) statistic fluctuate so much?   A range of reasons, but clearly, the player(s) whose task is primarily to attempt to deal with the loss of entire shutdown units - with all of Edler, Tanev, Sutter and Beagle out at times this year, all at once in some instances - are going to take significant hits to particularly their goals against metrics.  Sutter's goal metrics have a comparable significant swing from one season to the next - what it doesn't really tell you is much about Sutter (again, it's plus/minus 'analytics').

Guys like Granlund are in similar situations - 'earn' similar treatments/outcomes when Sutter/Beagle types are out and they become principal shutdown guys (while the rest of the units are trickle-down depleted/shallow).

 

The bottom line, however, is that the attempt to draw a simplified conclusion - ie the player is the 'worst in the NHL' or whatever - or isolating this year's results and asssuming it is 'systems' - doesn't really look at it as an integrated matter.

 

That is why it's a horrible idea to small-sample sandbag these players - as we do not only with Gud, but with players like Beagle, Sutter, etc.  It's also the reason it would have been a bad idea to give up prematurely on a goaltender like Markstrom because he appeared average the past few years.

 

The thing about what Gudbranson is doing in Pittsburgh - it can't simply be attributed to better 'systems' - of course there is a much more experienced forward group there, and years and years of established chemistry - Stanley  Cups - to a certain extent their role in exits (the areas the Canucks are considered to struggle) is the back of their hand at this point - whereas the Canucks feature a revolving door of rookies, injury replacements, new (and injured) veterans, and in general, a state of relatively constant flux that is extremely challenging for a coach, particularly when half his blueline is likewise in that state.  Pittsburgh needs mere tweaks.

 

In any event - the folks around here that sandbagged Gudbranson endlessly might want to look at the fact that his performance in Pittsburgh may be small sample, but don't expect it to drop off as dramatically as their assumptions/ego may hope.  First - he's not playing the minutes he is simply as a result of injuries to Pittsburgh blueliners = that claim has been made and it's not only false, but would only make his objective outcomes there relatively more impressive.  Pitts' #2, 3, 4 - DuMoulin, Schultz, Johnson - are all in their lineup with Gudbranson eating more minutes than them. 

In any event, I think the principal difference is actually personnel - while none of the factors - pairings, lines, goaltending, depth, experience, deployment/role (zone starts, quality of competition), systems, health, etc should be excluded.

 

In other words - the attempt to hang judgements on a single player  - like "Gudbranson is horrible" - is as much a fool's game as then subsequently attempting to likewise oversimplify it and hang it on Green or his 'system'.  These are all essentially unit/team metrics in the end.   In the odd cases where particular players consistently stand out, there might be a case to be made, but that wasn't really the case - and it's something we might actually want to look at ourselves at - ie why do we incessantly dwell on players like Sbisa or Gudbranson - while we give small sample metric passes to other players that don't fit our whipping-boy criteria (not going to name anyone, but there are equally easy targets if people are il-disposed that way).

 

Was just contrasting the numbers with the ones you posted for Pittsburgh. 

I find it understandable that he got traded because of how his responsibilities were cut back and not because of the numbers.  Green also commented that Gudbranson was chasing his game in Vancouver.  Gudbranson says he never felt comfortable here and could never get anything going.  What I find surprising is that they say that not even a year after having agreed to an extension.  

 

[oldnews]

59 minutes ago, mll said:

 

Was just contrasting the numbers with the ones you posted for Pittsburgh. 

I find it understandable that he got traded because of how his responsibilities were cut back and not because of the numbers.  Green also commented that Gudbranson was chasing his game in Vancouver.  Gudbranson says he never felt comfortable here and could never get anything going.  What I find surprising is that they say that not even a year after having agreed to an extension.  

 

Yeah - it was pretty abrupt - but also sounds like an 11th hour deal at the deadline - other things did not happen - and as the story goes, the Pens presented this....

I'm not of the mind that this was necessarily a 'bad' hockey trade - I'm not down on Pearson, think he represents value, and think he could be a needed 20 goal guy here that brings some needed elements to the wing, but I just don't share the opinion that Gud was as generally represented - that his contract was immoveable - no one would want him - one of the NHL's worst etc - a fairly prevalent impression around here -  am not surprised a contender did, or were willing to move a guy like Pearson to acquire him and that he looks relatively better in that mix.

 

 

[VIC_CITY]

3 hours ago, Toews said:

Who do you think did better with Gudbranson than without? I would say Gudbranson's best play came when he was paired with Edler and even then I would say Edler-Tanev and Edler-Stecher were both better pairings. 

 

I think the numbers will back me up but I honestly don't care to even look. It really isn't worth my time digging through hero& corsi charts to find evidence for you to scoff at. You will tout a player's numbers when they suit your case but when it comes to Gudbranson...

 

Dude, trust me, he'll die on that Gudbranson/Sutter hill every time

Edited March 16, 2019 by VIC_CITY

[khay]

3 hours ago, SILLY GOOSE said:

It's the same hockey, the only difference being the team was fresh out the gates and the other teams have  improved and found THEIR chemistry

 

I for one like the style of hockey Green emphasizes.  Push the pace and win your battles.  The Canucks just need to keep adding horses to the stable

I see. So why are the Canucks still trying to find the right chemistry when the other teams are consolidating the chemistry that they were building from the start of the season?

[oldnews]

43 minutes ago, VIC_CITY said:

Dude, trust me, he'll die on that Gudbranson/Sutter hill every time

You never fail to live 'up' to expectations, yourself.

 

I'll give you this much - yes, I'd rather die on a hill with Gudbranson and/or Sutter than join you choking on a piece of Travis Yost cheesecake, every time.

[Rob_Zepp]

On 3/16/2019 at 12:54 PM, oldnews said:

The ironing is delicious.

 

 

 

[oldnews]

I've liked Pearson's game recently.

Not looking at/worried about his production at this point - 2 goals, 3pts in 10 games isn't what some might hope, but at the same time he's playing with Horvat, who is drawn (once again) into shutdown duty in the absence of Sutter.

Last night - Pearson at 30.8% ozone starts (53.3% corsi) - thought that line was really effective against the Hawks.  Horvat with 15 dzone starts (after 20 the night before) = exposed Toews;)

Overall Pearson at 39.8% ozone starts, with respectable 'possession' numbers (47.4% corsi) -  but bringing a bit more heaviness to the forward group.

Looking forward to what that line will look like when the team is healthy - with Sutter and Beagle lines intact, Horvat was up over 50% ozone starts (earlier in the season) - the team has that second scoring line, those guys production spike significantly (as does EP's....)

 

[kanucks25]

On 3/16/2019 at 12:22 PM, oldnews said:

Pitts' #2, 3, 4 - DuMoulin, Schultz, Johnson - are all in their lineup with Gudbranson eating more minutes than them. 

First of all, he's not.

 

 

Second, Pettersson > Johnson

 

 

[kanucks25]

I guess all that's left to do when you're called out on your factually incorrect statements is to leave a "confused face" reaction and walk away.

 

Penguins latest game:

 

 

 

Edited March 21, 2019 by kanucks25

[coryberg]

10 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

I guess all that's left to do when you're called out on your factually incorrect statements is to leave a "confused face" reaction and walk away.

 

Penguins latest game:

 

 

 

Lol did you notice letang is back and sucking up 45% of the minutes?

[kanucks25]

9 minutes ago, coryberg said:

Lol did you notice letang is back and sucking up 45% of the minutes?

Lol did you notice that the person I quoted suggested that Gudbranson is playing more than the Penguins better D-men when it's factually untrue? 

 

That was just the last game; the first game with Letang back and Gudbranson fell to 16 and change (least on the team). I could see him surpassing Johnson in the future because JJ isn't great either but when the dust settles, we know where Gudbranson will end up.