Quote:
Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce
?
It read how it's more likely Bennett doesn't develop into that 1st line player we all hope he will, based on the 81 players since 2005 who played 200 nhl games before 22.
So basically confirming what seems obvious - it's not impossible, just unlikely.
It's about as far from tunnel vision as one gets.
|
Nope. It reads exactly like the Jankowski article I was referring to (
https://www.matchsticksandgasoline.c...mark-jankowski )
I'm not denying that the result so far are not in favour of Bennett. We've all gone down that rabbit hole a billion times. The problem with Wilson's article is that it's shallow and fixated on that - suggesting there are no things Bennett does at a high level.
For instance based on Wilson's shallow conclusion, comparables for Bennett would be guys like Brandon Sutter, Zemgus Girgensons, Nino Neidereiitter, Sean Couturier, Wayne Simmonds, Mikkel Boedker, Chris Tierney, Josh Bailey, Anthony Duclair (+/- 4 spots on his own chart).
But that's the
extent of his analysis. I'm not going to pretend I have the desire to do a better, deeper one of the same scale, but just taking that sample of eight players, and comparing Bennett to them, and then seeing which guys have (slightly) better shot contributions than him:
20-21 YO Sam Bennett vs 21-22 YO Anthony Duclair
20-21 YO Sam Bennett vs 22-23 YO Chris Tierney
20-21 YO Sam Bennett vs 23-25 YO Sean Couturier
Which have worse (in their prime):
20-21 YO Sam Bennett vs 24-25 YO Nino Neidereiitter
20-21 YO Sam Bennett vs 28-29 YO Wayne Simmonds
and which shouldn't even be in the same conversation
20-21 YO Sam Bennett vs 22-24 YO Zemgus Girgensons
20-21 YO Sam Bennett vs 27-28 YO Josh Bailey
20-21 YO Sam Bennett vs 27-29 YO Brandon Sutter
I don't make money on writing about this stuff like Wilson does so I can't be as thorough. But I find it baffling that he thinks any data that suggests Bennett is more likely to be a Brandon Sutter than a Sean Couturier is of the value that he suggests it is. I won't go as far as to say I'm showing you is "proof" of anything but I stand by my claim that Wilson's analysis has tunnel-vision because of the limitations of the few tools he is using. Those are important statistics that
should be explored, but they are too vague to be drawing sensationalist
conclusions of any sort.