Brandon Sutter is #2 Forward on this Team

[SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME]

6 minutes ago, J.R. said:

 

I'd wager a lot of that has to do with his somewhat erratic usage, injuries, line mates etc.

 

He was used more in a scoring role when with the twins which would explain some of the 'career highs in scoring' and 'terrible on-ice goals metrics' in a more offensive role.

 

With injuries to key 2-way players like Hansen and our top 2 D, and the all rookie D core... likely hasn't helped his defensive metrics either.

 

Add in the revolving door of wingers while WD attempts to find someone to play with the twins with Hansen/Dorsett out and (appolgies to Megna but...) AHL level guys and you can understand why he's been an 'enigma'.

A lot of truth in what you're saying here.

 

Sutter's usage in Vancouver, especially this season, is extremely different from what he's seen previously in his career. And there's been a host of factors (like the "erratic usage, injuries, line mates, etc" you mention) that can be pretty difficult to adequately quantify and adjust for.

 

Plus there were a few stretches where he absolutely got killed on goals against (way worse than the percentages would justify), which skews an already smallish sample in the goals data.

 

He's also a bit of a strange player to evaluate as his individual stats have sometimes tended to be more informative (in terms of his value) than his team stats. And throughout his career, he's been an "outlier" type in how his shots metrics have related to his goals metrics.

 

There's really a ton to unpack when you break down Sutter's numbers.

 

Which is much of the reason why I'm fence sitting on how I evaluate his season to-date. His underlying numbers are just way out of whack from anything we've seen from Sutter previously.

[Down by the River]

9 hours ago, on the cycle said:

everyone looking at counting stats I see.

That's ok I remember when I was in high school.

 

Don't kid yourself, sweetheart. You just quoted Corsi, which is nothing but counting shots. I'm not saying anything negative about Corsi, but I am saying something about your level of intelligence. 

[Down by the River]

1 hour ago, PLOGUE said:

He isn't that good at all.  11 goals with all that 1st PP unit time?  Worst stats on the team for possession.  He scores a game tying goal and a thread starts declaring him a God...seems about right for CDC.

 

FYI..if he's the 2nd best forward then this team sucks hard.

 

You mean that time where he stands in front of the net and the Sedins pass to themselves and then lose the puck on send it to the point for a shot that goes off a PKers shinpads?

 

I don't agree that Sutter is the 2nd best fwd on the team (Hi Bae!). But he's also not as bad as some are desperately trying to make him out to be. 

[on the cycle]

3 hours ago, Gooseberries said:

I bet you're that dorky looking fancy stats guy that was interviewed during the intermission a few games back aren't you.

 

 

AREN'T YOU!

Wut? I recorded the game so I skipped through the intermissions. I'm not really full dive analytics just like corsi for an idea of how well someone moves play in the right direction.

[apollo]

11 hours ago, oldnews said:

It's your right to be wrong.

 

It Sutter's right to be -14 and called the 2nd best player on the team in your eyes? He's not our 2nd best forward whatsoever. 

 

He's grown on me, don't get me wrong but that's a ludicrous statement. 

[aGENT]

1 minute ago, apollo said:

It Sutter's right to be -14 and called the 2nd best player on the team in your eyes? He's not our 2nd best forward whatsoever. 

 

He's grown on me, don't get me wrong but that's a ludicrous statement. 

 

Clearly Sbisa is our 2nd best forward

[on the cycle]

1 hour ago, J.R. said:

 

You're covered

 

 

You do realize why that is though, right? What his role is?

 

I won't necessarily agree with OP that he's our 2nd best forward but he's arguably one of our most important forwards in that he makes it easier for the rest of our forward group to play their games. All while occasionally pitching in with clutch goals. I take that on my team any day.

 

#Foundational

Yeah because Willie was trying to give Bo less defensive responsibility. However Sutter has gotten more PP time than Bo. Sutter does struggle to keep possession. I don't hate Sutter but what people think he is, isn't what he is.

Sutter is a defensive center that can play on the PP, and there is nothing wrong with that it's just not enough for how much money he makes.

[aGENT]

Just now, on the cycle said:

Yeah because Willie was trying to give Bo less defensive responsibility. However Sutter has gotten more PP time than Bo. Sutter does struggle to keep possession. I don't hate Sutter but what people think he is, isn't what he is.

Sutter is a defensive center that can play on the PP, and there is nothing wrong with that it's just not enough for how much money he makes.

 

Sutter plays with the twins on PP1. Rightly or wrongly, they get more PP time. There's no mystery why Sutter has more PP time than Bo in that context.

 

He's a little more than 'just' a defensive C who can play PP FWIW. There's also zip wrong with how much he makes.

[on the cycle]

8 minutes ago, J.R. said:

 

Sutter plays with the twins on PP1. Rightly or wrongly, they get more PP time. There's no mystery why Sutter has more PP time than Bo in that context.

 

He's a little more than 'just' a defensive C who can play PP FWIW. There's also zip wrong with how much he makes.

That's not true. He is historically not very good 5v5 but he has speed, a shot, and a lot of luck. Don't get fooled by his point totals.

 

I like Sutter but you guys are putting unfair labels on him. Sutter should be put with good possession players (not the twins). I do think he's overpaid, In s world where Jannik Hansen signs a $2.5M aav contract, why should Sutter get $4.375M? He should be closer to $3M.

 

P.S. Why did you quote "just"? I didn't write that.

[aGENT]

Just now, on the cycle said:

That's not true. He is historically not very good 5v5 but he has speed, a shot, and a lot of luck. Don't get fooled by his point totals.

 

I like Sutter but you guys are putting unfair labels on him. Sutter should be put with good possession players (not the twins). I do think he's overpaid, In s world where Jannik Hansen signs a $2.5M aav contract, why should Sutter get $4.375M? He should be closer to $3M.

 

I'm not being fooled by anything. What labels exactly have I put on him?

 

Agree, he's best centering a match up line with Granny/Eriksson.

 

Hansen signed that contract almost 3 years ago, with, at the time, less offensive production, doesn't play C/win face offs. and is 3 years older. It was also a pretty damn good deal even at the time (again, THREE years ago). If you don't think a 3 year younger Hansen would be signing a similar contract in 2017, I'm not sure what to tell you.

[on the cycle]

8 minutes ago, J.R. said:

 

I'm not being fooled by anything. What labels exactly have I put on him?

 

Agree, he's best centering a match up line with Granny/Eriksson.

 

Hansen signed that contract almost 3 years ago, with, at the time, less offensive production, doesn't play C/win face offs. and is 3 years older. It was also a pretty damn good deal even at the time (again, THREE years ago). If you don't think a 3 year younger Hansen would be signing a similar contract in 2017, I'm not sure what to tell you.

 

[aGENT]

2 minutes ago, on the cycle said:

 

 

Thanks for backing up my point....?

[CeeBee51]

2 minutes ago, on the cycle said:

 

Thats Jannik. sure do miss the honey badger.

[on the cycle]

Just now, on the cycle said:

 

 

11 minutes ago, J.R. said:

 

I'm not being fooled by anything. What labels exactly have I put on him?

 

Agree, he's best centering a match up line with Granny/Eriksson.

 

Hansen signed that contract almost 3 years ago, with, at the time, less offensive production, doesn't play C/win face offs. and is 3 years older. It was also a pretty damn good deal even at the time (again, THREE years ago). If you don't think a 3 year younger Hansen would be signing a similar contract in 2017, I'm not sure what to tell you.

Contract started 14-15 prior to that he was a 30pt+ player 27ptd in 47games is prorated to 47pts (Had a down year the next cause of injuries) But Sutter has never broken 40pts in his career.

[SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME]

3 hours ago, S'all Good Man said:

 

This is a great  example of bad statistics. GF% relative to team mates, then compared team by team, is totally meaningless. Where's your margin of error on this?  If your chart is telling you Sutter is our worst C you need a new chart. 

 

And Sutter's goals metrics this season are just way off from anything he's posted previously. 

 

Prior to 2016-17, he was a 50.3 GF% and +0.8 GF%RelTM. And that's a sample of 6215:45 5v5 TOI.

 

This season, he's 35.6 GF% and -11.7 GF%RelTM. That's a sample of 576:39 5v5 TOI.

 

And in terms of goals against, his career numbers prior to this season were outstanding. 1.79 GA60 and -0.53 GA60RelTM (so half a goal against less than his teammates over 60 minutes). As I've noted in the past, Sutter's goals against rates are the best in the entire NHL for 2007-2016 (among players with similar amounts of TOI during the period).

 

This season, he's 3.02 GA60 and +0.77 GA60RelTM. 

 

Canucks Army recently claimed that Sutter's current season results were due to regression finally catching up to Sutter (as part of their larger argument that he sucks).

 

I tend to think that 6000 minute samples bear more weight than the 500 minute ones. Especially when we're talking about goals.

 

I'd agree that Sutter's on-ice goals metrics suck this season. But I tend to lean toward his 2016-17 results being the outlier. Others want to believe the current season results are definitive, and the 6000+ minutes previous were largely driven by fortuitous percentages.

 

This all ties into an argument currently taking place in analytics as to what degree individual players drive on-ice shooting and save percentages.

 

I tend to believe Sutter played a part in his goaltenders posting gaudy save percentages while he was on-ice and more human rates when he was on the bench. Others claim he just benefited from what the goalies did and just happened to be on the ice when they were playing well. 

 

But for me, anytime a player is first overall in the league over 6000 minutes of icetime, he must be doing something to drive those results.

 

And up to this season, Sutter's on-ice Sv% was 93.96. No player with similar icetime since 2007 has seen his goaltenders post a better rate. Was that just luck? I keep coming back to the question as to how any player can have that kind of luck over 8 seasons, with 3 different teams, in front of 12 goalies, and over 6000 minutes? 

 

This season, Sutter's on-ice Sv% is 89.68. And I do tend to believe there's some bad luck driving that number. Especially compared to Sutter's percentages over the previous eight seasons.

[JM_]

2 hours ago, Spitfire_Spiky said:

Horrible analysis of a players worth. Advanced stats like this take just a snapshot of a player...

 

Can we take a vote to stop calling it "advanced" until they state all the assumptions and give us the actual margin of error? Otherwise its a joke.

 

But I suppose if they did provide the margins, they couldn't use the info to target players they don't like as there wouldn't be enough difference between many players  

[Phil_314]

He might be among the best shots on the team (Sven, Loui, Bo, Danny when he chooses to shoot) but not 2nd best overall.  Bo and Sven are probably.  

Sutter makes nice offensive plays off the rush and is solid defensively, but as others have said his net impact isn't that positive.  He does contribute on the stats sheet and is a capable penalty killer but not without caveats.  Then again, the Panthers have been trying to build their team roster based on advanced stats darlings (e.g. Pysyk) but look where that has gotten them (outside of a playoff spot), so neither system of analysis is perfect.

TL; DR, as an individual player he does have value but probably not 2nd best forward.    

[aGENT]

Just now, on the cycle said:

 

Contract started 14-15 prior to that he was a 30pt+ player 27ptd in 47games is prorated to 47pts (Had a down year the next cause of injuries) But Sutter has never broken 40pts in his career.

He had one 30+ point and the prorated year. The other years he had 15, 29 and 20 his contract year. Nice cherry picking though.

 

He's also still 3 years older, not a C/doesn't win draws and still signed a VERY good deal.

 

None of that changes that current market value for what Sutter brings is right around what he's signed for.

[JM_]

2 minutes ago, SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME said:

And Sutter's goals metrics this season are just way off from anything he's posted previously. 

 

Prior to 2016-17, he was a 50.3 GF% and +0.8 GF%RelTM. And that's a sample of 6215:45 5v5 TOI.

 

This season, he's 35.6 GF% and -11.7 GF%RelTM. That's a sample of 576:39 5v5 TOI.

 

And in terms of goals against, his career numbers prior to this season were outstanding. 1.79 GA60 and -0.53 GA60RelTM (so half a goal against less than his teammates over 60 minutes). As I've noted in the past, Sutter's goals against rates are the best in the entire NHL for 2007-2016 (among players with similar amounts of TOI during the period).

 

This season, he's 3.02 GA60 and +0.77 GA60RelTM. 

 

Canucks Army recently claimed that Sutter's current season results were due to regression finally catching up to Sutter (as part of their larger argument that he sucks).

 

I tend to think that 6000 minute samples bear more weight than the 500 minute ones. Especially when we're talking about goals.

 

I'd agree that Sutter's on-ice goals metrics suck this season. But I tend to lean toward his 2016-17 results being the outlier. Others want to believe the current season results are definitive, and the 6000+ minutes previous were largely driven by fortuitous percentages.

 

This all ties into an argument currently taking place in analytics as to what degree individual players drive on-ice shooting and save percentages.

 

I tend to believe Sutter played a part in his goaltenders posting gaudy save percentages while he was on-ice and more human rates when he was on the bench. Others claim he just benefited from what the goalies did and just happened to be on the ice when they were playing well. 

 

But for me, anytime a player is first overall in the league over 6000 minutes of icetime, he must be doing something to drive those results.

 

And up to this season, Sutter's on-ice Sv% was 93.96. No player with similar icetime since 2007 has seen his goaltenders post a better rate. Was that just luck? I keep coming back to the question as to how any player can have that kind of luck over 8 seasons, with 3 different teams, in front of 12 goalies, and over 6000 minutes? 

 

This season, Sutter's on-ice Sv% is 89.68. And I do tend to believe there's some bad luck driving that number. Especially compared to Sutter's percentages over the previous eight seasons.

 

That all sounds great. But whats annoying to me about this kind of discussion - particularly trying to compare different players on different teams, is guys are given different types of roles. On the Canucks e.g., Sutter may be asked to do things that lower GF stats - does it mean he sucks or is he doing his job? I don't see how you can possibly compare internal team stats with other teams unless you can somehow correct for a players role. 

 

I also never, ever see any attempt at margins of error on these things.

 

The chart above suggests that Gaunce is a better winger than Sutter, and thats ridiculous. 

 

 

 

[on the cycle]

1 minute ago, J.R. said:

He had one 30+ point and the prorated year. The other years he had 15, 29 and 20 his contract year. Nice cherry picking though.

 

He's also still 3 years older, not a C/doesn't win draws and still signed a VERY good deal.

 

None of that changes that current market value for what Sutter brings is right around what he's signed for.

Yeah it was a good deal should of been $3M but Sutter isn't much better offensively and is $1.375M more than that. If Sutter was getting paid $3.5M I'd be fine with it.