[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Old man rant time:

Hockey is played on frozen water....not spread sheets.

I guess that invalidates all your pointing to point totals which is the core tenet of every post you make. After all, this is a verbatim copypaste of what you said within the last week:

"He had 27 friggin points. 294 other players outpointed him. 224 of them were forwards."

Who played against tougher opposition?

Who verified that tougher opposition was a more difficult context than weaker linemates?

Who was better on Tuesdays and who was better on Saturdays?
Who was better when Bill Peters was getting smoked with errant pucks wearing a blue suit?

Who cares? These are not causal relationships. Linemates and Empty ****ing nets are. It blows my mind that this does not register for you.

I mean its ALL spin when you are breaking down to these types of minutiae.

No, it's all spin when you are breaking it down to these types of claims (made by you in the last week):

a) "Cause [Bennett's] coach doesn't trust him enough to put him out in [empty net] situation, because he isnt good enough defensively."

b) "He just doesnt have the hockey IQ for that kind of role...he has never shown it either. "

c) "Bennett has shown to find his game for small stretches and then disappear again for weeks."

d) "He will be 23 at the start of next season...dont think we are going to see leaps and bounds of growth from him at this point"

e) "Frolik out produced Bennett with the same amount of ice time and way less PP time. Period."

f) "he is an average at best 3rd liner."

g) "Bennett has had MULTIPLE turns with the best players on this club and failed repeatedly."

THIS is spin. Because it is

a) is speculation BY YOU
b) is YOUR OPINION
c) is anecdotal and not sieved from the hundreds of other NHLers, many in far more favourable situations who are hardly bastions of consistency,
d) is YOUR OPINION
e) a claim that is accurate ONLY at face value because it OMITS key details that are CRUCIAL to making anything RESEMBLING a fair assessment.
f) just... objectively incorrect in every way other than YOUR OPINION
g) based on miniscule samples that were not NECESSARILY EVEN FAILURES but you continue to add YOUR OPINION to the point where it is just rote presentation rather than real information

You wanna accuse me of spin, simply for identifying correcting your boatload of absolute B.S., be my guest.

Even the whole "he is an above average 3rd liner" you trotted out...like really? So he is closer to a #7 than a #8? Does that truly matter at all?

Well last I checked an average #8 is not a "AT-BEST AVERAGE" third liner, so that would still be a fair rebuttal for your B.S. claim.

Bennett has had MULTIPLE turns with the best players on this club and failed repeatedly.

Which turns were these? You mean that time Gaudreau and Bennett were chained to a trio of Alex Chiasson, Deryk Engelland, and Jyrki Jokipakka? Or was it that time Tkachuk-Backlund-Bennett were a pretty good line despite your (and this has been rebutted in the past, I know because I statistically did it) claims to the contrary? Or do you mean those handful of shifts with Monahan and Gaudreau, often even leading to goals for, but they were failures because he wasn't one of the final three people to touch the puck? Oh, but surely it can't include the playoffs, because the playoffs are an invalid source of performance because they were a small sample size, despite being bigger than most of these stints together with the so-called "best players on this club".

Your definition of failure is hilarious and well in-line with your general rotating assessment of the player. All you've done to this point is argue vehemently that kiwis are apples and all apples are oranges and you don't want to hear minutiae about apples not being oranges.