[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

I have no idea why this is so complicated for you.

Directing pucks towards the net is something a player does. So yes, we measure attempts. Sometimes they miss the net, sometimes they find the goalie, and sometimes they find the back of the net. But you need shot attempts to score goals. You don't score goals without shot attempts.

Plus/Minus is not something a player does.

I have no idea why this is so complicated for you.

Plus/Minus is not something a player does, it is something a player is. It is the ultimate measure of a player's status of when a goal is scored, for or against. It is a true or false measure not open to interpretation. A player that is consistently on the ice for more goals against than goals for is a problem. A player that continues to be the worst on his team in this measure is a problem.

Directing pucks towards the net is something a player does, but is an extremely flawed measure. The stat is way too open to interpretation. Not only does the interpretative nature of the stat make it flawed, it does not take into consideration the system teams play or the style of play certain players like to rely on. Hockey is a very complex sport that relies on chaos and so many variables that it is impossible to model with statistics. Shot attempts, or directing the puck at the net, is always such a terrible measure as some teams throw the puck toward the net from everywhere and some teams hold the puck and don't shoot until they have the puck in a high danger area. All of these "advanced stats" or "fancy stats" or "counting stats" that are based on shot generation are all garbage because of the lack of rigor used to produce the data. When the methods of data collection are not consistent the results are not consistent and the data is garbage. That means when the analysis is actually completed the results hold not value because garbage in, garbage out (GIGO).

We have already seen many instances of shot stats being questionable this year, over and under sampling which is a form of data bias. Any data point that relies on interpretation (shots, quality of shot, danger factors, etc.) are open to scrutiny because of inconsistencies in collection methodology from building to building and game to game. This lack of rigor in data collection invalidates the data sets and makes them impossible to compare. This is why other sports try to rely on binary events as measures as it eliminates the interpretive nature of data collection and makes the event measurement more accurate and meaningful. So while you may put a lot of faith in NHL stats there are going to be a lot more than roll their eyes these numbers and consider them just as flawed as you you view plus/minus.

Originally Posted by Mathgod

What if no one is offering a 2nd, or even a 3rd? Do you move on from Bennett even if it means getting virtually nothing in return?

Yes, you move on. You need to look at more than just your belief that player X is better than player Y. You need to look at outcomes, and the outcomes with Bennett are not good. We're at a point where we need to get something for the investment we have made in Sam Bennett. Any pick would be better than nothing because he is not going to be a Calgary Flame this fall. There is no way the Flames are going to qualify him so he will be gone to some other team on a league minimum contract or a PTO. Better to have a 4th rounder in the bank than have nothing.

Sam is better than Nordstrom, Rinaldo, Leivo, Simon, etc. Trading him away does make this team worse.

I disagree. Sam Bennett is a drag on pretty well every line he's played on. The one line that has displayed consistent positive results is the Lucic-Bennett-Dube line, but for some reason Geoff Ward doesn't want to play that line together. Production is king in the NHL and if you aren't producing in some capacity you shouldn't be out there. The fact that Bennett is playing with the top offensive combination on the club and has done SFA should tell you something, especially that since he was put in that role the efficacy of the line has gone in the wrong direction. The net result is a negative.

The Samsonites like to remind anyone who will listen that Bennett has never received a fair shake or fair opportunity. 384 games to get to know his team and team mates behaviors and make a positive impact on the club in some shape or form, but not given fair opportunity. Yet they whine about Levio or Simon or any other player who gets a chance to play with the top players and don't produce in the dozen shifts they get, when they have come to a new team and have to learn about the tendencies of the players they lineup with. They havent have the benefit of 380+ games to get to know these guys, but they are expected to step in and produce? Very strange.

Yup. And when they do score goals, it still doesn't matter because "they were tap ins".

In some respects yes and in some respects no. A goal scored is always a positive event. The problem is not all positive events are created equal. For example, a goal scored in a blow out - on either side - is less valuable than in a close game. A goal scored by a player whose responsibility it is to do something else is kind of found money (most of the time) but can also be indicative of them not doing their job. Again, a positive event that may expose a negative.

Originally Posted by Red

Yes you move on. We moved on from Colborne and Jankowski. Missed nothing.

Tap ins mean something, but thanks for taking my comment out of context.

Here's the thing with Sam Bennett. He is a player that is cast in a role to play physical and retrieve pucks to generate scoring opportunities. As far as outcomes and measures, Bennett should be retrieving pucks and getting them to his team mates to generate scoring opportunities. This should be generating assists. Since being moved to the Gaudreau-Monahan line Bennett has produced ZERO assists. Bennett's only assist this year was a result of a shot that Lucic redirected into the net, not even from a passing event. What is even more troubling is that even though he is cast in a puck retrieval role he is not generating stats indicating efficacy in this regard. He should be high for takeaways, which he is not. Worse, he is high in giveaways and is minus in takeaways/giveaways. So a guy that is tasked with getting into the zone to retrieve or takeaway pucks and get them to his line mates to generate scoring opportunities has not won puck battles and generated ZERO assists. And you wonder why the Gaudreau-Monahan line is struggling? Yes it is time to move on. Sam Bennett has been given his opportunity and he's done nothing.