Sam Bennett Value: Have the Flames held on TOO long? OR is he awesome?

[Monahammer]

To me, we should use one of Jankowski/Bennett (whichever has more value to our counterpart) in addition to a d piece to land another line driving Centre. Move the other to wing full time on Backlund's line to mask any deficiencies, give that line a second strong faceoff player, and generally improve as is typical of a backlund winger.

Ideally, it would look something like Jankowski+Brodie = ROR but I get the sense buffalo wants the moon for him (ick).

Ferland-Monahan-Johnny
Tkachuk-ROR-Foo
Bennett-Backlund-Frolik
Lazar-Shore-Hathaway

With foo-bennett switching as required. Lean, fast, mean.

[Ullr]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

It read exactly like that one article about how the Flames shouldn't have signed 21 year old Jankowski and held out for a compensation pick. Same tunnel-vision.

There were lots of interesting articles on Jankowski, waiting on him was a given since he grew 6 inches in one season and they knew it would take him 4-5 years to bulk up before he could reach the NHL.

The main difference here is that Bennett was supposed to be NHL ready at #4 overall. Now I agree that the Flames should wait on Bennett, but the comparison to Jankowski is somewhat stretched here.


From 2012:

“Jankowski is a typical late bloomer as he grew 6 inches this season. His sudden growth spurt has left him rail thin as he is vastly under-developed physically, weighing a slight 170. His strength test results at the Combine were certainly a reflection of that. Nonetheless he is a solid prospect due to his ability to manufacture offence. His vision, puck skills and patience with the puck are his best attributes. More of a finesse player, he lacks a physical dimension to his game. Jankowski skates like a young Jason Spezza as he lacks fluidity but has good levels of speed. His anticpation and hockey sense keep him involved in plays even though he doesn’t have the best start up speed. Jankowski desperately needs to add power and strength to his game. His shot as a result is not very strong nor is the quickness of his release. His sudden spike in development is a healthy sign for NHL clubs. This year he dominated the MPHL and helped his draft stock considerably with a strong end of season showing at the Beanpot Classic playing against better players. Jankowski has the potential to be a top six scoring centre at the NHL level. ” – McKeen’s Director of Scouting David Burstyn Twitter account: @DavidBurstyn

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

It read exactly like that one article about how the Flames shouldn't have signed 21 year old Jankowski and held out for a compensation pick. Same tunnel-vision.

?
It read how it's more likely Bennett doesn't develop into that 1st line player we all hope he will, based on the 81 players since 2005 who played 200 nhl games before 22.
So basically confirming what seems obvious - it's not impossible, just unlikely.

It's about as far from tunnel vision as one gets.

[Harry Lime]

Originally Posted by transplant99

So now you are proposing giving Bennett more ES time than Tkachuk and saying that is a "fix" of some sort?

I think that being able to roll 3 lines with roughly the same ES time would help this team greatly. Essentially swapping Janko and Backlund at centre and Ferland in a middle role might just accomplish that goal, and make it hard for opposing teams to just shut down Johnny and win the game.

Just my thought, not necessarily intended to gift Bennett anything. Just giving different looks to the middle six hoping for better results.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Interesting Bennett article (by Kent Wilson) in the Athletic today comparing Bennett to the other 82 players in the NHL who played 200+ games before turning 22, since 2005.

But in the end

I see that this Wilson guy likes to crunch numbers and yet have not been terribly impressed by his conclusions over the years. So this may bode well for Bennett.

[TheIronMaiden]

Bennett should be implemented on a shut down line. His scoring is inconsistent, so I think that it shouldn't be his primary focus. Putting him with Frolik and Backlund keeps some of the size and fire of that line and helps use Bennett to the Flames advantage. It also frees up Tkachuk to play more offensive minutes and fewer defensive zone face offs. If you examine goal totals this also make sense. Goal totals from last year are in brackets.

Tkachuk (24) - Jankowski (17) - AHL/ UFA
Bennett (11) - Backlund (14) - Frolik(10)

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

I see that this Wilson guy likes to crunch numbers and yet have not been terribly impressed by his conclusions over the years. So this may bode well for Bennett.

Fair enough, though the conclusions, it seems to me, are simply the data compiled/organized.

[Harry Lime]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Fair enough, though the conclusions, it seems to me, are simply the data compiled/organized.

With the caveat that Bennett was never asked to play specifically to his strengths. The things that made him such a high pick to begin with. He was asked to learn a new skillset, which he did to an unspectacular extent. If he continues to be the player that GG asked him to be, it's true that his ceiling will be as the article described.

This might be one of the few times when some regression into a players 'bad' habits of a few years ago would be very beneficial to the club.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

I see that this Wilson guy likes to crunch numbers and yet have not been terribly impressed by his conclusions over the years. So this may bode well for Bennett.

Wilson used to rely a lot on corsi and PDO and regression to the mean arguments, layered with an attitude that drove people here, me included, crazy.

Since moving to the Athletic I've been impressed with his analysis which has largely been fact based with less reliance on correlation models.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

?
It read how it's more likely Bennett doesn't develop into that 1st line player we all hope he will, based on the 81 players since 2005 who played 200 nhl games before 22.
So basically confirming what seems obvious - it's not impossible, just unlikely.

It's about as far from tunnel vision as one gets.

Nope. It reads exactly like the Jankowski article I was referring to ( https://www.matchsticksandgasoline.c...mark-jankowski )


I'm not denying that the result so far are not in favour of Bennett. We've all gone down that rabbit hole a billion times. The problem with Wilson's article is that it's shallow and fixated on that - suggesting there are no things Bennett does at a high level.

For instance based on Wilson's shallow conclusion, comparables for Bennett would be guys like Brandon Sutter, Zemgus Girgensons, Nino Neidereiitter, Sean Couturier, Wayne Simmonds, Mikkel Boedker, Chris Tierney, Josh Bailey, Anthony Duclair (+/- 4 spots on his own chart).

But that's the extent of his analysis. I'm not going to pretend I have the desire to do a better, deeper one of the same scale, but just taking that sample of eight players, and comparing Bennett to them, and then seeing which guys have (slightly) better shot contributions than him:

20-21 YO Sam Bennett vs 21-22 YO Anthony Duclair

Spoiler!

20-21 YO Sam Bennett vs 22-23 YO Chris Tierney

Spoiler!

20-21 YO Sam Bennett vs 23-25 YO Sean Couturier

Spoiler!

Which have worse (in their prime):

20-21 YO Sam Bennett vs 24-25 YO Nino Neidereiitter

Spoiler!

20-21 YO Sam Bennett vs 28-29 YO Wayne Simmonds

Spoiler!

and which shouldn't even be in the same conversation

20-21 YO Sam Bennett vs 22-24 YO Zemgus Girgensons

Spoiler!

20-21 YO Sam Bennett vs 27-28 YO Josh Bailey

Spoiler!

20-21 YO Sam Bennett vs 27-29 YO Brandon Sutter

Spoiler!

I don't make money on writing about this stuff like Wilson does so I can't be as thorough. But I find it baffling that he thinks any data that suggests Bennett is more likely to be a Brandon Sutter than a Sean Couturier is of the value that he suggests it is. I won't go as far as to say I'm showing you is "proof" of anything but I stand by my claim that Wilson's analysis has tunnel-vision because of the limitations of the few tools he is using. Those are important statistics that should be explored, but they are too vague to be drawing sensationalist conclusions of any sort.

[EldrickOnIce]

Sensationalist how?
You are seeing things that I don't.

Stats are simply numbers. In general, based on other players of similar age/games played, it appears unlikely that Bennett will become a 1st line forward.
This is not startling. It's not sensational in any way. No conclusions drawn based on anything, except generalities. Which is about all a person should do with those sort of stats.
Not sure how the Jankowski article (not written by same author) is in any way relevant.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Stats are simply numbers. In general, based on other players of similar age/games played, it appears unlikely that Bennett will become a 1st line forward.
This is not startling. It's not sensational in any way. No conclusions drawn based on anything, except generalities. Which is about all a person should do with those sort of stats.

Are generalities useful in this case? Sam Bennett was ranked #1 by two scouting sources. Could he not be an exception? Does this not make him more likely to break out than other less skilled youngsters? Are comparisons to other players who never had his upside useful at all?

People say he's unlikely to break out but he's exactly the type of player that has the potential to break out. There are reasons to believe he's not a generality, not the average, etc. He was an exceptional player in his draft year but now we're supposed to believe he's an average number in a statistical analysis?

There's a lot of flaws with Wilson's approach.

[EldrickOnIce]

No. Generalities may not be useful, ever.
It's information for off season discussion.
One shouldn't take it personally.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Are generalities useful in this case? Sam Bennett was ranked #1 by two scouting sources. Could he not be an exception? Does this not make him more likely to break out than other less skilled youngsters? Are comparisons to other players who never had his upside useful at all?

People say he's unlikely to break out but he's exactly the type of player that has the potential to break out. There are reasons to believe he's not a generality, not the average, etc. He was an exceptional player in his draft year but now we're supposed to believe he's an average number in a statistical analysis?

There's a lot of flaws with Wilson's approach.

The analysis is that of all the players who entered the league at a young age - which generally indicates there's something special about the player - he is in the bottom quartile of production. That's a fact. Of all these players few significantly changed their ppg after 200 games. Also a fact. There may be reasons to believe he can be an outlier but to date he is not. I found this analysis was useful information.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by edslunch

The analysis is that of all the players who entered the league at a young age - which generally indicates there's something special about the player - he is in the bottom quartile of production. That's a fact. Of all these players few significantly changed their ppg after 200 games. Also a fact. There may be reasons to believe he can be an outlier but to date he is not. I found this analysis was useful information.

Exactly.
The thing about generalities is that they are generally correct.
But not always. Like Giordano is, and Gaudreau. The generalities for both those players at various stages of their career would certainly indicate little chance of becoming what they are..Here's to Bennett also being the exception.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by edslunch

The analysis is that of all the players who entered the league at a young age - which generally indicates there's something special about the player - he is in the bottom quartile of production. That's a fact. Of all these players few significantly changed their ppg after 200 games. Also a fact. There may be reasons to believe he can be an outlier but to date he is not. I found this analysis was useful information.

We all know that his first 200 games weren't as impressive as we had hoped. To me, that isn't particularly informative.

I am also aware that the majority of players that haven't had success after 200 games never really do. Also not news.

For me, useful analysis would be to shed light on why he will or will not likely be able to take his game to the next level (like Flames Draft Watcher did above). Tell me something insightful.

I see a kid with all the tools, but who's confidence is shot. If the game slows down for him at some point, I think he can still become a star. Stating the fact that 75% of the kids with similar numbers to this point don't ever become a star is not really adding any value IMO.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

We all know that his first 200 games weren't as impressive as we had hoped. To me, that isn't particularly informative.



I am also aware that the majority of players that haven't had success after 200 games never really do. Also not news.



For me, useful analysis would be to shed light on why he will or will not likely be able to take his game to the next level (like Flames Draft Watcher did above). Tell me something insightful.



I see a kid with all the tools, but who's confidence is shot. If the game slows down for him at some point, I think he can still become a star. Stating the fact that 75% of the kids with similar numbers to this point don't ever become a star is not really adding any value IMO.

Look I want him to succeed as much as anyone so I feel bad taking the Devil’s advocate role here, but FDW’s analysis is that he was a top pick. 4 years on that’s pretty thin. I haven’t seen much if any objective analysis that says he is more than he’s shown. (There was one interesting one that showed him pre and post Gulutzan - here’s hoping it was just the coach all along).

[Jimdon]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

We all know that his first 200 games weren't as impressive as we had hoped. To me, that isn't particularly informative.

I am also aware that the majority of players that haven't had success after 200 games never really do. Also not news.

I see a kid with all the tools, but who's confidence is shot. If the game slows down for him at some point, I think he can still become a star. Stating the fact that 75% of the kids with similar numbers to this point don't ever become a star is not really adding any value IMO.

I don't understand how looking at comparable stats and seeing that 75% of the players that follow his trajectory isn't "particularly informative" and "doesn't add any value". If you want to walk into a situation with the expectation that past results shouldn't dictate future expectations you're banking on the exceptions and not the norms.

Before this season started Bennett was widely panned as a break out player this year and had a great preseason. What about that would lead to poor confidence when pretty much everyone was expecting him to succeed?

Bennett's career has been a story of high expectations and poor results when you break it down. I sure hope he proves everyone wrong, but I sure wouldn't put the success of my team on that.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Are generalities useful in this case? Sam Bennett was ranked #1 by two scouting sources. Could he not be an exception? Does this not make him more likely to break out than other less skilled youngsters? Are comparisons to other players who never had his upside useful at all?

People say he's unlikely to break out but he's exactly the type of player that has the potential to break out. There are reasons to believe he's not a generality, not the average, etc. He was an exceptional player in his draft year but now we're supposed to believe he's an average number in a statistical analysis?

There's a lot of flaws with Wilson's approach.

Seems like you are basing this purely on how he was viewed four years ago. He has twice the amount of games in the NHL than he had in Juniors.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Seems like you are basing this purely on how he was viewed four years ago. He has twice the amount of games in the NHL than he had in Juniors.

I am using his draft position and scouting report to show that he was considered an “exceptional” player at some point in his career. If you want a more recent nhl example of his exceptional status and high upside go see his 4 goal game in the actual NHL.

Yes not many players bust out at his age after struggling in the nhl to start their careers. But some do. And guys with his skill level are more likely to do it than other examples used. There are reasons to think he might be an outlier or an exception, pretty strong reasons IMO.

Personally I think he’s a kid who has all the tools to be a good top two line player or even a star but his confidence is shot from not scoring and GG did him no favours by putting him in easy situations to fail. I think it would be dangerous and silly to completely write him off at this point. Obviously this will be a huge year for him under a new coach but I expect Peters will give him some better opportunities to shine than GG did.

The premise of this thread IMO is ridiculous. We haven’t given Bennett enough time. Held onto him too long? Nope, that shows extreme impatience IMO. Most players are only just making the nhl at his age. Kid needs more time to show what he’s got, regain his confidence and turn the corner. To give up on him now would be silly IMO but I think the whole premise of this thread is silly. You wanted a rebuild? Watching some kids take years to figure it out is one part of that. It doesn’t come instantly for every kid. Some of you have been spoiled by how NHL ready Monahan and Tkachuk were. It’s distorted your expectations for kids of that age. They are exceptions.