What will Jankowski's next contract look like?

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Wolfman

4yrs at 2 per would be more than fair for a guy that is only going to have one year of NHL under his belt.

Don't give him 4 years... that would take him to his first year of UFA eligibility. You sign him to 3 or less or 5 or more.

[DJones]

I really want to get one of these guys signed really long term before they hit their prime. Willingly to gamble and overpay hoping they improve.

5 x 3M?

7 x 3.9M?

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

Bennett's CorsiFor%5on5Close this year is 49% and he's played most of the year with Jankowksi. In the previous 2 years he was at 48 and 48.5%.

I appreciate your non-stop hate for Brouwer, if only for the dedication, but your argument doesn't hold water here.

I just checked, and I don't think Brouwer played with Bennett for a single game this year.

Away from Brouwer, Bennett is 53.8 xGF% this season. Bennett is 25.6% with Brouwer this season which absolutely tanks all his "underlying" stats.

Away from Brouwer, Jankowski is 52.2 xGF% this season. Jankowski is 41.4% with Brouwer this season.

This obviously includes their significant time together (including a game or two as Bennett-Jankowski-Brouwer), but also includes Bennett's time centering Lazar and Versteeg. I don't think Jankowski has centered a line without Bennett for significant time (Gaudreau and Bennett did swap for a while, but that's hardly something to complain about if you're Janko)


Brouwer is the primary reason Bennett's underlyings have been poor at any point in the last two seasons. I'm personally of the opinion that Bennett is a better center than Jankowski, and I'm a HUGE Jankowski fan. I just think Lazar, Brouwer and Versteeg were awful, while Jankowski, Jagr, Hathaway have been ideal linemates for Bennett.

If you want to go back to three seasons ago, you're now talking about a completely different coach and roster so comparing apples to oranges there.

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by Wolfman

4yrs at 2 per would be more than fair for a guy that is only going to have one year of NHL under his belt.

Fair based on what current comparable?

[Finger Cookin]

I'm probably way out to lunch on this, but I don't see Jankowski's next deal being any longer than 3 years, with the AAV being less than Bennett's. Probably no more than $1.5M. Like something in the neighborhood of Backlund's second multi-year deal.

Only time will tell.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

Away from Brouwer, Bennett is 53.8 xGF% this season. Bennett is 25.6% with Brouwer this season which absolutely tanks all his "underlying" stats.
Away from Brouwer, Jankowski is 52.2 xGF% this season.

This obviously includes their significant time together, but also includes Bennett's time centering Lazar and Versteeg.


Brouwer is the primary reason Bennett's underlyings have been poor at any point in the last two seasons.

If you want to go back to three seasons ago, you're now talking about a completely different coach and roster so comparing apples to oranges there.

NO!!! My god, you have to stop this. His points away from Brouwer this year don't mean anything if he barely played a shift with the man!

Bennett has played with Brouwer for almost no time this year. His top 5 line combinations are as follows:

Bennett-Jankowski-Hathaway: 39.9%
Bennett-Jankowski-Jagr: 34.2%
Bennett-Jankowski-Lazar: 15.1%
Versteeg-Benett-Jagr: 5.8%
Gaudreau-Bennett-Lazar: 5.1%

http://frozenpool.dobbersports.com/f...es=2017-2018:R

So basically he's played the entire year with Jankowski or Jagr. You could say that Lazar was dragging him down if you wanted to, but not Brouwer, not this year.

Last year, you might have a point, but he only played with Brouwer about 45% of the time (and much of that was also with Versteeg who is a useful player). He actually played with Chiasson more (about 55% of the time), so you should be railing against Chiasson more than Brouwer for Sam's inadequacies.

Sadly, NEITHER player has anything to do with Bennett this season, so no, you're not correct.

Also, Sam's production was a little better 3 seasons ago, but his underlying numbers are virtually identical to his last 2 seasons. Make sense of that one.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

I don’t like long term deals based on potential unless the player is pretty much a slam dunk star or top line player like Johnny or Mony.

It may cost us more down the road but I’d prefer that risk to the risk of having an anchor.

Nothing longer than 3-4 years and nothing higher than $2m or so. Without looking at all at his UFA status in the future. Might need to adjust depending on when that becomes applicable.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

Bennett has played with Brouwer for almost no time this year.

Key word "almost".

The short time they did spent together tanked Bennett's underlyings. I feel like you didn't even read my post. I am showing you Bennett's numbers with Brouwer and Without. Without Brouwer, Bennett has better underlying numbers than Jankowski.

So basically he's played the entire year with Jankowski or Jagr.

He's played a good chunk of the year with Jankowski. Before that he was centering Versteeg and Brouwer/Lazar/Tanner Glass. There were two games where Versteeg-Bennett-Jagr were a thing too, but that only lasted until Gaudreau-Monahan-Jagr scored a goal together.

You could say that Lazar was dragging him down if you wanted to, but not Brouwer, not this year.

Lazar dragged down his corsi and his points, but not his expected goals. Versteeg-Bennett-Lazar and Bennett-Jankowski-Lazar posted strong expected goals numbers but had no finish, because, well, Curtis Lazar.

Last year, you might have a point, but he only played with Brouwer about 45% of the time (and much of that was also with Versteeg who is a useful player). He actually played with Chiasson more (about 55% of the time), so you should be railing against Chiasson more than Brouwer for Sam's inadequacies.

Chiasson did not drag down Bennett's underlying numbers last year. Chiasson did drag down Bennett's offensive numbers however as Bennett was actually more productive with Brouwer than he was with Chiasson, but had piss poor underlyings together.

Neither is a top 9 forward in the NHL though, which is a common theme here.

Sadly, NEITHER player has anything to do with Bennett this season, so no, you're not correct.

I am correct, because I just showed you that Bennett's got better numbers away from Brouwer this season than Jankowski does. Literally all I did was remove Brouwer from the equation.

Also, Sam's production was a little better 3 seasons ago, but his underlying numbers are virtually identical to his last 2 seasons. Make sense of that one.

Have you considered that the 2015-16 Flames were coached by Bob Hartley and the 2016-18 Flames were not? Bennett's underlyings were strong under Hartley relative to the Flames' team. Bennett's underlyings were strong under Gultuzan when not paired with Troy Brouwer, but absolutely terrible with Brouwer. 48% on a 51% possession team and 48% on a 47% possession team are not the same thing. And of course Bennett scored more under Hartley - because Hartley coached NHL offense while Gulutzan coaches 3 on 5 offense.

NO!!! My god, you have to stop this.

Actually, you do.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

I irrationally hate Brouwer and will find a way to make him look bad at all costs.

FYP.

Again, having a couple of shifts with Brouwer over the course of the season (because that's the reality if you look at the ACTUAL line combinations that existed this season and not the ones you made up in your head) does not deserve any consideration in the body of data for Bennett. Any conclusions you draw from such limited time together are suspect and you are using one stat to support your bias against Brouwer, rather than discuss Bennett objectively.

It's like you know how to read stats, but you have a pre-determined narrative in mind before you get digging, and then you only look at the handful of data points that support your conclusion instead of letting the body of evidence inform you. You are largely ignoring my point: Bennett has played with Brouwer virtually 0% of the time this year. He has no influence on Bennett's numbers for this season, so you need to drop that narrative. Bennett is at the point now where he needs to be evaluated on his body of work instead of what crappy line mates he was given or not given.

[dammage79]

Long term Backlund type cap hit.please.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

He has no influence on Bennett's numbers for this season,

Bennett's numbers: 50.9% xGF
Bennett's numbers without Brouwer's influence: 53.8% xGF

Now let's go back to subtratction class

53.8 minus 50.9

0.8 minus 0.9

carry the one

32 minus 0

2.9

50 minus 50

02.9%

Troy Brouwer has a minus 2.9% effect on Sam Bennett's numbers in the 2017-18 season.

This is not "no influence". In fact it's a ridiculously high influence.

They haven't needed to spend much time together because of just how bad the time together was.

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

I have no idea what I'm arguing other than to re-inforce my own narrative

FYP.

[killer_carlson]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

FYP.

Again, having a couple of shifts with Brouwer over the course of the season (because that's the reality if you look at the ACTUAL line combinations that existed this season and not the ones you made up in your head) does not deserve any consideration in the body of data for Bennett. Any conclusions you draw from such limited time together are suspect and you are using one stat to support your bias against Brouwer, rather than discuss Bennett objectively.

It's like you know how to read stats, but you have a pre-determined narrative in mind before you get digging, and then you only look at the handful of data points that support your conclusion instead of letting the body of evidence inform you. You are largely ignoring my point: Bennett has played with Brouwer virtually 0% of the time this year. He has no influence on Bennett's numbers for this season, so you need to drop that narrative. Bennett is at the point now where he needs to be evaluated on his body of work instead of what crappy line mates he was given or not given.

Cali, he posted actual numbers this year with Brouwer and without.

There is a large difference. Even at a low usage with Brouwer his overall season has been affected.

Please explain the difference in Bennett's numbers with and without Brouwer in another way if you disagree. Because the evidence he presented is compelling that Brouwer is an anchor on Bennett's numbers.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

Cali, he posted actual numbers this year with Brouwer and without.

There is a large difference. Even at a low usage with Brouwer his overall season has been affected.

Please explain the difference in Bennett's numbers with and without Brouwer in another way if you disagree. Because the evidence he presented is compelling that Brouwer is an anchor on Bennett's numbers.

It's simple, the quantity of time would not affect his aggregate numbers in any significant way. It's like an outlier data point. The bulk of the data is free of Brouwer, so it's like looking at a trend on a graph and screaming about the outlier way off in the corner.

Again, he's had virtually 0% of his time on ice with Brouwer this year. Last year it was significant, and there was a possible argument there. This year, not so much.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

It's simple, the quantity of time would not affect his aggregate numbers in any significant way.

Except.
It.
Did.

Bennett's numbers with Brouwer are an outlier for his aggregate numbers this season. They are SKEWING the results. Entirely. They "should not". But they "do".

Do I need to explain skew to you?

[killer_carlson]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

It's simple, the quantity of time would not affect his aggregate numbers in any significant way. It's like an outlier data point. The bulk of the data is free of Brouwer, so it's like looking at a trend on a graph and screaming about the outlier way off in the corner.

Again, he's had virtually 0% of his time on ice with Brouwer this year. Last year it was significant, and there was a possible argument there. This year, not so much.

I agree about last year. I can't imagine how the negotiations with his agent didnt include Brouwer vs non-Brouwer analysis.

Aside from agreeing it's been a low sample size this year, I disagree with your take. The actual numbers say that Brouwer's presence with Bennett have been so low within that small sample size that it's pulling his entire season down. As the season progresses however, the impact of the Brouwer sample will be less and they should improve by being part of a larger group.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

Except.
It.
Did.

Bennett's numbers with Brouwer are an outlier for his aggregate numbers this season. They are SKEWING the results. Entirely. They "should not". But they "do".

Do I need to explain skew to you?

No, you don't. This is not skewing, this is an outlier data point that has no bearing on anything because it accounts for less than 1% of the data. A trend could not be skewed by something that accounts for that little of the overall data. If it had equal weighting to the rest of the data, yes it could skew things drastically.

Weighting matters here. If you had a bunch of work in a course and you scored 90% on assignments that added up to 99% of the course work, you wouldn't care at all that you got a 0% on an assignment that was weighted at 1%. Well in this case, it's less than 1%, so the weighting based on time on ice means that Brouwer's effect on Bennett is nil.



It's the last I'll say on this because this thread is about Jankowski. Thanks for derailing it.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

No, you don't. This is not skewing

Let me say this one more time.

Bennett's aggregate numbers are 50.9% xGF. This is skewed downwards by what yourself are arguing (and I 100% agree) is an outlier data point. Because by removing this lone outlier from the sample, Bennett's aggregate numbers become 53.8%. Weighting does matter. And it's been weighted in the numbers I am presenting to you.

Bennett has better underlying numbers than Jankowski once outliers are removed. This has nothing to do with what you perceive as an irrational hate for Brouwer - it has everything to do with removing significant outliers - which this qualifies as because it produces a -2.9% in Bennett's underlying numbers. For consistency's sake I even presented numbers for Jankowski to you that remove Brouwer's influence on Jankowski's numbers.

Again, these are numbers of the two players without Brouwer's influence:

Away from Brouwer, Bennett is 53.8 xGF% this season.
Away from Brouwer, Jankowski is 52.2 xGF% this season.

Tell me, what is higher, 53.8% or 52.2%?

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

Thanks for derailing it.

Sorry, but when you make claims that only work with skewed data, you're going to get a derail.

[bubbsy]

His points/game is roughly the same as bennett's, although Bennett had 2 season's under his belt vs the 1 that jankowski will have by the time his new contract has to be signed.

As such, i would imagine a very similar deal to Bennett's. I'm not sure how many years until his RFA years are up??

I would imagine the contract would be around the $2/year for 2-3 years depending on the above.

[Finger Cookin]

I love that an actual Jankowski thread is not about Jankowski.

[Zoller]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

Let me say this one more time.

Bennett's aggregate numbers are 50.9% xGF. This is skewed downwards by what yourself are arguing (and I 100% agree) is an outlier data point. Because by removing this lone outlier from the sample, Bennett's aggregate numbers become 53.8%. Weighting does matter. And it's been weighted in the numbers I am presenting to you.

Bennett has better underlying numbers than Jankowski once outliers are removed. This has nothing to do with what you perceive as an irrational hate for Brouwer - it has everything to do with removing significant outliers - which this qualifies as because it produces a -2.9% in Bennett's underlying numbers. For consistency's sake I even presented numbers for Jankowski to you that remove Brouwer's influence on Jankowski's numbers.

Again, these are numbers of the two players without Brouwer's influence:

Away from Brouwer, Bennett is 53.8 xGF% this season.
Away from Brouwer, Jankowski is 52.2 xGF% this season.

Tell me, what is higher, 53.8% or 52.2%?



Sorry, but when you make claims that only work with skewed data, you're going to get a derail.

Thanks for the not so quick mafs