[News] All-encompassing Bennett trade discussions thread

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

How does one "contribute" minus 8? Is he interfering on his own goalie 12+ times to ensure the other team scores?



what is it, specifically that happened that those stats correctly represent?




None of my stats are projections. Not a single one. When I say Bennett has 3.41 expected goals vs 3 actual goals - I mean to say that these are past events. There's no projecting going on. Those scoring chances and shot attempts and goals actually happened. Expected goals is simply a way of coming shot volume with shot location (and other basic factors like rebounds).

And again, three 5v5 goals is not a poor stat relative to the rest of the roster. The single best goal scorer on the team only has double that.

Plus minus does not tell you anything about an individual's play, whether that player is McDavid or Nesterov or Bennett or whomever. It doesn't even tell you a lot about team play given the randomness of goal events.

Plus minus is not an accurate stat but large numbers in either direction are hard to get just by luck (good or bad).

[TheScorpion]

If you can get a 2nd for Bennett at this point I don't see any reason not to take it.

It's time to move on. This team has other guys who are pushing for spots in the minors. It's just not working out for Sam whatsoever.

[Red]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

How does one "contribute" minus 8? Is he interfering on his own goalie 12+ times to ensure the other team scores?



what is it, specifically that happened that those stats correctly represent?




None of my stats are projections. Not a single one. When I say Bennett has 3.41 expected goals vs 3 actual goals - I mean to say that these are past events. There's no projecting going on. Those scoring chances and shot attempts and goals actually happened. Expected goals is simply a way of coming shot volume with shot location (and other basic factors like rebounds).

And again, three 5v5 goals is not a poor stat relative to the rest of the roster. The single best goal scorer on the team only has double that.

Plus minus does not tell you anything about an individual's play, whether that player is McDavid or Nesterov or Bennett or whomever. It doesn't even tell you a lot about team play given the randomness of goal events.

Look, you know what - 8 means. No need to play silly games. Bennett scored 3 and was on the ice for 11 against. That is a fact and it is represented by those stats. Does it mean he caused those goals? No. Nor does the 3 he scored mean that he made them happen. Could have been tap ins.

Shot attempts and expected goals are not a way to measure things that happened. They are an assumption or a conclusion of what should have happened.

Either way, neither mine nor your stats are showing anymore than a replacement level player.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Red

He was a black hole with 2 points when he replaced Leivo/Simon. His agent fired the first shot about ice time and the team obliged.
He has played a lot more than them with marginally better results.

My point is, right or wrong, these guys might see a guy that wants to get traded getting in the way of their next contract. It's unfair to them.

Why do you care about fairness to Leivo and Simon? Two guys who have contributed a grand total of 2 secondary assists and -4 for this team?

Bennett isn't holding anyone down. Those guys still get a crack in the lineup and can show something anytime if they'd like.

Originally Posted by Red

The hard stats say he has 3 goals and is a team worst - 8. That's his contribution and that's what Warrener brought up.

I will take +/- with a grain of salt. But it's a stat of past events. Those stats are a correct representation of what happened.
Your stats are projections and vague expectations of future events.

Nesterov -8
Lucic -7
Valimaki -7
Backlund -6
Andersson -6
Dube/Gio/Nordstrom -5

I guess we should fire all of them into the sun, too.

[FanIn80]

I keep thinking about this "Bennett never gets a chance" argument. It seems to be the most commonly used claim, but my counter would be this...

Everyone gets their chances. Nobody drafts a #4 overall pick and then permanently staples him to the fourth line. Look at Mangiapane and Dube. Look at Andersson. Look at Giordano. Brodie. Backlund. Tkachuk. Monahan.

Everyone of them started off on the 3rd or 4th line (or bottom pair). How long they stayed on those lines depended solely on them. They all proved they could be trusted with greater responsibilities and respond properly to higher pressure situations.

Some proved it in training camp as a rookie and therefore started their first season on the 2nd line, and some had to take the ball in their own hands and go to Russia to prove to both themselves and the Flames what they could do.

In the NHL, one bad penalty or giveaway can literally lose your team the game, and depending on which game it is can even cost the team a playoff spot.

Some of that stuff can potentially be forgiven if you bring something substantial to the table. Brian Burke went on record as saying Gaudreau was so good and did so many things right that they literally told him not to worry about turnovers. He created so much offence that it dwarfed the intercepted passes etc.

The point being that Bennett was given the same chances everyone else was given, but he consistently took bad penalties and brought nothing substantial enough to the table to over look them. Tkachuk took bad penalties too in the beginning, but he drew more than he took and he also displayed an amazingly high hockey IQ -- it was obvious to everyone that he was going to get control of his penalties over time.

Final point: If you're a 4th overall pick, the thing you bring to the table can't be "yeah, but I play better with All-Stars than I do on my own line."

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Red

L
Shot attempts and expected goals are not a way to measure things that happened.

What
are
you
talking
about?

Shot attempts are literally a way to measure something that happened - shot attempts.

[Red]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

What
are
you
talking
about?

Shot attempts are literally a way to measure something that happened - shot attempts.

Oh ok, so we measure attempts now? What's the stat for Sam's attempt to be a good hockey player?

Come on. Pointless.

[TheSquatch]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Why do you care about fairness to Leivo and Simon? Two guys who have contributed a grand total of 2 secondary assists and -4 for this team?

Bennett isn't holding anyone down. Those guys still get a crack in the lineup and can show something anytime if they'd like.



Nesterov -8
Lucic -7
Valimaki -7
Backlund -6
Andersson -6
Dube/Gio/Nordstrom -5

I guess we should fire all of them into the sun, too.

Bennett is -60 for career tho.

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

I keep thinking about this "Bennett never gets a chance" argument. It seems to be the most commonly used claim, but my counter would be this...

Everyone gets their chances. Nobody drafts a #4 overall pick and then permanently staples him to the fourth line. Look at Mangiapane and Dube. Look at Andersson. Look at Giordano. Brodie. Backlund. Tkachuk. Monahan.

Everyone of them started off on the 3rd or 4th line (or bottom pair). How long they stayed on those lines depended solely on them. They all proved they could be trusted with greater responsibilities and respond properly to higher pressure situations.

Some proved it in training camp as a rookie and therefore started their first season on the 2nd line, and some had to take the ball in their own hands and go to Russia to prove to both themselves and the Flames what they could do.

In the NHL, one bad penalty or giveaway can literally lose your team the game, and depending on which game it is can even cost the team a playoff spot.

Some of that stuff can potentially be forgiven if you bring something substantial to the table. Brian Burke went on record as saying Gaudreau was so good and did so many things right that they literally told him not to worry about turnovers. He created so much offence that it dwarfed the intercepted passes etc.

The point being that Bennett was given the same chances everyone else was given, but he consistently took bad penalties and brought nothing substantial enough to the table to over look them. Tkachuk took bad penalties too in the beginning, but he drew more than he took and he also displayed an amazingly high hockey IQ -- it was obvious to everyone that he was going to get control of his penalties over time.

Final point: If you're a 4th overall pick, the thing you bring to the table can't be "yeah, but I play better with All-Stars than I do on my own line."

Agree with a lot of this. People say Sam Bennett never gets a chance or enough opportunities, but the thing is, in this league, your opportunities can be short. To a rebuilding team, the leash is long, to a bubble playoff team, the opportunity is short.

Just like James Neal, the coaches didn't give him a lot of time to find chemistry on the top line. It ended up being just a couple of preseason games because Lindholm gelled right away. That's the thing with Sam Bennett, he has had his chances over the years.

But other guys proved that they belonged together faster. Hudler, Ferland and Lindholm just worked with the top line almost from day one. The chemistry was immediate, that's something Sam Bennett has had trouble with his entire career, finding the right fit. Even Mangiapane who started out on the bottom line and then with his work ethic and strong play, pushed his way to the top six and hasn't really relented.

Throughout my time watching Bennett, there's only ever been two lines that I would say really gelled with him and that Was Jagr-Jankowski and Lucic-Dube. But even right now, Bennett has played with Lucic and Dube a lot this season and he's had trouble recreating the same magic. #93 is an absolute enigma in the regular season.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Red

Oh ok, so we measure attempts now? What's the stat for Sam's attempt to be a good hockey player?

Come on. Pointless.

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.

Originally Posted by TheSquatch

Bennett is -60 for career tho.

Correct. So is Dylan Larkin.

And Ryan O'Rielly was -53 when the Blues acquired him.

Elias Lindholm was -70 when the Flames acquired him.

Plus minus is worthless.

[timbit]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

Plus/Minus is not something a player does.



Correct. So is Dylan Larkin.

And Ryan O'Rielly was -53 when the Blues acquired him.

Elias Lindholm was -70 when the Flames acquired him.

Plus minus is worthless.

Those 3, very good to elite players, played big minutes on awful teams.

Yep...they’re going to have big minuses.

Sam has proven that he is perhaps not worthless, but close to it, playing minimal or average minutes on an average team and having close to team worst minus.

Horrible comparison. Actually worthless. When Sam puts up anything close to their value...

[Red]

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.



Correct. So is Dylan Larkin.

And Ryan O'Rielly was -53 when the Blues acquired him.

Elias Lindholm was -70 when the Flames acquired him.

Plus minus is worthless.

Agree, this isn't complicated. It's simple. Sam is not a good player.
But I bet he attempts to be great. He attempts to score goals, make plays etc. That's my take on this, your attempt stats are pointless. No one cares what players attempt. It's what they accomplish that matters.

Bennett does not accomplish much.

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

If you can get a 2nd for Bennett at this point I don't see any reason not to take it.

It's time to move on. This team has other guys who are pushing for spots in the minors. It's just not working out for Sam whatsoever.

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?

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

It's what they accomplish that matters.

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

[genetic_phreek]

I wonder if Ruzicka would be better in Bennetts role or ice time. From the highlights in the AHL he's looking great. Scorp would probably have a better pulse on that. I think at this point Bennett is negative value for us.

[Red]

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?

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



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

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.

[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.

[transplant99]

Its funny when people argue about statistics.

Thing is...there are two kinds of them but they are treated as equal. They are not.

Objective vs subjective.

Hockey has a boat load of subjective, hence why they are so truly flawed.

I think the single biggest example of this (on the Flames anyhow) is the giveaway/takeaway column as well as the hit column which are so ridiculously flwaed its painful when used to make an argument.

Johnny Gaudreau is the single biggest offensive talent this club has. I dont think that is disputable.This is not a shot at him per se, but a glaring example.

In one game against the Canucks a couple weeks ago....the PP was a complete mess with the bump-back thing happening every single time JG was out there. I think we remember well how many times JG then proceeded to skate right into one of the players forming a wall along the blueline. Happened 3 times straight on one particular man advantage but at least 6 times over the course of that one game. Then there were his infamous gain the zone and button hook in an attempt to find the trailer. In that game alone he gave the puck to the Canucks a minimum of 12 times. Particularly bad game for him to be sure, but again exemplifies how flawed this stuff can be.

When i was looking at the stats following the game i specifically wanted to see how bad it really was.

Johnny was "credited" with one take-away that game which...ok.

Johnny was charged with....ZERO giveaways that same game which was so absurd i literally laughed out loud to myself.

Now this is something he does, literally, every single game he plays. Its part of the game plan for him to be the puck carrier through the neutral zone and then use his hockey sense to determine whether to chip it in and start a chase or hold it and pass to an open player, usually someone coming late. With that strategy there are always going to be times it gets turned over...there is another team out there that wants the puck too.

So it should be no surprise that JG would have a large number of gveaways.

Except he doesn't.

The off-ice guys around the Canadian division this are telling us that Gaudreau has only coughed up the puck to an opposition player....14 times.

14.

In 20 games.

It is so laughable its hard to find a word how inaccurate that is.

So now you have to have a bit of a jaundiced eye in regards to anything that is determined by a human when it comes to these type of stats. Hits is the other one that really stands out when you dig in to them. I remember about 7 years ago (could be longer too...my memory...)or so that at one point in the season the Florida Panthers had something like 5 guys among the top 10 in the league in that department. Turns out that off ic crew were counting "hits" at nearly double the rate than that of whoever was 2nd in that department. It made all of it irrelevant.

So now you start to rely on a stat that has humans counting shot "attempts" among others.....and how can it be in anyway reliable as an indicator of anything? Im guessing if there is way and desire to do so...you would see wild fluctuations from building to building that are entered as have happened. Which ones are accurate? Which ones are not? A shot attempt to you may very well not be one to me.

Subjectivity is something that has to be accounted for in these stats and dare i say is in no way happening.

Thats just a couple examples.

[GioforPM]

I understand why shot attempts rather than shots is used - you want to know how many times your guys have chances to score and don’t want to discount posts, deflections or near misses versus counting weak dump ins on net.

Of course, even shots get miscounted, like the game in Vancouver.

These are subjective (though shots shouldn’t really be). But they use those stats to create fancier stats.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I understand why shot attempts rather than shots is used - you want to know how many times your guys have chances to score and don’t want to discount posts, deflections or near misses versus counting weak dump ins on net.

Of course, even shots get miscounted, like the game in Vancouver.

These are subjective (though shots shouldn’t really be). But they use those stats to create fancier stats.

Exactly.

So when you are building something new that is already based on a flawed foundation.....well you know.

[Red]

Yes and there is the high danger chances. A pattern of passes through a set area. So a breakaway is not one. Or a two on one with no passing near the net. As are many other very dangerous plays out there. Come to think of it, how many goals are scored from an actual HDSC? Would have to be 90% + to make this relevant.

Just so flawed. But it was explained to me that it was better this way because it removed a human bias. It's as if they were created as ammunition for message board discussions. No coach would ever give them any credence. They are just completely useless.
As for the attempted shots quoted last night. How can one accurately tell what a player is attempting to do? A player can have a puck on his stick and "think" shot a few times in any given sequence. He could head fake, shoot a slap pass, change his mind because of traffic, goalie being set etc.

I've been harping on advanced stats since they were used to show that Conklin was better than Brodeur. Years later we have a lot more of them and they seem to get more and more useless.