Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
We all no he isn't producing to those levels, heck I said it the previous post.
Me looking that up would be a complete waste of time. The point (which I'm actually sure you caught) is that there are certain play driving and personal chance statistics that suggest there is more there.
750 is 3 seasons of 250, 250 being the appropriate ice time cross point to get roughly 375 forwards (31x12)
So no ... didn't try and cook the books to make Bennett look better.
|
I don't think you're cooking the books, I think you're avoiding the tangible context that would give those expected goals number meaning.
You're saying that 3 years of data of bennett producing high quality scoring chances suggests that there is more there.
I'm saying 3 years of data of bennett producing high quality scoring chances without the actual scoring suggests Bennett is one of the worst tangible producers in the entire league.
At what point does a 52% ixG% and 9 goals mean to you that Bennett isn't looking to pop but that he's just a guy that doesn't produce?
Like, do you feel the same way about Colton Sissons? He's a guy that if Treliving went out and got him on the cheap, he'd be a great addition?
Because over the last 3 seasons they have the same amount of goals and assists and are within 6 games played of each other. Both have jam, Sissons can actually play centre and is much better on the draw and takes half as many penalties. He's generally a more versatile and better defensive player.
Over the last 3 years, the only flames forwards with a worse shooting percentage than Bennett are Backlund, Frolik and Neal.
Maybe 3 years worth of data that suggests tangible offense is in short supply for Bennett combined with data that says he should score more goals than he does just means he's bad at scoring goals? Could it be that simple?