[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either 16 minutes is too small of a sample size to show something or it isn't.

So a sample size of one season is too small for someone to win an Art Ross trophy because it's too small to show if someone is a Hall of Famer? Differences in occurrence of different events can mean different sample sizes as useful.

You're talking about a sample size in which shot attempts were taken both ways. I'm not pretending that's huge but it's sure as #### bigger than a sample size in which zero goals were scored for either team. Goal scoring events are highly rare and more dependent on factors which skaters can't necessarily control.

Why does the relative corsi matter in 16 minutes but actual production doesn't?

Because one is a measure of process and one is a measure of results.

Saying a line failed in a small sample size suggests the process was poor. But we see that no, the process was there. We don't know if that process was sustainable or bound to produce results, but we do know it was the kind of process you want from your "third line". This line was producing 58% of the shot attempts when the rest of the team was producing 45% of the shot attempts.

He's using his post to disagree with another poster that they did in fact work based on the corsi, and that if Bennett's linemates could travel through time and be different players that the 16 minutes they spent together would've produced goals and points.

That's not what I'm using my post to state. I couldn't possibly tell you whether "1993 Jagr and 2010 Versteeg" would have had any results in that small sample size. I am telling you the following, and I'll even bullet point them out just for you:



- 16 minutes was an inadequate sample size to say this line failed regardless of any statistics, positive or negative.



- However, the underlying metrics of this line were strong - which is reason to have kept them together rather than split them apart after only 16 minutes together


- The supplied video of one of the games this line played shows the underlying numbers were accompanied by some high quality chances



- A larger sample size however, would not have assured truly high-end results, because over a large sample size, Jagr's shooting percentage had fallen off to 8.0% over his final 104 NHL games, contrast that with his shooting percentage he had the two year priors - 14.1% and Kris Versteeg was injured to the extent of only playing 24 games last season, none of which he was necessarily healthy for. However, had Jagr been the player he was two seasons ago and Versteeg been the player he was just one season prior, and Bennett playing exactly as he had, there is reason to believe that the potential for a strong line combination existed.



- Put together, The underlying numbers and eye test suggest this line "not working out" has to be taken as a myth. They weren't together long enough to be evaluated even though the underlying metrics and eye test indicated they should have been kept together longer.



Really, you are simply being obtuse to my posts which is why you are not acknowledging their content and fixating on whatever detail supports your predetermined conclusion (which, of course, is why you made this thread).

So which is it?

It's this:

Sam Bennett centering Versteeg and Jagr was an under-explored idea that had not failed at any point unless you are evaluating based on goal events within sixteen minute sample sizes (and even then, they were break-even). However the fact that Versteeg nor Jagr were individually effective all year is good reason to beleive that even the best combination of linemates he had all year when playing his natural position was inadequate to make any sweeping evaluation of him as an individual. In fact, the only better combination of linemates he had was Gaudreau and Ferland and they too, spent only 15 minutes together all season, even with Monahan missing eight games and the Gaudreau-Monahan pair even being broken up early in the season it was Lazar, not Ferland who played with Bennett.

This is the same thing in my opinion as pointing to a preseason game to illustrate what a player can do even though he has 200+ regular season games to choose from.

Again, you are being obtuse. I explicitly stated Bennett has done those things in NHL games. None of them are unique to that video, they are just packaged together succinctly. You are the one fixating on that detail to ignore the fact that Bennett does those things in NHL games.

That said, and again I already stated this, he has never, not once, played that role on Gaudreau's power play unit as he did in that preseason video, so it is not possible for him to have ever in 200+ regular season games to have reproduced one of those plays, because he's never played that role.