Erik Gudbranson | #44 | D

[kanucks25]

6 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

I thought the discussion was about Guddy being able to improve. If the talk is about what he could become in a year or two, why are you posting about his play today.

It's both, they go hand-in-hand. My argument is that Gudbranson likely won't improve very much because his main flaw is his IQ, poise, hands, etc, the things I said were natural and aren't exactly learned. Can he learn to become better positionally and maybe improve his skating marginally? Sure, but that doesn't mean he'll be worth the 4.5M-5M it'll take to sign him. He'd just be improving from a 2.5M player to a 3.25M player, at best.

 

6 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

I could easily find high lighted clips of guddys good play, but cherry picking a few instances doesn't really do much good to the overall conversation, as you acknowledged.  

I know it's cherry-picking but I'm just giving you visual examples of what we see from him on a nightly basis.

Edited November 11, 2017 by kanucks25

[ForsbergTheGreat]

3 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

It's both, they go hand-in-hand. My argument is that Gudbranson likely won't improve very much because his main flaw is his IQ, poise, hands, etc, the things I said were natural and aren't exactly learned. Can he learn to become better positionally and maybe improve his skating marginally? Sure, but that doesn't mean he'll be worth the 4.5M-5M it'll take to sign him. He'd just be improving from a 2.5M player to a 3.25M player, at best.

I think his IQ is fine, he's shows at times to be able to read the ice really well and make the smart play, other times he looks rushed.  If he can get to a consistent play we'd have a pretty good D on our hands.

 

3 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

I know it's cherry-picking but I'm just giving you visual examples of what we see from him on a nightly basis.

And if I wasn't too lazy I could cherry pick good visual examples of what we see on a nightly basis from cherry picking games.  

[HomeBrew]

6 hours ago, kanucks25 said:

How is the more traditional method working out for Florida this year after reversing pretty much everything the "analytics" people did last season? How was Arizona doing before Chayka was brought in?

 

How did analytics work out for the Dodgers and Astros this year?

 

It's just not that simple... there are examples on both sides. However, you don't need analytics to determine that Gudbranson is a limited player with a low ceiling, its clear when you watch him play. The stats just support it, very strongly.

In case you haven't figured it out yet, hockey and baseball are too different sports. The role and usefulness of analytics is entirely different.

[ilduce39]

13 hours ago, kanucks25 said:

Look again, there are two Canucks (MDZ and Sutter) in the high-slot area between the puck and Guentzel, meaning Guentzel should not be of concern to Gudbranson. If Guentzel gets open, that's not on him, that's on his teammates (coach Bill Belichick says: "do your job"). Gudbranson's main concern should be not letting the generational player get a free shot from inside the face-off circle, which he could have easily prevented if he just read the play and attacked him. MDZ only went after Malkin from behind because he saw Gudbranson wasn't taking that assignment, otherwise MDZ likely would have taken the trailer in Guentzel.

 

I don't disagree. The problem is, chances are the price won't be right.

 

Although I hated the trade then and still do now, that doesn't matter anymore, it's a sunk cost. And as much as it might sound like it, I don't have anything against Gudbranson personally, I have no reason to, he's just another player. I just know that a player like him will get overpaid by whoever gives him a contract and that doesn't need to be us.

Funny you mention a Belichick I’m honestly curious about that play more than anything.  Full disclosure: I’m a football/baseball/rugby guy in my playing days and I’ve coached Football/Basketball and a bit track and field... so breaking down tape isn’t unfamiliar but I’m less sure of what Guddy would be expected to do here. 

 

To me it looks like Del Zotto got himself out of position trying to throw a hit in the neutral zone.  He’s sure hustling like crazy to get back.  

 

Would Guddy he expected to cover for Del Zotto and turn his shoulders to check Malkin?  To me it seems like he’s taking away Geno’s options and letting Markstrom make a save on half the net and not worrying about the back door.  They’re on the PK and two guys are chasing Malkin - you can see Guddy check for where the other Penguins are. Even if Sutter can get to Guentzel (I think Guentzel could have attacked the net a lot harder) Crosby is trailing as well if Guddy decides to commit to hitting Malkin. Again, seems like a bad situation that came about from MDZ chasing a hit in the neutral zone.  No easy win for Guddy as Malkin has options as soon as he turns his shoulders. 

 

As for the rest - I’m willing to see what JB does.  For the right price I’m happy to keep Guddy but if he’s asking for too much he’ll fetch something nice at the TDL.  I wasn’t a big McCann fan so it works for me.

Edited November 11, 2017 by ilduce39

[Wanless]

19 hours ago, kanucks25 said:

What is he doing here defensively?

 

 

Or here offensively?

 

 

I know you can find GIFs of pretty much any player making a bad play here and there but for him it's the norm. He's not a great skater, gets taken wide quite often because he can't pivot or skate backwards all that well. You'll notice that his defensive "strategy" is to pretty much fall back into his strict position (in front of our goalie, a little to the right) and guard his immediate vicinity. This pretty much leads to him being us being buried in shots when he's on the ice:

 

 

And, in a game that is all about speed, pace and transition, he has a dreadful time making tape to tape outlets with his initial instincts always being "off the glass and out".

 

Not saying he was drafted for that reason, but it's one of the reasons people keep hanging onto his "potential". People want it so badly for him to be successful because of his charm and character, he's someone that's easy to be blinded by and root for.

 

Well if reasons and logic are excuses, then okay.

1 - In the defensive play gudbranson takes away Malkins skating lane and helping to reduce the opportunity to pass leaving a low percentage shot. That is actually something the canucks as a team have been doing reasonably well at, taking away the better opportunities and leaving the low percentage plays that are easy to save. The kings are excellent at this.

 

2 - The offensive play is not guddys fault. It looks like hes made eye contact and the squares up to pass to henrik (I believe), henrik then sees the pass and turns away to put the wings player between him and the puck. That is Henriks bad more than gudbransons 

 

 

 

3 - On the red blue diagram it looks worse than it should, I'll agree that where a dman should be playing there is more red, but on the whole the whole team isn't doing there job of suppressing shots, especially from what it looks like the centre 

 

the image also doesn't take into account shot quality, but judging by the first GIF gudbranson is allowing the poor shots to get through and not lunging out to take them away

 

ill take 30 poor shots over 20 good shots every game (this is why Corsi is a misleading stat line)

 

 

[kanucks25]

On 11/10/2017 at 10:28 PM, HomeBrew said:

In case you haven't figured it out yet, hockey and baseball are too different sports. The role and usefulness of analytics is entirely different.

I understand that it's easier to apply analytics to baseball because it is a lot more measurable than a free-flowing game like hockey, however the debate between traditionalists and people who include stats in their analysis is prevalent across all sports. Funny thing is, hockey coaches and management have been keeping their own in-house stats that are different from the regular/public ones (G, A, +/-, etc.) for decades. It's not really new, it's just become more advanced and mainstream.

 

There are failures and successes on both sides. You mentioned that Arizona and Florida didn't do well with stats guys in charge, but how did these teams do with "hockey guys" in charge? I must have been hibernating during those dynasties...

Edited November 12, 2017 by kanucks25

[kanucks25]

17 hours ago, ilduce39 said:

To me it looks like Del Zotto got himself out of position trying to throw a hit in the neutral zone.  He’s sure hustling like crazy to get back.  

 

Would Guddy he expected to cover for Del Zotto and turn his shoulders to check Malkin?  To me it seems like he’s taking away Geno’s options and letting Markstrom make a save on half the net and not worrying about the back door.  They’re on the PK and two guys are chasing Malkin - you can see Guddy check for where the other Penguins are. Even if Sutter can get to Guentzel (I think Guentzel could have attacked the net a lot harder) Crosby is trailing as well if Guddy decides to commit to hitting Malkin. Again, seems like a bad situation that came about from MDZ chasing a hit in the neutral zone.  No easy win for Guddy as Malkin has options as soon as he turns his shoulders. 

15 hours ago, Wanless said:

1 - In the defensive play gudbranson takes away Malkins skating lane and helping to reduce the opportunity to pass leaving a low percentage shot. That is actually something the canucks as a team have been doing reasonably well at, taking away the better opportunities and leaving the low percentage plays that are easy to save. The kings are excellent at this.

 

Indeed MDZ makes an aggressive play at the blueline that gets himself out of position but that doesn't change the fact there is literally no threat anywhere in the slot/home-plate area other than Malkin, who took a shot from a high-danger area. It looks like he doesn't have much of an angle but he's a left-handed shot coming down the right side cutting into the middle, and it's from in tight (inside the below/inside the face-off circle). All Gudbranson had to do was take one step towards Malkin and poke his stick out and Malkin likely doesn't get a shot away.

 

15 hours ago, Wanless said:

2 - The offensive play is not guddys fault. It looks like hes made eye contact and the squares up to pass to henrik (I believe), henrik then sees the pass and turns away to put the wings player between him and the puck. That is Henriks bad more than gudbransons

 

Why does "eye contact" matter? There's clearly a defender in between the forward and Gudbranson but Gudbranson throws it that way anyway. The right play would be to throw it on net for a tip or just dump it into the corner.

 

15 hours ago, Wanless said:

3- On the red blue diagram it looks worse than it should, I'll agree that where a dman should be playing there is more red, but on the whole the whole team isn't doing there job of suppressing shots, especially from what it looks like the centre 

 

the image also doesn't take into account shot quality, but judging by the first GIF gudbranson is allowing the poor shots to get through and not lunging out to take them away

I think you're misreading the diagrams.

 

What they show is that not only do we let a lot more shots on net when Gudbranson is on the ice than off, but we also let a ton more high-quality shots (from in and around the net) when he's on, except for that little blue area just in front and to the right of our net.

 

Simply put: blue and faint red is good, and there's a lot more of it when Gudbranson isn't playing (the diagram on the right). Also notice the dark red right in the crease when Gudbranson is on the ice, suggesting he doesn't exactly "clear the crease" like some people think he does.

 

 

Edited November 12, 2017 by kanucks25

[Wanless]

9 hours ago, kanucks25 said:

 

Indeed MDZ makes an aggressive play at the blueline that gets himself out of position but that doesn't change the fact there is literally no threat anywhere in the slot/home-plate area other than Malkin, who took a shot from a high-danger area. It looks like he doesn't have much of an angle but he's a left-handed shot coming down the right side cutting into the middle, and it's from in tight (inside the below/inside the face-off circle). All Gudbranson had to do was take one step towards Malkin and poke his stick out and Malkin likely doesn't get a shot away.

 

Why does "eye contact" matter? There's clearly a defender in between the forward and Gudbranson but Gudbranson throws it that way anyway. The right play would be to throw it on net for a tip or just dump it into the corner.

 

I think you're misreading the diagrams.

 

What they show is that not only do we let a lot more shots on net when Gudbranson is on the ice than off, but we also let a ton more high-quality shots (from in and around the net) when he's on, except for that little blue area just in front and to the right of our net.

 

Simply put: blue and faint red is good, and there's a lot more of it when Gudbranson isn't playing (the diagram on the right). Also notice the dark red right in the crease when Gudbranson is on the ice, suggesting he doesn't exactly "clear the crease" like some people think he does.

 

 

Basically with the offensive pass a player should never try to receive a pass through a defender. The sedins are tough as in they take a lot of abuse, but they very rarely try to muscle into position and only use available ice. Henrik had time to cut in front but chose to cut behind, very bad play on a pass that could have put him in the slot, also henrik was moving, the red wing had to change directions

 

With the defensive play, gudbranson plays the right side, you don't put yourself out of position to make up for another players mistake, then you start chasing. Now say he lunged towards Malkin and malkin scores because he can dangle to a better angle or he can pass off and his team mate scores.

 

He made the right play.

 

With the graph, other things need to be considered to use properly, like I said before quality of shots isn't on there. Just because a shot is taken in a quality spot on ice doesn't make it a quality shot

 

Edited November 12, 2017 by Wanless
I should note, it isn't henrik, the player is right handed, but none the less he skated to the wrong side of the defender

[PhillipBlunt]

http://theprovince.com/sports/hockey/nhl/vancouver-canucks/kuzma-canucks-see-value-in-erik-gudbranson-others-see-trade-bait/amp

 

Great article by Ben Kuzma. I'll take the word of Benning, Green, and Gudbranson over whiny calculator junkies any day of the week. 

[higgyfan]

1 hour ago, PhillipBlunt said:

http://theprovince.com/sports/hockey/nhl/vancouver-canucks/kuzma-canucks-see-value-in-erik-gudbranson-others-see-trade-bait/amp

 

Great article by Ben Kuzma. I'll take the word of Benning, Green, and Gudbranson over whiny calculator junkies any day of the week. 

He creates a 'safe working environment'.

[CRAZY_4_NAZZY]

 

[Gaudette Celly]

9 minutes ago, CRAZY_4_NAZZY said:

 

Benning wants him.  Erik wants to be here.  Seems doubtful it's all about the benjamins for him, having already moved.  Sure, most guys can wait out free agency and get paid, but I think they work it out and a reasonable deal gets done.

[PhillipBlunt]

2 hours ago, Hutton Wink said:

Benning wants him.  Erik wants to be here.  Seems doubtful it's all about the benjamins for him, having already moved.  Sure, most guys can wait out free agency and get paid, but I think they work it out and a reasonable deal gets done.

And I'll sit back and watch the ridiculously angry analtyics-only posters lose their $&!#. 

[Rob_Zepp]

On 11/10/2017 at 8:21 PM, kanucks25 said:

I don't have anything against Gudbranson personally

On 11/10/2017 at 8:27 PM, kanucks25 said:

My argument is that Gudbranson likely won't improve very much because his main flaw is his IQ

 

 

On 11/10/2017 at 8:27 PM, kanucks25 said:

I know it's cherry-picking

Is there anything about this team or its players that you remotely positive?   Did someone run over your dog or steal your boyfriend/girlfriend and they are associated with this team?

[PhillipBlunt]

1 minute ago, Rob_Zepp said:

 

Is there anything about this team or its players that you remotely positive?   Did someone run over your dog or steal your boyfriend/girlfriend and they are associated with this team?

I have a hunch that the poster in question is a member of Canucks Army, and takes umbrage with how many here view analytics. 

[Wilbur]

2 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said:

 

Is there anything about this team or its players that you remotely positive?   Did someone run over your dog or steal your boyfriend/girlfriend and they are associated with this team?

Some people won't be happy until this roster is full of 22 players all selected top 3 in the draft.  Elite or go home syndrome. 

 

I do realize Gudbranson was a top 3 pick...but he wasn't OUR top 3 pick.

[kanucks25]

4 hours ago, Rob_Zepp said:

 

Is there anything about this team or its players that you remotely positive?   Did someone run over your dog or steal your boyfriend/girlfriend and they are associated with this team?

Do I need to say positive things to validate my opinions? I don't see the logic behind that.

 

There obviously are some positives but most of the fan-base is in agreement on those (Tanev, Boeser, Horvat, some of our prospects) so there's no real discussion to be had.

 

Controversial subjects create discussion, and this is a discussion forum. It's a rather simple concept.

 

4 hours ago, PhillipBlunt said:

I have a hunch that the poster in question is a member of Canucks Army, and takes umbrage with how many here view analytics. 

I really can't think of anything else to say but "lol". 

 

Don't need any kind of stat, just watch Gudbranson and it's easy to determine that he's not good.

Edited November 14, 2017 by kanucks25

[PhillipBlunt]

4 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

Do I need to say positive things to validate my opinions? I don't see the logic behind that.

 

There obviously are some positives but most of the fan-base is in agreement on those (Tanev, Boeser, Horvat, some of our prospects) so there's no real discussion to be had.

 

Controversial subjects create discussion, and this is a discussion forum. It's a rather simple concept.

 

I really can't think of anything else to say but "lol". 

 

Don't need any kind of stat, just watch Gudbranson and it's easy to determine that he's not good.

Lol? The greater leveller of modern day grammatical performance. 

 

Once again, Benning and Green possess actual experience in professional hockey which gives value to their opinion. You? Well you say lol.....well done, JD. 

[kanucks25]

1 minute ago, PhillipBlunt said:

Once again, Benning and Green possess actual experience in professional hockey which gives value to their opinion. You? Well you say lol.....well done, JD. 

I wouldn't lump Green in with Benning, because from what we've seen so far, I don't think Green views Gudbranson the same way some of you do or Benning might. Green is sheltering Gudbranson, as he is not matched up against the other team's best lines and his zone starts are only tougher than the three offensively-inclined young D-men on our roster (Stecher, Hutton and Pouliot).

 

I also don't know what "JD" means.

[ken kaniff]

I’ve been a huge supporter of Guddy and I think he was one of our best defensemen early in the season but the past 5-6 games he has been brutal. I’ve noticed he turns over the puck a ton and is constantly caught out of position. I’m really hoping he turns it around but rn he’s just showing that he is big and tough and can fight but he’s not very good at hockey. At least not on this team anymore